Something in what you wrote reminds me of the many men shot for "cowardice" during WWI, some of whom were pardoned[1].
Many of those shot were suffering from PTSD (then called shell shock).
It is painful to consider the unjust fate of many people in the past, and even those alive today (would you care to take a walk in the Congo or Rwanda and discuss justice with those you might meet? Or perhaps take a walk in Syria?).
I really don't wish to contradict the sentiment of your statement, but only to say that "justice" is sometimes a luxury, and one which we should try to provide for everyone.
That's only a fraction of the number of people killed in WWI just from being forced to fight, or stupidly run at enemy trenches.
Sort of relevant; something about "injustice" elicits stronger emotional reactions than the exact same (or even worse) situation happening to someone just by chance (not unjustly through someone's actions.) On top of that we have a stronger emotional reaction to just imagining a single victim suffering, than being told "x number of people are suffering this fate".
> "injustice" elicits stronger emotional reactions than the exact same (or even worse) situation happening to someone just by chance
Because injustice implies the unjust decision made by someone in charge, and having an unjust law or person in charge is much worse then having an accident. Not only that, but it's something we have more control over, so it's rational to get more emotional about it.
Many of those shot were suffering from PTSD (then called shell shock).
It is painful to consider the unjust fate of many people in the past, and even those alive today (would you care to take a walk in the Congo or Rwanda and discuss justice with those you might meet? Or perhaps take a walk in Syria?).
I really don't wish to contradict the sentiment of your statement, but only to say that "justice" is sometimes a luxury, and one which we should try to provide for everyone.
[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/hundreds-o...