ABSTRACT
Justice is one of those concepts whose meaning, though comprehensible and accessible for everyone, is usually expressed by each one in a different, even controversial manner. Everyone can experience an unfair situation, apply the distinction just/unjust, identify the source of injustice, and feel motivated towards a protesting or repairing action. The observer may either agree with the attribution, share the apparent motives of alter and join consequently her actions, or she can dissent from the evaluation of the situation and apply the code otherwise. What is just, fair, correct, right, and valid for alter becomes then unjust, unfair, LQFRUUHFWZURQJDQGLQYDOLGIRUHJR,QWKH¿UVWFDVHDOWHUDQGHJRGHDOZLWKWKH communication of consensus; in the second case, they deal with the communication RIFRQÀLFW
This certainly stylized, but highly common, standard situation illustrates that VSRQWDQHRXVDJUHHPHQWDQGVSRQWDQHRXVFRQÀLFWDUHHTXLYDOHQWIRUPVRIGHDOLQJ with justice, and that the emergence of one or another depends on how both alter and ego resolve their double-contingency-problem. If ego (for whatever reasons) accepts alter’s utterance, then they shall agree in the justice/injustice-assessment of the social situation; if ego (for whatever reasons too) rejects alter’s utterance, DFRQÀLFWWDNHVSODFH7KHVHWZRSRVVLELOLWLHVUHYHDODOVRDVDOLHQWIHDWXUHRIWKH GLVWLQFWLRQMXVWLFHLQMXVWLFHLWLVVXI¿FLHQWO\H[SUHVVLYHWREHXQLYHUVDOO\DSSOLHG DQG DOVR VXI¿FLHQWO\ÀH[LEOH WR EH SDUWLFXODUO\ DSSUHKHQGHGE\GLIIHUHQW DFWRUV fostering opposite meanings at the same time. In other words, justice potentially leads to unity as much as to division. It is symbolic and diabolic simultaneously.
