Justice and Satisfaction: Human Creations Evolved Beyond Human Capabilities

The evolution of humankind can be measured in innumerable ways. Our progress as a species can be marked by our scientific developments and our physical adaptations; ever-changing clothing styles can be used as evidence of incremental societal modernization; and altered dialects are indicative of our shift from pigeonholed followers to explorers, navigators, and learners. And yet, the clearest marker of our evolution can be found in our intrinsic moral compasses, which existed far before we possessed the awareness to name them. Humans’ internalized concepts of justice, predating any modern vernacular or scientific invention, can provide a clear timeline of our evolution. By exploring our ever-evolving perceptions of justice, we can in turn explore human psychology and determine the extent of our evolution– or stagnation.

Hammurabi’s Code, developed during the 18th century BCE, is best known for its eye for an eye principle. This codex shows that earlier humans perceived justice very simply: punishments were equal to the crimes committed, and satisfaction occurred when the punishments were appropriately inflicted upon the perpetrator. The undisputable sense of fairness wrought by such simplistic laws created satisfaction as there was little question as to whether the punishment was appropriate. Though inhumane and uncivilized, these laws left little room for doubt or misgivings; justice was a linear process, and thus satisfaction was an expected and achieved outcome.

Hammurabi’s code was a simplistic yet effective legal codex of the 18th century BCE.

As time progressed and mankind continued to evolve, that level of archaic, legal chaos grew to be seen as undignified and barbaric. Modern legal systems were instituted, and punishments began to differ from the crimes to which they were linked. Notions of justice began to more notably differ between individuals. An eye for an eye was no longer viewed as a wise concept around which legal codices were built, but as the surest way to leave an entire society blind.

In modern times, the victims of criminals are more removed from the sentencing process; they are spectators in a court rather than the individuals creating, deciding, or inflicting the punishments. In the interest of maintaining a semblance of order and harmony during times that threaten our maturation as a species, courts of law serve as buffers between the violator and the violated. This does succeed in maintaining greater peace and cordiality, but how satisfied do the victims feel when so far removed from the process of exacting justice? How do their levels of satisfaction compare to those of their more involved predecessors?

What is our level of involvement in modern legal systems, and how does this influence our degree of satisfaction?

Modern legal systems operate under the expectation that the individuals involved have the capacity to conduct themselves with unfaltering poise and perceive any sentencing as satisfactory because it comes from a higher court of law. Rarely is this the case. An individual grieving the loss of a loved one will not look upon their murderer with unadulterated mercy; the rage and pain they feel will not be forgotten with a sincere apology. The buried but still present inclination to destroy and rage and punish does not leave the human psyche as it enters a wood-paneled room complete with a jury and gavel. In sum, no legal institution can force human psychology to drastically change.

Given that our psychology cannot truly be altered in the way that these institutions desire, personal interpretations of justice are disregarded in the interest of maintaining the status quo and avoiding palpable societal regression. Lacking feelings of satisfaction are hidden behind the shield of objective morality, a societal creation that establishes a basic sense of right and wrong so that a legal consensus can be made with minimal pushback or disagreement. Individuals accept what they perceive as substandard exactions of justice because they feel that disagreement is both futile and ungrateful. In the interest of ignoring our disreputable urges to ruthlessly take justice into our own hands, we grow complacent with half-justices and partial satisfaction.

Why do we grow complacent with partial, legal satisfaction? What does this say about humankind’s psychology?

However, by continuously stymying our need for validation and revenge, by ignoring the primordial call to make the sentencing equal to the crime in all respects, we are creating an illusion of satisfaction. This model of justice is intended for a transcended species that is logical and able to objectively define morality and fairness. Yet humans are subjective beings with differing definitions of morality and varying notions of justice.

We seek to so permanently remove ourselves from the confines of our animalistic needs that we have created legal institutions which far surpass our psychological and emotional capacities.

Thus, we see one of the largest and most inescapable components of human psychology at play: our inability to accept that we are fallible beings that originate from even more fallible ancestors. Despite the advancements we have made, despite the clothing on our backs and the ideas that ceaselessly push our species further towards evolutionary superiority and transcendence, we are fundamentally clever animals. The human race is ashamed of this reality, and as it continues to evolve, it actively attempts to outrun inherent and atavistic instincts by implementing systems advanced far beyond our psychological capabilities. We seem to hold the belief that developing advanced systems will expedite our own modernization when in reality, these systems merely highlight our lack of psychological evolution as we continue to overcompensate for our insecurities as living creatures on a planet that we inhabit but do not own.

By Mia Gorlick

Editor Suhh Yeon Kim