Justice and Rightness

In a recent conversation or unilateral exposure to non-communicative noise, a Japanese national appeared to suggest, at the minimum, that if something has happened in the past it was just or right to happen, if not also that such things should also happen in the future. Confirming the underlying principle directly by asking “Was anything that happened in the past just or right just because it happened?” and “If yes, should such things happen also in the future just because they happened in the past?” might have been overly abstract and resulted in a claim of not understanding the Japanese language even if it had been the principle itself rather than its potentially understandable – if not even partly correct – expression in Japanese that the person in question might have been unable or unwilling to understand. I mentioned perhaps an unduly kind example of the kind that for some reason might often be relatively well understood irrespective of its linguistic shortcomings: as apparently two nuclear bombs were dropped in Japan during World War II, was dropping them just or right just because it apparently did happen? Should more nuclear bombs be dropped into Japan also in the future to pacify, civilize or cure Japan, render it law-abiding or whatever the alleged rationale or justification might have been that might allegedly have made dropping the bombs during World War II just or right (in case such rationale or justification was or is needed in case anything that does happen is allegedly, by definition, just or right)? The underlying principle did not appear to be disputed or retracted by the Japanese national in question in the conversation or non-communicative noise that ensued. In other words, there might be at least one potential native vote in favor of justly or rightly pacifying, civilizing, curing or eliminating (see https://academism.wordpress.com/2017/07/16/maxvalu-atami/) Japan or rendering it law-abiding through the specific means of nuclear weapons.

Although I am not aware of similar principles being proposed by a Finnish national, the (il)logic behind some of the words coming out of the mouths of individuals under blatant external control might not be entirely dissimilar across different nationalities. How might similar (il)logic be expressed in the Finnish context? More Soviet/Russian invasions are needed as they have happened in the past and might thus rightfully be considered to be just to pacify, civilize or cure Finland, render it law-abiding or eliminate it as a potentially hopeless case of rampant and entrenched criminality and human rights violations which the alleged or self-declared “government” remains essentially silent about while persecuting the messengers? If so, would it still not be the objective of pacification, civilization, curing, rendering law-abiding or elimination which might potentially justify any potential means to attain such an objective rather than the mere fact that such means might have been used in the past for whatever reasons?

Advertisements