Justice will never be an objective principle. It is a human attempt at creating fairness and accountability, and does not possess some sort of universal truth. Although laws and moral theories often present justice as a set-in-stone reality, real world examples show justice is shaped by history, culture, and power dynamics. Understanding context and perspective is key when one is articulating what actions they count as just.

Kantian ethics offers one of the more controversial arguments for objective justice, as he places the moral weight of an action on its motive, not its consequences. Even if an action produces good results, it is only truly just if it is done from duty rather than for an intended result. In this line of thinking justice can only be achieved through strictly following moral principles, disregarding the context which explains why certain actions are done. If a man’s children are on the brink of death due to starvation, and he steals a loaf of bread to sustain them, Kant would declare this a morally incorrect action. Critics of Kant argue that focusing only on motive ignores the real world effects of actions, supporting the idea that justice is not an objective concept. 

Dante’s idea of contrapasso in Inferno compares justice to fairness. Due to the subjective nature of what is fair, Dante indirectly supports the idea that justice cannot be an objective truth. Contrapasso is the idea that the scale of punishment mirrors the weight of the sin. For example, people who committed thievory are punished by being continuously bitten by snakes which cause them to combust and reform. They became consumed by greed, and now they will be consumed for eternity. However, this symbolic punishment could be seen as unfair by some. Committing a few acts of thievery in an eighty year lifespan may not justify an eternity of torture, showing that justice depends on perceived fairness, not a universal rule.

The difference between justice and law is clear in Prigg V. Pennsylvania. The Supreme Court upheld federal fugitize slave laws and struck down state efforts to protect Black individuals. Although the ruling followed constitutional logic, it supported slavery and deep injustice. This case shows that laws can be applied correctly while still producing unjust outcomes. Therefore, justice and legality are not synonymous terms.

The idea of dance as historiography also challenges the idea of objective justice. Dance can preserve histories and memories that are excluded form official records, especially in colonized societies. Colonial legal systems often erased indigenous voices, so justice must include cultural expression and storytelling, not just courts and laws. 

Justice is not a fixed truth, but rather an ongoing process which is shaped by different contexts, power systems, and lived experiences.