just or unjust?

Living in 2015, our society still struggles with the question of “what is justice?”.. In 2015, we define just and unjust actions according to the law. If we commit murder, that would be considered unjust and we would be sent directly to prison and sometimes more (depending on severity). In our reading of the Republic, justice is described as “the mean between two extremes: the best is to do injustice without paying a penalty. The worst is to suffer it without taking revenge.” As we consider that definition from the reading to our definition in the modern world, aren’t they related? If we think about the text, it sort of implies that everyone does unjust things—some have to handle consequences while others have unjust things happen to them and hope for the opportunity to seek revenge. In modern times, people take into account consequences. If those consequences did not exist, would we still hesitate to commit “unjust” actions? The obvious answer would be no. People act according to what can benefit them. Do we do the things we do out of genuine kindness or to appear “kind”? I guess that would depend on the person and their personal values. As we define actions as just and unjust lawfully, how would we define them unlawfully? We come to the conclusion of this being an aporia—“an irresolvable internal contradiction in a text, argument, or theory”. My definition of a just or unjust action would be clearly different from your definition. What constitutes an action as just? Would your response be “an action that brings good to someone or something”? Then the question would be “what is a good thing?”. In the attached article, the mother has suffered an unjust law or action. Why is she being treated lawfully unjust?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/julie-stewart/victim-of-an-unjust-law_b_1456258.html