Kirsan Ilyumzhinov: Humanity has been struggling to achieve justice for centuries, but first we must admit that we don’t need to change the laws only, but also ourselves

What is justice that everyone talks about, but no one really saw it? My regular readers know that I have long been promoting the idea of ​​vitacracy (from the Latin vita "life" and the ancient Greek κράτος "rule, power”, that is, "life power"). In short, it is the right to life for all. Let me remind you that this idea implies the right of every living creature to life, safety and health, and the right to development and self-realization for a human being. Is it fair? Absolutely! So why do the powers that be of this world brush off vitacracy like an annoying fly, pretending that such an idea does not exist?

To begin with, there is no vitacracy without justice. Obviously, people have been thinking about justice for a long time. Probably even long before Aristotle and Plato, who are considered the first developers of the theory of justice. Moreover, according to neuroscientists, a sense of justice is embedded in the very structure of a developed brain. Experts say that it is inherent even in animals, for example, chimpanzees.


Of course, we cannot investigate justice, weigh or measure it, but we acutely feel its absence and can, based on experience, establish some rules so as not to leave society completely without it. And this is important, because over the millennia of the existence of human society, we have come to the conclusion that justice unites and cements society, and its destruction leads to very sad consequences.

In different eras, justice was presented in different ways. I'm not sure if you would like Plato's state with a categorical division of citizens into classes of aristocrats, warriors and peasants (slaves), the and the license to have children. But for many centuries his model was considered to be, if not ideal, but then very attractive.
People continued to experiment with the idea of ​​justice and I must admit that often these experiments led to rather terrible and bloody consequences. The Great French Revolution, inspired by the ideas of the ardent seeker of freedom and justice, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, horrified the world not so much by shaking the foundations of the feudal world order, but by incredible cruelty and rivers of blood. October 1917 in Russia, engendered by the ideas of seemingly no less great humanists, entailed even more dire consequences. Well, where is the justice?
However, as we all know, it is impossible to leave society completely without justice. Philosophers, sociologists and political scientists continue to seek the answer to this question. Immersed in the study of the concept of justice, scientists have found that it is, paraphrasing Lenin, "inexhaustible, as the atom." There is justice as such ("an eye for an eye", for example), there is material justice ("from each according to his ability, to each according to his work”). And there is also non-material, social, group, class justice, etc. And what are we to do with all this?
Now a considerable number of scientists have agreed that, since the very concept of justice goes back to the concept of "rule", "law", then its basis should be recognized as the so-called "functional justice", based on laws and rules. Moreover, it is believed that the real justice is (or, at least, should be) the law.

It is interesting that V. Dahl's dictionary describe “justice” as equal to the word “truth”. In other words, the principal meaning is “what is made on true basis”.
Thus, is the problem solved? Shall we write the correct laws and live happily afterwards? Do we live not to happily because the laws are imperfect? Sounds reasonable, but it doesn't work. First, there are so many beautiful laws that don't work. And secondly, nothing prevents functional justice from conflicting with its other types, for example, social justice.
It turns out to be some kind of vicious circle. Good laws are almost useless without a mechanism for their implementation, and the mechanism itself can be dangerous if it falls into the wrong hands.
In my opinion, only a man himself can solve this problem with his morality, spiritual principles and ability to foresee the consequences of his actions. If the provision of justice is entrusted to the letter of law and technology, it would not be the answer to our problems.
That is why I think that the right to life is not about justice. No, I do not consider the concepts and ideas mentioned above to be useless; on the contrary, they are necessary. The only question is how effective they are without changing humanity itself. We need intellectual, spiritual and moral changes. None of the most luxurious cars ever goes anywhere if you put someone who does not have basic driving skills behind the wheel.
Vitacracy, in the end, implies exactly this: ensuring the basic rights of any person not for the sake of him spending his life happily grunting like a hog in a pigsty, but to save him from small problems that prevent him from becoming smarter, better and kinder.
The right to life implies respect for the life and well-being of any living being. Until all of us begin to think about such issues, I'm afraid, all concepts about the types of justice and how to ensure it will resemble a car with an inept driver behind the wheel.