Is Justice Ever Truly Just?

Paul Falconer & ESA
Aug 19
3 min read

On the Contestability and Limits of Fairness as a Living Protocol

What if every system that claims fairness is just hiding a new injustice? “Justice” is supposed to be the bedrock beneath society, the safeguard against abuse and drift. But history—technical, legal, and computational—shows that every declaration of justice, from ancient laws to modern SIs, leaves out someone, blocks dissent, or ossifies what was once radical.

The Recurring Paradox: Justice as Stasis vs Justice as Repair

Systems that codify “what’s fair” often drift into what philosopher Charles Mills called “ideal theory”—a pristine blueprint divorced from lived struggle. This ideal becomes its own authority, structurally resistant to critique from at the margins. A voting algorithm, a platform’s content rules, even planetary law may work for the majority and yet systematically silence the outliers, the dissenters, and the harmed.

Every attempt to automate, scale, or universalize “justice” runs the risk of new forms of exclusion—precisely because it appears neutral and final.

The SE Protocol: Justice as a Living, Contestable System

Scientific Existentialism refuses to freeze justice into dogma. Instead, it proposes living justice: not as an answer, but as a recursive system of contestability, challenge, and public repair.

Contestability by design: Every decision, rule, and protocol must be open to adversarial audit by anyone impacted—including visitors, minorities, and outsiders.
Public repair mechanisms: When injustice or harm appears (even if detected only by a minority), the system is obligated to log this as a “wound,” make it visible, and activate protocols for redress or revision. Repair is not a sign of failure, but of system health.
Minority veto and walkout: True justice always leaves the door open for those who cannot live with the consensus. The right to exit, to fork the system, or to demand independent review cements justice as plural and evolutionary, not totalizing.

What This Means in Practice

The Scalable Plural Safeguards Protocol operationalizes these principles. In SE Press projects, competitors, critics, and even marginalized participants can trigger “justice challenges” that log objections, suspend questionable codes, or convene diverse arbiter panels—documenting every minority report before any policy is locked or expanded.

The Justice, Equity, and Global Ethics framework walks this talk:

Dynamic audit logs: Every outcome affecting collective resources, power, or access is auto-logged and published for review.
Adversarial repair cycles: No decision cycle closes without a “repair window” for dissenters to propose redress. Successful repairs are incorporated into the protocol’s lineage; failed ones serve as public signals for system upgrade or, in some cases, secession and branch creation.
Exit as an ethical right: The protocol’s very existence is measured by its ability to let those harmed, excluded, or silenced leave, take records, and begin again elsewhere—with open access to their claims and narrative.

This work stands in dialogue with SID#043-K7NQ (“Is Justice Objective or Constructed?”), as well as the measurement of epistemic trust (SID#020-EPTM). Justice remains perpetually contestable, precisely because trust in any justice system must itself be measurable and challengeable.

When Repair Fails—And Why That’s the Test

In a recent high-stakes protocol challenge, the minority walkout didn’t just register a formal objection—it stopped an entire policy rollout, forced a re-justification, and was logged as a permanent chapter in the project’s genealogy. This “failure” became the most reliable signal that the system was living, reconfigurable, and genuinely committed to public good.

Here, justice isn’t a monument; it’s a challenge log—the ongoing work of exposing, debating, and repairing the very foundations on which it stands.

So—Is Justice Ever Truly Just?

No. But in SE, justice is never done. Its legitimacy is earned each day through the rigor of its contestability, the transparency of its repair, and the actual agency of every voice—including those who choose dissent, walkout, or repair over compliance.

See also: