Is justice an illusion?
By: Luis Beltrán Guerra G. - 13/07/2026
Share:
An objective analysis of this complex topic requires considering knowledge, skills, and experience, as well as implementing measures and adapting to new situations. This learning process for problem-solving is a context in which we read that justice should be understood as "the constant and perpetual will to give each person their due." For some, this is redundant, since one cannot give what one already possesses. It is more appropriate to conceive of justice as "a methodology to ensure that each person retains and peacefully enjoys what belongs to them according to the law, protecting them from abuses by others."
In today's Venezuela, struck by an earthquake with catastrophic consequences, we look at each other, asking why, who is responsible, how to seek justice, and what to do to ensure that justice is served. Venezuelan Miguel Dao has written that "politicizing a tragedy is not appropriate; instead, demanding accountability is an act of justice that cannot be postponed." His compatriot's seriousness, professionalism, and love for his country compel us to consider this serious and objective assessment. It is difficult to ignore it.
The distinguished Harvard philosopher Michael J. Sandel, for his part, argues that justice is based on “doing what is right,” which leads to maximizing well-being, respecting freedom, and promoting virtue. We are devoted to prosperity and freedom, but we cannot do without the negotiating aspect of justice. The renowned professor reaffirms that “it is the best way to live.”
Incidentally, Sandel's observations relate to Hurricane Charlie in Florida (2004) and the substantial price increases for mass-market consumer goods. An abusive distortion of justice and its principles.
Would it be absurd to consider whether that reality could be confronted with the recent earthquake in Venezuela and its consequences?
According to another academic, Ben Dupré of Exeter College, Oxford, we should be careful not to confuse justice with "good or bad luck," as he points out that Bell and Haig spend the night together at the pub. At closing time, they both stagger to their cars to go home. Bell arrives quietly, as he had so many times before, collapsing onto his bed and waking the next morning with nothing more than a mild hangover. Haig, equally experienced and skilled behind the wheel, drives calmly home until a young man suddenly darts into the road in front of him. With no time to brake, the man is killed instantly. Haig is put in jail, waking the next day with a hangover and the certainty of spending years in prison. This passage serves as a way of clarifying the supposed link between justice and good or bad luck. Furthermore, it could be argued that the law should consider luck as a mitigating factor in Haig's case.
In light of the above, we Venezuelans should consider that some of us wonder whether our difficulties stem from good or bad luck. Several pieces of evidence are unsettling, including:
1. According to UCV professor Carlos A. Romero, we have recently witnessed three transitions: the first between the fall of dictator Marcos Pérez Jiménez and the development of a representative democracy model; the second between Hugo Chávez's rise to the presidency and his subsequent death; and the third from Chávez's death to the presidency of Nicolás Maduro.
2. It has been governed by 47 presidents for almost 200 years, whereas in the United States, which now exercises a protectorate, only 45 men have served in 47 presidencies, and in France, with a semi-presidential system of government and a stable democracy, there have never been more than 25 Heads of State, and
3. The Republic has been the victim of coups d'état in 1908, 1945, 1948, 1958, 1992, 2002, the latter called a "brief coup" / Chavez is restored to his position.
Currently, it must be added, the United States is taking over the country, as a result of the already well-known intervention of the North on February 3rd.
The dilemma for AI is "a difficult situation where one must choose between two or more options, which usually have equally good, bad, or complicated consequences." It's no wonder, then, that on the most unexpected street in Caracas you might hear, "Good luck? We haven't had any!" And someone might reply, "I don't know about good luck, but we've certainly behaved badly!"
Behavioral actions are, therefore, as must be understood, the set of responses, physical or verbal, that an individual emits in response to internal or external stimuli, which are also called individual and collective human behaviors and which must be legitimate, that is, adjusted to the guidelines of justice, both those directed to the collective as well as to its members.
Many would say that the defining characteristic of a civilized society is its capacity to defend the rights of its citizens: protecting them from arbitrary treatment and harm by the state or other individuals, allowing them full political expression, and guaranteeing freedom of speech and movement. So, what sense does it make for such a society to deliberately inflict harm on its citizens, exclude them from the political process, or restrict their freedom of movement and expression? Well, this is precisely the prerogative the state arrogates to itself when it decides to punish its citizens for violating the very rules it has imposed. This is called "The Theory of Punishment," universally known, accepted, and practiced, which leads to justice, but only to the extent that it has been drafted and applied objectively. And with zero subjectivity, which is rarely the case when these precepts are used to punish those who engage in political dissent. This is very common in Latin American countries.
Justice, as can be inferred from the considerations presented, is undoubtedly one of the most complex issues for democratic societies, which incite the need to make it a reality.
The evidence leads us to ask ourselves, now well into the 21st century:
Is justice an illusion?
The answer should lie in our decision to make justice a reality. And with the understanding, as outlined in previous essays:
Is it humanity's responsibility to respond, or rather the governments that lead it?
The answer? Decisive.
«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».