Justice is an abstract concept linked to fairness and who is in the right. This involves a value-laden story. But keep in mind that values are also abstract: what is right or fair, and for whom? While some values can signify “this-ness” or haecceity (a virtue of uniqueness), most reference utility (use) or moral virtue (good) as the motivation behind broader abstractions such as justice or freedom.

The problem is not that abstract, taken-for-granted, common-sense values undergird legalized abstractions because the pattern can be recognized, and debate can ensue. Instead, the gradual creeping inward of values shapes the individual.

The internal self, the consciousness we access from which all meaning must be given, begins with these abstract values, allowing us to respond to situations. And yet, living up to multiple abstract values is an unrealistic burden.

As values come to us, they are ripe with contradictions:

Isiah Berlin says the notion that all good things, freedom, order, knowledge, and justice are compatible is “perhaps one of the least plausible beliefs entertained by profound and influential thinkers.”

Beyond their incompatibility is their semantic drift, deviating from their origin. And yet, we must remember that shared values are the means to unite a group or society to solve a problem. The warning is to begin not from abstractions but from objects: solve for reality (real issues) instead of referencing ever-expanding, slippery abstract principles.

However, on a more Machiavellian note, if you can hold peace and cooperation in your mind while destroying and betraying, you can become ultimately powerful through an innovative contradiction: values without value.