Just a couple of minutes ago, I was enjoying a cigarette right out on my driveway when I came across an unfortunate sight: a caterpillar being devoured by an army of ants.
It then occurred to me that I was in a position of power to determine how the odds might play out. In that very instant, I was confronted with two most feasible, likely scenarios.
1) I could just watch, arms akimbo, as the living daylights are being gutted out of the grub.
2) I could physically intervene and save the caterpillar from certain death.
Whatever my choice, I would have to face the consequences that are inextricably intertwined with the act I so decide to execute.
1) Dead caterpillar(s)/ proliferation of ant population
2) Starving ants and damaged crops (unhappy mother).
As a loyal believer in natural selection, I felt compelled to just letting nature take its course. Notwithstanding that, when viewed as an analogy, would the law step aside in the event of such a display of primal superiority or would justice be served to the man responsible for a brutal stickup. You can bet your bottom dollar that the thief’s actions were justified by his right to perpetuate his living.
So what is justice and how should we lay down the law in the most just manner? How do we know for certain that whatever constitutes justice for me might very well do the same for you? Well, justice is but a doctrine put into play that attempts to provide for future contingencies. In my personal attempt to affect change, I had to consider many different schools of thought: The principle of the golden mean, the greatest happiness principle and several others. But which one outweighs the other with regards to such a situation? In my opinion, conscience has most weight compared to any other factor worth considering. Which would I rather be a victim of? An angry mob of ants or a disappointed mother. Pretty damn complex thoughts. But my answer: Fuck you ants.
Not breaking new ground here, just food for thought.

