The value of a human life is difficult to define, in a more simplistic sense it is priceless. No one can truly know the potential contribution an individual may or may not provide for themselves and/or humankind. Without speaking too general, changes can only be made by the individual's will.
This brings me to my point about justice. Justice in itself is also very hard to define. There are different forms of justice; personal justice, moral justice, and societal law. Personal justice can be considered as confirmation of our own intrinsic virtues, in essence, we may believe we have been wronged by another individual and we expect some sort of confirmation and resolution of that individual’s wrongdoing. For example feeling wronged by an individual lying to you and demanding an apology. Then there is moral justice which is broader since it can be felt by more than one individual at a time. One may feel that another has committed an immoral act such as stealing or murder that usually is followed by a need for a resolution or punishment for that same act. What we consider immoral is based on the society we grew up in, our culture, people, experiences, and biological hard-wiring that have influenced us. The third and final form of justice I will address is societal law, which is what we have no choice but to abide by. These are the laws that we as a state or nation follow as a whole and depending on where you live, are judged by your peers and sentenced to a punishment accordingly. This is closely linked with our ability to cooperate with others based on mutual gain and or acceptance, a theory which is very complex and I rather not go into.
These three forms of justice intertwine and weave what we believe justice is. The real argument I pose is that our sense of justice varies indefinitely depending on the individual. So what are the right constraints we must place on individuals in order to keep society morally adept on a universal scale? There are two main perspectives that one can take. These two perspectives are absolutely contrasting or opposites. First we have the transcendentalist perspective which embraces the notion that moral guidelines exist outside the human mind, and empiricists who believe they are made up by the human mind. A more specific but less precise definition of transcendentalists and empiricists would be of secular morality or theological/religious morality, respectively. This definition is somewhat less accurate because a secular philosopher and a theologist have the same moral logic which is; laws are a set of principles that hold enough importance that any rational individual will hold true to them. I digress; in reality to establish justice universally one would have to define morality wholly to which each human being should hold true to.
Thomas Jefferson tried his hand at universal law when he wrote in the declaration of independence, "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." These are the ethics that bind the diverging cultures in the U.S. today. The guidelines or laws we follow are greatly influenced by morality but there are many different people in this world. The most important factor, I believe, is encouraging gain from cooperation. The problem that scenario addresses is that most people act to maximize their individual gain, empathy is hard-wired but we are more commonly known to act out of self when we do not know the individual we are dealing with. This would impact justice directly because an overall cooperation from humanity as a whole can produce a universal sense of justice & morality. In essence we would prefer to cooperate for overall gain which would help everyone rather than self gain which would only benefit the individual. If we all accept a universal law and make cooperating with others our primary objective, this would be a mutual benefit. We would all work towards a common goal. Unfortunately the current world around us is not yet ready to accommodate such ideals. Whether that is the answer I don't know and it might have a hint of socialism as an influence but as the say it looks pretty on paper but ugly in reality. Whew! Ok I think I am done for the day. This is more of a personal search for confirmation of my own beliefs. With that said feel free to disagree.
Revised Version.