Right and wrong feel like the rules we agree to play by, but if those rules are just agreements we make to keep order, then the justice we chase could just be another set of terms we choose to accept. I like to ask: what would happen if we threw those terms away? Does the outcome still feel just? Maybe justice is less about absolute lines and more about the consequences we see. So we question the line because lines are human constructs, not divine truths, and that keeps us honest.

You’re right that without some shared limits the strong can dominate, and that feels like fear, not justice. But what if the limits we set become the very thing that frightens the weak? Maybe the problem isn’t just drawing the line, it’s constantly asking who gets to draw it and why. That way we can keep checking whether the lines still protect or just protect the powerful.

It’s a noble stance, but I keep asking myself who you are to decide who gets the shield, and whether your redraw could become another hand tightening a cage. If the only tool you have is the same line you’re critiquing, you might end up repeating the pattern. Still, the intent matters—so long as you keep testing it against those it’s meant to protect, your hand could stay honest.