This thread is more about General Semantics as formulated by Alfred Korzybski in his wonderful book Science and Sanity.
"Justice" is a high level abstraction with no physical referent as a space-time event. It's a solely mental construction. It's impossible for someone to show us "justice", nor is it possible to find a common definition on which everyone can agree.
This makes it highly irrelevant to talk about as long as people are not aware of the use of such abstractions.
We are trying to make the world behave as our words behave, this is a rather futile exercise considering reality only abides to natural laws. A perfect illustration of this is when a judge says: "Justice has been served." People will agree with him, or not depending on their own personal convictions, but was the crime erased? Is there an entity justice who appreciates the service? The answer is clearly "no", regardless of how our words behave.
There is no such thing as objective morality, albeit morality is highly subjective and culturally induced.
If you where a headhunter in the amazon I would come to you and ask: "Doesn't it bother you to have five shrunken heads around your neck?" And you would answer: "Yes, my brother has ten." That doesn't make you insane, you're well adjusted to the society you live in.
I'm not saying morality doesn't serve any purpose, nor that everything should be allowed on these grounds. I'm just pointing out our limitations in order to come to a full comprehension of said "justice" and "morality".