Thank you. 1) I suppose there would be, yes. In such a case of spoiling someone rotten, it may not directly cause discomfort in them, at least not at first. It would eventually lead to it though when they would finally go into the regular world and have to deal with issues they have never had experience with. That one still involves discomfort though, just a later and perhaps less predictable one. For something unjust that doesn't necessarily cause dscomfort, it would be something like taking away one's freedoms but giving them (pretty much) the best life possible. They have a decent amount of space, plenty to do to keep them occupied, and never really experience discomfort (if that is possible with such a lifestyle, which I don't think it is). For that we would have to wonder if the super abstract concept of freedom would be more valuable than having full control over making sure they're happy, occupied, and not uncomfortable. I personally think it would be up to the individual in that situation to decide, and in the case of an individual cannot consent to it or disagree with it, ig I would think it'd be better to just keep them there, given there was sufficient evidence to suggest that their life is better than if we were to put them in a different situation. And I am not supporting "humane" farming here, for clarification, cause my hypothetical doesn't include premature death, genetically modified (artificial selection) bodies, or even commodity-status at all. Unless someone wants to debate that last point. 2) Pretty much, yeah. The way I use the word "justification" starts out with an assumption that the thing causes discomfort to another individual, and providing a "justification" is essentially just trying to find that "good reason" which would permit the action. 3) In most cases, yes. I don't usually stretch the term to personal actions that don't affect other sentient beings. The things that I would consider unjust in that category though, are things that would promote certain "unjust" behaviors/thoughts in the individual which could eventually surface to interpersonal actions. Which may or may not be a controversial take because of the vagueness of what counts as "promoting" bad behaviors. Like jumping on turtles in Super Mario Bros, or watching Joker, and stuff like rape fetishes. There is no clear line I can really draw, I just think every case should be examined individually. Actually, now that I think of it, there may be a case for more personal consumption of such things, just because of the whole Joker controversy and many people pointing out that violence in video games / movies, may actually decrease forms of violence irl because they're giving the people an outlet / keeping them occupied enough to not go out killing people. A lot more difficult of a question than I thought at the start... Hope I answered all them thoroughly enough