Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

How should we define Justice?

R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 5:12:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The main disagreement between KRS-One and Sean Hannity is their definition of justice, in this interview. KRS says that 9/11 was "justice" because the establishment was being attacked, while Hannity says KRS is giving a pass to the terrorists by establishing them as purveyors of the virtue of justice.

Is Justice an impetus for action, as Hannity proclaims? Or simply a result of immoral practices, as KRS maintains the essence of his message was?

I am going to be obviously biased towards KRS here, given my political stance, but I do agree with him as objectively as I can see. Justice, to me, is a virtue - a very basic one at that - and, IMO, virtue is not directly obtained but indirectly obtained by resisting evil. I don't see, for example, a successful cancer researcher as a champion of justice, however I would see somebody who resists the urge to be greedy and gives to charity that way.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
whatledge
Posts: 210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2014 12:07:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/8/2014 5:12:46 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:


The main disagreement between KRS-One and Sean Hannity is their definition of justice, in this interview. KRS says that 9/11 was "justice" because the establishment was being attacked, while Hannity says KRS is giving a pass to the terrorists by establishing them as purveyors of the virtue of justice.

Is Justice an impetus for action, as Hannity proclaims? Or simply a result of immoral practices, as KRS maintains the essence of his message was?

I am going to be obviously biased towards KRS here, given my political stance, but I do agree with him as objectively as I can see. Justice, to me, is a virtue - a very basic one at that - and, IMO, virtue is not directly obtained but indirectly obtained by resisting evil. I don't see, for example, a successful cancer researcher as a champion of justice, however I would see somebody who resists the urge to be greedy and gives to charity that way.

Krs one is the man. True face of hip-hop when it was good.

That said, justice is but an illusion, a social construct we apply based on socially constructed moral values. meaning, justice is what society deems is just, nothing more. That's why so often in history, it is the winner that is justice.
PiedPiper
Posts: 14
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2014 12:32:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I feel like the main disagreement in this video wasn't actually how they defined justice but rather how they viewed the incident of 9/11. KRS-One explained that he, and I believe he suggested the hip-hop community as a whole, viewed the incident more symbolically as an attack against the current power system. Since he viewed this system as one of oppression, he interpreted the attack on it to be liberating in nature. Sean Hannity viewed the incident more literally as an attack on innocent people. Thus for him the act was not one of justice but it was chaotic and destructive in nature.

I don't think the two views are necessarily mutually exclusive since, as I suggested, it mostly hinges on whether one looks at the incident literally or symbolically. As far as it relates to your question, I don't think the primary struggle between the two was over the definition of justice, but rather the appropriate way to view/analyze a situation.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2014 1:10:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/9/2014 12:07:13 PM, whatledge wrote:
At 2/8/2014 5:12:46 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:

The main disagreement between KRS-One and Sean Hannity is their definition of justice, in this interview. KRS says that 9/11 was "justice" because the establishment was being attacked, while Hannity says KRS is giving a pass to the terrorists by establishing them as purveyors of the virtue of justice.

Is Justice an impetus for action, as Hannity proclaims? Or simply a result of immoral practices, as KRS maintains the essence of his message was?

I am going to be obviously biased towards KRS here, given my political stance, but I do agree with him as objectively as I can see. Justice, to me, is a virtue - a very basic one at that - and, IMO, virtue is not directly obtained but indirectly obtained by resisting evil. I don't see, for example, a successful cancer researcher as a champion of justice, however I would see somebody who resists the urge to be greedy and gives to charity that way.

Krs one is the man. True face of hip-hop when it was good.

Indeed the very antithesis of what hip-hop is today.

That said, justice is but an illusion,

Reality is an illusion.

a social construct we apply based on socially constructed moral values. meaning, justice is what society deems is just, nothing more. That's why so often in history, it is the winner that is justice.

That doesn't logically follow; history views the winner as just because history is the winner. War=destroying the enemy.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
whatledge
Posts: 210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2014 1:40:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago

That doesn't logically follow; history views the winner as just because history is the winner. War=destroying the enemy.

My point about history is to reinforce my previous point that justice is socially constructed. The winners of wars (the society that wins) decides who was right, and written history is reflective of this.