Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

What is justice?

Waterborne
Posts: 70
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2018 4:36:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
In a perfect world, justice is the highest possible average quality of life in an unskewed graph with quality of life is determined by a person"s ability to fulfill their requirements to obtain happiness which, at best, can only be quantified heuristically. As there are are too many people on earth to possibly paint a clear picture of what is just, we must rely on patterns. Because patterns inevitably conflict with other patterns, the most useful definition of justice I can give is "least unjust?" Literature, which is rhetoric, gives us a perspective to help answer the question.
Jensvs
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2018 9:05:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I agree that what you describe is the desired outcome of a just society but you do not provide a way to get there, which is what a model of justice is all about. Even if, as you claim, we can only have an idea of the least unjust society, you should still provide a sort of principle(s) to show how to attain this society.

If what you are saying is that it is an empirical question, relying on an analysis of patterns that give rise to the "highest possible average quality of life in an unskewed graph", I would argue that a Brave New World scenario is one of the leading contenders to the just society. Where everybody is drugged to be the happiest they could be. This is counter to most people's intuitions of justice.

Of course, you may argue that it is exactly this that literature warns about, but then I don't see any substance in your account of justice. For who decides what literature should be looked at to guide us? Justice is about deciding between different accounts of the good state and figuring out which one is Just in the first place.
Waterborne
Posts: 70
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2018 10:59:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/2/2018 9:05:05 AM, Jensvs wrote:
I agree that what you describe is the desired outcome of a just society but you do not provide a way to get there, which is what a model of justice is all about. Even if, as you claim, we can only have an idea of the least unjust society, you should still provide a sort of principle(s) to show how to attain this society.

If what you are saying is that it is an empirical question, relying on an analysis of patterns that give rise to the "highest possible average quality of life in an unskewed graph", I would argue that a Brave New World scenario is one of the leading contenders to the just society. Where everybody is drugged to be the happiest they could be. This is counter to most people's intuitions of justice.

At 8/2/2018 9:05:05 AM, Jensvs wrote:
I agree that what you describe is the desired outcome of a just society but you do not provide a way to get there, which is what a model of justice is all about. Even if, as you claim, we can only have an idea of the least unjust society, you should still provide a sort of principle(s) to show how to attain this society.

If what you are saying is that it is an empirical question, relying on an analysis of patterns that give rise to the "highest possible average quality of life in an unskewed graph", I would argue that a Brave New World scenario is one of the leading contenders to the just society. Where everybody is drugged to be the happiest they could be. This is counter to most people's intuitions of justice.


Historically, we have universally netted a gain in the right direction over time; therefore, to achieve a least unjust society, we just have to wait like a child waiting for his or her brain to fully develop. If everyone were drugged to be the happiest they could be, some variable it could destroy the human race. To hypothetically test a Brave New World scenario's least unjustness, it would need to be simulated in a highly isolated and guarded separate society first for at least a couple centuries. No one knows what it would happen over time if such a fundamental way to define reality was extinguished. By then, a happiness drug to achieve the highest possible average quality of life in an unskewed graph would probably be unnecessary.
Waterborne
Posts: 70
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2018 12:11:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2018 8:40:42 AM, mosc wrote:
Justice: defined as diplomacy among allies.
There are no parameters of jurisdiction in that definition, so pragmatically, it means nothing.
SecularMerlin
Posts: 7,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2018 1:23:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2018 12:11:01 AM, Waterborne wrote:
At 8/3/2018 8:40:42 AM, mosc wrote:
Justice: defined as diplomacy among allies.
There are no parameters of jurisdiction in that definition, so pragmatically, it means nothing.

It is possible that what is and is not just is subjective, not only from person to person but from situation to situation. If we have some standard to base it on (equality say) then we can make objective judgements about justice on that basis but it remains subjective and so mostly meaningless without such a standard.
The only true wisdom lies in knowing that you know nothing.
-Socrates

Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality
-Lewis Carrol
Waterborne
Posts: 70
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2018 2:20:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2018 1:23:35 AM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 8/4/2018 12:11:01 AM, Waterborne wrote:
At 8/3/2018 8:40:42 AM, mosc wrote:
Justice: defined as diplomacy among allies.
There are no parameters of jurisdiction in that definition, so pragmatically, it means nothing.

It is possible that what is and is not just is subjective, not only from person to person but from situation to situation. If we have some standard to base it on (equality say) then we can make objective judgements about justice on that basis but it remains subjective and so mostly meaningless without such a standard.

Subjectivity is defined only on a continuum; a definition is only meaningless if it is completely useless. Not having direct causation of objective value does not necessarily imply meaninglessness.
omar2345
Posts: 145
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2019 10:55:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Leaning typed:
"Justice is what is fair and right. Which is subjective. "

Fair is relative to the person saying it and who is affected.
If right is relative then it is might as well become redundant since it would fill the same role as good.
Right is right whether it be in the circumstances you had or what we collectively know and stated as right. In a sense it is relative but what isn't relative if you would also call what I said here also relative?

If you would like can you tell me the difference between subjective and objective or maybe objectivity doesn't exist?
Leaning
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2019 11:41:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
(I think) Matter exists certainly, That's rather objective. Certain scientific laws if their conditions are met such as gravity certainly exist. Certain social norms exists if their conditions happen to be met in a people.

Everything still depends on where you are and what not, But what matters is that a person feels as though the social norms should matter more. What man's emotions 'really care or in the standard think all that deeply and with feeling upon the fact that gravity exists strong upon the earth, Yet weightless in the heavens amongst the stars?

Sure, Maybe he thinks "This is so cool! " But it does not baffle or horrify him that matters should be different physically here or there. Humans though. Their customs and traditions, Etiquette and ideas of right and wrong. When these are amess, And one realizes tis natural to be amess, He becomes rather bothered.

Hmm, That's not really answering anything as objective or subjective though I suppose.
I suppose I don't 'quite know myself.

Hmm. . . If there was some sort of statue in a room that we might walk around. The statue ;would exist, Whether we wanted it to or not. Though depending on what angle we vied it from, Or by which lighting, Or personal aesthetic, Or viewpoint would change. Hmm, Is it the viewpoints then that are subjective? Whilst the materials and the patterns of reality are objective?

Grr, That's not quite right.
Leaning
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2019 11:55:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
There we go. I'm going to say that there are objective things in existence, But not for the human experience. God if he existed, Perhaps could see the objective.

objective adjective
ob"R03;jec"R03;tive | \əb-G2;jek-tiv,

"b-\
Definition of objective (Entry 1 of 2)
1
a
relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence "used chiefly in medieval philosophy
b
of, Relating to, Or being an object, Phenomenon, Or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind
objective reality
" our reveries " are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world.
" Marvin Reznikoff
" compare subjective sense 3a
c
of a symptom of disease : perceptible to persons other than the affected individual
objective arthritis
" compare subjective sense 4c
d
involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, Conditions, Or phenomena
objective awareness
objective data
2
relating to, Characteristic of, Or constituting the case of words that follow prepositions or transitive verbs
The pronoun her is in the objective case in the sentence "I saw her. "
3
a
expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, Prejudices, Or interpretations
objective art
an objective history of the war
an objective judgment
b
of a test : limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum
Each question on the objective test requires the selection of the correct answer from among several choices.

subjective adjective
sub"R03;jec"R03;tive | \(G6;)səb-G2;jek-tiv

\
Definition of subjective (Entry 1 of 2)
1
of, Relating to, Or constituting a subject: such as
a
obsolete : of, Relating to, Or characteristic of one that is a subject especially in lack of freedom of action or in submissiveness
b
being or relating to a grammatical subject
especially : nominative
2
of or relating to the essential being of that which has substance, Qualities, Attributes, Or relations
3
a
characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind : phenomenal
" compare objective sense 1b
b
relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states
4
a
(1)
peculiar to a particular individual : personal
subjective judgments
(2)
modified or affected by personal views, Experience, Or background
a subjective account of the incident
b
arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by external stimuli
subjective sensations
c
arising out of or identified by means of one's perception of one's own states and processes
a subjective symptom of disease
" compare objective sense 1c
5
lacking in reality or substance : illusory
omar2345
Posts: 145
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2019 3:28:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"I'm going to say that there are objective things in existence"
Yes but we can never 100% know if it is the case.
We are using our subjective perceptions to view objectivity.
I would say objectivity only works if we assume we exist and accept the same standards of finding a conclusion. Not assuming we exist and accepting the same standards we cannot have objectivity. We exist cannot mean we also assume God we can only assume existence. Anything more is not needed and does not help what objectivity is trying to do.
Leaning
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2019 3:42:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I am sure enough of my existence and this worlds existence to say I know. Sure it's possible I could be wrong, But I don't think I am. I can see this apple in my hand, Feel it, Taste it, Smell it, Even hear it as I tap it once upon my desk.

I 'feel certain that this apple exists. True, I cannot see it's molecules at this moment, Smell it in the fashion of a dog, Of hear it in the manner of an owl. But it exists.

And I think, Therefore I am.

I don't believe in any classic deities myself. Just suggesting that something that is Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent would (I think) be able to see the world as it objectively is.
omar2345
Posts: 145
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2019 4:00:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"I am sure enough of my existence and this worlds existence to say I know. Sure it's possible I could be wrong, But I don't think I am. I can see this apple in my hand, Feel it, Taste it, Smell it, Even hear it as I tap it once upon my desk. "
These are feelings. Feelings do not prove anything apart from just the feeling. If I said I feel bad about my existence. I can still exist even if feel the opposite side.

"I 'feel certain that this apple exists. True, I cannot see it's molecules at this moment, Smell it in the fashion of a dog, Of hear it in the manner of an owl. But it exists. "
Certain not right. Most likely you never know that is an apple or something the matrix created.

"And I think, Therefore I am. "
Thinking does not prove our existence.

"I don't believe in any classic deities myself. Just suggesting that something that is Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent would (I think) be able to see the world as it objectively is. "
Would God be able to verify Itself? No so even God would not know. God would know if it does exist what is objective reality in our existence but if God is in another reality God can't verify its existence in Its reality. God can't have an out of body experience and realise yes It does indeed exist in that reality since that would still be part of God's perception. God being all-powerful cannot go beyond since It is all-powerful.
Leaning
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2019 4:08:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
You like most people, And even myself anthropomorphize God too much. Senses. Is the word I would use. I would have to research to be certain, But senses are not feelings. To observe ones environment with ones eyes is not to 'feel emotion. Our thoughts, Habits, And nature create emotion.

Much like god, I cannot refute the matrix. But I have seen nothing to suggest it's existence. So, I end up refuting it after all.
omar2345
Posts: 145
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2019 4:22:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"anthropomorphize"
If we cannot comprehend God why should we believe in It?

"But senses are not feelings. "
"a faculty by which the body perceives an external stimulus; one of the faculties of sight, Smell, Hearing, Taste, And touch. "
If it was objective why doesn't everyone like pizza.

"But I have seen nothing to suggest it's existence. So, I end up refuting it after all. "
You haven't seen everything so you might eventually find information for its existence. In a debate someone must show proof of this matrix but since this is not a debate refuting it without knowing the side that do support it makes it an argument of ignorance. I don't know if someone does support the matrix theory just brought it up because I enjoyed the Matrix movie.
Leaning
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2019 4:36:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't believe in God. The pizza and the taste exists. 'People by dint of experience and aesthetics experience it differently and give it different value. Same as with the statue in the room. It exists but people are not uniform. People have different taste in art, Have walked different paths in life. Some view the statue from the front bathed in sunlight, Others in the dim dark of dusk. Our experiences in life shape our preferences, This does not change the existence of the pizza.

I like the Matrix movies too. Humans are born into ignorance. It is a valued quality sure, To have an open mind. But even with an open mind, If I have yet to experience or use logic and reason adequately to justify somethings existence. I see no reason to believe in it.

I don't so much avoid information about the matrix theory as not seek it out. That particular theory simply has not struck a cord in me.
omar2345
Posts: 145
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2019 4:54:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"It exists"
Can you prove its existence?

"If I have yet to experience or use logic and reason adequately to justify somethings existence. I see no reason to believe in it. "
Do you have a better standard of assessing things?

"That particular theory simply has not struck a cord in me. "
The matrix theory can be right and still not struck a cord in you.
Adrian14
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2019 5:01:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Justice is concerned with creating a system that is able to treat the problems of society as they currently exist, Without getting caught up in an impossible pursuit of perfection.
Leaning
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2019 5:03:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If you do not want to believe in the pizza, That is fine, I shall believe in and eat it myself, Having verified it's existence satisfactorily to myself.

I don't think there's anything wrong with my sentence, But I'll rephrase it. If I have not yet experienced something, Or used logic and reasoning to adequately justify it's existence to myself. I do not see any reason to believe in it. Even Pasta deities and aliens I had to experience them 'In the fashion of imagining them, Hearing about them from others, Thinking about how likely or logical they might be.

I don't believe in the Pasta deity. I do think that aliens exist, But do not think that they have visited Earth, At least not in the way people conventionally suggest, Such as abducting and doing butt stuff to people.

The Matrix theory could be right, I'm simply saying that I have not extensively researched it because it did not interest me especially. My obsessions go elsewhere in life.
Leaning
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2019 5:14:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Adrian14 wrote:
Justice is concerned with creating a system that is able to treat the problems of society as they currently exist, Without getting caught up in an impossible pursuit of perfection.


Do you intend or mean to say, That laws of society are themselves are justice?
omar2345
Posts: 145
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2019 5:36:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"That is fine, I shall believe in and eat it myself, "
Still does not mean you have proven its existence.

"to adequately justify it's existence to myself. I do not see any reason to believe in it. "
Tell that to theists.

"'In the fashion of imagining them, Hearing about them from others, Thinking about how likely or logical they might be. "
Imaginations are not real. People can lie. Your way of thinking can be wrong due to the lack of information.

"Such as abducting and doing butt stuff to people. "
Reminds me of South Park Stick of Truth.

"I'm simply saying that I have not extensively researched"
Which is why you or I cannot comment on its absurdity if we do not what it is.

"obsessions go elsewhere in life. "
You want to live forever. I wouldn't. To each his own.
Leaning
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2019 5:54:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Eh, I've proven it's existence (to me). I've got no problem with theists currently.
There's nothing wrong with using imagination. Of course it could be wrong. It's not as though I'm causing the scenario to happen. I'm imagining how it might happen. Running a simulation in my head. If I had never thrown a football before, Then I'm going to make a quick mental image to myself on how the best way to throw it might be, Then try to throw it. Not do as well as I would later having grown used to it more with experience. But making that effort with visualizing the situation, Would help. Same with imagining what an enemy might do in a war allows one to plan and prepare for it, As well as using reason and logic during the process. Are they going to do every single scenario I imagined them doing? Probably not, But it's not as though I'm talking about people living and acting purely on spontaneous imagination.

If I mess up at work, Then I can use my imagination and past previous experiences with that kind of situation to imagine what will happen. Is it logical to imagine my boss shooting me? Not unless I was a prisoner in a Nazi deathcamp. Can I imagine him giving me a cookie? Yeah, Maybe he might do that, But probably not. Then I'll imagine him yelling at me for 30 seconds. Does that seem logical based on my past experience? Yes. Is it some horrible event? No. Alright then.

Sure there are people for example who have issues with anxiety and their imagination might go with the boss shooting them, Or making too much of being yelled at. But the imagination is part of the brain, Which we are able to focus, Imaginations a fine tool.

I never played that game, Though I do like the TV show.

As I've said before, I'm as sure of it as a piece of pizza. I don't feel a need to tell other people what is what, But I am assured myself.
dennise1122
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2019 4:37:38 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
http://www. Eepurse. Ru wholesale replica handbags

high quality designer replica handbags http://www. Replicahandbag. Ru

http://www. Kissbag. Ru fake bags
melcharaz
Posts: 42
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2019 3:05:59 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
Justice is an attribute of God, Its common in more "Good" folk to argue for justice in cases of wrong doing. However, Because of sin, Our concept of true justice is also corrupted, Just like our concept of morality. There is God's justice and morality, Then there is that same justice and morality of God, Except deluded and twisted by lies and sin.

I would say that all humanity instantly dying and burning in the lake of fire for eternity is justice. Why? Because of sin, Sin is the thing God cannot stand and defiles all of creation. Therefore we are worthy of death and torment.

But, I would like to say, Before you explore the Justice of God, That you explore the mercy and grace of God, Whereby I am able to type this Truth to you. Grace and mercy are what God prefers to give instead of justice.
VegetableProperty5
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2019 3:36:36 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
I think the Aristotelian definition, To give each their due, Is still the best, Because societies determine what people in that society is due, So as long as everyone receives that it is a just society. For instance, The U. S. Believes everyone is due life, Liberty, And the ability to pursue happiness, So if we as a country generally give everyone that we are a just society, If not we are not. This definition gives society the ability to determine what is important, While ensuring that everyone receives fair and equal treatment.
"I'm not superstitious, but... I'm a little stitious." - Michael Scott
Leaning
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2019 12:02:59 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
I don't disagree with that definition. Has anyone ever pointed out any flaws in it from what you've read though?
omar2345
Posts: 145
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2019 12:15:58 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
@VegetableProperty5

So this is basically an eye for an eye or tooth for a tooth right?
Meaning a murderer should be murdered.
This does not help make the best justice system instead states it is dependent on who is saying it. I much rather have what a person should do for each crime and the person stating it can make compromises due to the position they are in order to follow justice not a template of justice that they have to fill in themselves.
Leaning
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2019 12:28:19 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
I don't 'know what his view of that system is. But I'm assuming it's subjective. Which works for me, Since that's what my definition falls back on after all. Sure you could make a system in which people are punished and rewarded in a specific way, But it's still created by a person. "Dependent on who is saying it" so to speak.

I 'think by the definition he gave justice could exist in a society of psychopaths who each live by the rule of doing whatever they want to others and only looking out for themselves. 'If they all agreed that was what was fair, And that people deserve what they get in a survival of the fittest society, Even themselves. That would be an example of justice.

Though it still has the flaw of the subjective. And more normal societies could exist in the same moment and have a more conventional view of what justice is.
Leaning
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2019 11:18:42 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
VegetableProperty5 wrote:
I think the Aristotelian definition, To give each their due, Is still the best, Because societies determine what people in that society is due, So as long as everyone receives that it is a just society. For instance, The U. S. Believes everyone is due life, Liberty, And the ability to pursue happiness, So if we as a country generally give everyone that we are a just society, If not we are not. This definition gives society the ability to determine what is important, While ensuring that everyone receives fair and equal treatment.

There are two issues that usually prevent posting.
One is if you used a hyperlink.

The other is when you use the reply and quote function and leave the italic words of the person you are replying to. Easiest way to get around this is just to delete the previous post in it's entirety when making your reply. You can also just delete everything before THEIRNAME wrote. Another solution is to use the post function rather than the reply and quote function. Or in tandem with if you still want the person to be alerted you are replying to something they wrote.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.