Topic: What is Justice? (Read 19435 times)

hackess · « **Reply #50 on:** December 09, 2004, 01:21:57 PM »

Quote from: derry

catwritr...i'm pretty sure our present legal/justice system is based on Judeo-Christian ethics??

Ethics? Ethics are non-denominational. I'm an ethical person, but hardly religious.

Our government was created by Deists, not Christians, as my esteemed colleague Demosthenes points out in this thread.

derry · « **Reply #51 on:** December 09, 2004, 01:22:08 PM »

Thanks Catwritr! that's what i'm saying!
....and as we each have individual subjective wants, so to do we have separate views of what is just. therefore, there is no ultimate "truth" or "goodness" associated with justice.
i better end before everyone gets pissed!!

Demosthenes · « **Reply #52 on:** December 09, 2004, 01:24:22 PM »

Quote from: derry

catwritr...i'm pretty sure our present legal/justice system is based on Judeo-Christian ethics??

Not in any way.

In fact, I've always been quite befuddled at where people ever get that idea.

derry · « **Reply #53 on:** December 09, 2004, 01:28:03 PM »

Catwritr,
that was an excellent response

ivan · « **Reply #54 on:** December 09, 2004, 02:27:03 PM »

Quote from: derry

i don't mean to make generalizations...in my mind (even when drinking), what i type seems crystal clear. my statement wasn't "wordy", but what is it i need to argue?
to me, justice exists because of selfishness...plain and simple. i deserve this, i derseve that, this isn't fair, that isn't fair....waaaaa, waaaaa. Also, i understand the need for justice, law, whatever in the present material world, so there's no need to explain. However, it is needed for one simple reason.....we are selfish! Can society function without it?...Yes, but it is impossible until we no longer put ourselves first.
rawls and all the other "experts" realize that even with this "justice", there will be inequalities.....but even they "justify" those inequalites and deem them acceptable? so, what's their point? what have they achieved?it seems silly as hell to me, as nobody is addressing the root cause. sorry if this is being too general?

If you stop putting yourself first, and achieve a state of selflessness in which justice is meaningless, then what does it matter what everyone else does? Let the corporations thrive, and the poor get poorer. The enlightened, selfless few will achieve Nothingness, Oblivion, Nirvana.

The ultimate selfless state is also the ultimate selfish one. They are one and the same.

In the mean time, until you've reached Nirvana (which has eluded all who've tried since the last Buddha), you are living in a world driven by want and pain. In this world, there are great injustices -- hunger, oppression -- and minor injustices. Our nation was founded -- by Deists -- specifically to correct a series of injustices -- both major and minor. Read the Declaration of Independence -- it is a list of complaints against an abusive and oppressive government.

Not only was the US invented to correct injustice, mechanisms were put in place to ensure that those and other injustices stay corrected. We have been more or less successful in holding on to that goal.

All in all, I'd say it's unrealistic to now suddenly re-define what, at its best, the US represents -- a beacon of justice -- and expect everyone to become a Buddhist wrapped in blissful contemplation. People are still arriving here to escape injustice elsewhere. For the poor and oppressed, the US is still the best bet. So rather than dismantle a system just because it's based on a very human desire to be comfortable, why not make it even better so that more people can benefit?

Which is what most people are fighting for -- to make things better, to eliminate hunger, to give everyone a chance for a life of meaning and dignity. Because why? Because the existance of hunger and oppression goes against our sense of what is just.

Derry, your kind of nihilism is cute, in a rebel-without-a-cause kind of way, but it leads nowhere. The real fight is based on mundane principles of right and wrong. The fact that there's disagreement on that account does not mean everything is meaningless. Relativism is a trap leading to amorality. There is such a thing as objective good and objective evil. There is nothing wrong with the conviction that right should prevail over wrong. There is nothing wrong -- and everything right -- about establishing a society based on justice. Our constitution and our legal system are exactly what separate us from the kinds of societies that people flee.

Thank God for lawyers and politicians.

Anonymous · « **Reply #55 on:** December 09, 2004, 02:40:45 PM »

Thanks God? Screw you!

Demosthenes · « **Reply #56 on:** December 09, 2004, 02:41:33 PM »

By the way.........

GIS result for "stupid sexy Flanders":

Anonymous · « **Reply #57 on:** December 09, 2004, 02:42:47 PM »

Oh and it looks like everyone who participated to the thread up to this point gets 50 loot! (Not per post, sorry).

See? I'm not selfish!

ivan · « **Reply #58 on:** December 09, 2004, 02:51:21 PM »

Pff! Loot means nothing to me. I've decided to be a Buddhist.

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #59 on:** December 09, 2004, 02:52:57 PM »

Cmon lemme get in on the action here! I will be at my house in about 2 hours, hopefully the war will still be fought (Or not, depending on your point of view)

ivan · « **Reply #60 on:** December 09, 2004, 02:53:53 PM »

Don't worry about it, you've already lost.

The only winners here are us Buddhists.

derry · « **Reply #61 on:** December 09, 2004, 03:14:15 PM »

excellent post Ivan...seriously.

however, i was merely trying to answer the subject of the post "what is justice?" I may have missed it, but what is the answer?? I find the "justice for All" stuff real cute also...makes me all warm inside.
as stated in the first sentence (Rawls) in the Second Principle of Justice (wooo, that sounds so important!!!!)..."economic and social inequalities are only justified if they benefit all of society, especially its most disadvantaged members." - I just find that incredible funny. Inequality is okay = Justice for All? that's kind of like achieving peace thru war. oh well, i'm sure the same pursuit of justice will be going on a thousand years from now.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #62 on:** December 09, 2004, 03:51:13 PM »

I'm selfless, I give all of my loot to this guy: yxorpbp. Ivan perhaps you should donate all your loot to him too.

And as to the queries in this thread, I think Agnostic Front summed it up best:

"Blind Justice"

So they say they'll set me free
If I plead guilty and let it be
But I'm not the one who did their crimes
So why should I keep taking their jives
I'm done playing all their games
And being titled low life names
When I'm innocent and concerned
Of who I am and what I've learned
I'm not the one who did their crimes

There's no justice, there's just us
Blind justice screwed all of us
There's no justice, there's just us
We need justice for all of us

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #63 on:** December 09, 2004, 04:25:05 PM »

Quote from: derry

however, i was merely trying to answer the subject of the post "what is justice?" I may have missed it, but what is the answer?? I find the "justice for All" stuff real cute also...makes me all warm inside.
as stated in the first sentence (Rawls) in the Second Principle of Justice (wooo, that sounds so important!!!!)..."economic and social inequalities are only justified if they benefit all of society, especially its most disadvantaged members." - I just find that incredible funny. Inequality is okay = Justice for All? that's kind of like achieving peace thru war. oh well, i'm sure the same pursuit of justice will be going on a thousand years from now.

Sometimes I want to smash my own face in with my keyboard.

You are missing the point derry. He says social inequality, like someone making more money than another, is okay if it benefits the most disadvatanged. Do you even understand what that means, or are you simply jumping from one PART of what he said into a false thesis. Don't make a strawman of this, he never said that "Inequality is okay = Justice for all", he said that inequality CAN be just if the result benefits the least advantaged.

Don't take one statement out of context and then blast it apart.

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #64 on:** December 09, 2004, 04:30:03 PM »

How about addressing the points that Rawls makes? I'll even list them right here.

1) First of all, each person would have the most extensive system of rights and freedoms which can be accorded equally to everyone. These include freedoms of speech, conscience, peaceful assembly, and so forth, as well as democratic rights.

2) Secondly, economic and social inequalities are only justified if they benefit all of society, especially its most disadvantaged members. Furthermore, all economically and socially privileged positions must be open to all people equally.

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #65 on:** December 09, 2004, 04:33:07 PM »

Even better, give me your view of what Justice is/isn't using facts. We won't even involve the others, just simply tell me what you feel is wrong with Justice. Oh, no ranting, just give me a point and some evidence.

derry · « **Reply #66 on:** December 09, 2004, 04:33:13 PM »

oh, i fully understand what he's saying. do you?
i'm not missing any point...i read the whole thing.

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #67 on:** December 09, 2004, 04:35:23 PM »

Could you answer my question?

derry · « **Reply #68 on:** December 09, 2004, 04:37:02 PM »

i'll get to it....i'm at work/have distractions.

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #69 on:** December 09, 2004, 04:40:46 PM »

Okie Dokie, I can wait.

derry · « **Reply #70 on:** December 09, 2004, 05:02:48 PM »

I've tried to describe my view of justice. Justice is something that varies from person to person, group to group, etc...it is subjective. It changes constantly, therefore it is impossible for me to define it other than using Webster's, which probably defines it as "fairness" or something. So, let's take fairness.

In Rawls model, who decides what benefits society? who decides which individuals get a better deal?
saying inequality is okay if it benefits others, doesn't really makes sense (although yes, i understand what he's saying). it a wide open statement which prompts other issues like...How much "inequality" is okay?? Again, I thought "fairness" was the point of it all...not inequality or unfairness.

As far as benefiting society, I happen to think a car mechanic is as vital as a "doctor" (in America for sure), or a stay-at-home mom, or school teachers, HVAC repairmen, engineers, farmers, etc., etc. You see the problems that arise? "Fairness" can not be achieved by pursuing it in the manner suggested by Rawls....whoever he is. Oh well, same as it ever was...invariably groups are gonna be thinking they deserve more....and everyone will still be shuffling and bitching about what they ain't got.

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #71 on:** December 09, 2004, 05:10:05 PM »

Quote from: derry

who decides what benefits society? who decides which individuals get a better deal?

All of the people concerned

Oh let me add one thing I forgot to mention from Wiki that you might want to know:

"Specifically, Rawls posits that a just social contract is that which we would agree upon if we did not know in advance where we ourselves would end up in the society that we are agreeing to. This condition of ignorance is known as the original position. In the original position, each person would not know her financial situation, her race, her creed, her religion, or her state of health. From behind this veil of ignorance (to use Rawls' phrase), can we discern the form of a truly just society, since our judgment would not be clouded by knowledge of our own personal interests. Rawls' social contract is ratified in a condition of perfect equality."

This should answer all such questions regarding people choosing in their own interest.

derry · « **Reply #72 on:** December 09, 2004, 06:05:26 PM »

i'll read some more about Rawls, and refrain from ill remarks about him.

that contract is a little interesting, but still seems like a lot of holes and 'what ifs'. for example, what's the value of newly formed jobs? i'll look into it more before i criticize it though. however, i still believe (at this moment) a perfect "just" society is not feasible given present human nature.

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #73 on:** December 09, 2004, 06:11:55 PM »

Turned you to the Rawls side finally? I would think this is just an experiment to find what Justice is so that we can adapt our own model to this "perfect" version. Very interesting book.

xolik · « **Reply #74 on:** December 09, 2004, 06:24:54 PM »

Ahm....Ahm.....Ahm.....Thou hast been granted a vision!

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: What is Justice? (Read 19435 times)

ivan

Anonymous

Anonymous

ivan

ivan