Cmdr. Cracken Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 In order to invoke more intelligent conversation, along with the Zoomy One, This topic will remain on the subject at hand and will not deviate. The question at hand i'd like to try to answer is what is the nature of, and what is, Justice? By justice, i mean the definition of Justice as the greeks would have thought of it, which is Morality, or Right action. What are the right actoins, and what makes them.. well, right? Is there such a thing as right action? To start us off, i quote the Republic, Book I which has a related argument to this question(s) 1) Thrasymachus says that Justice is simply the stronger making thier position more advantageous for themselves. Like Tyrants make lawqs to give themselves an advantage, and dictators, the same. Is this justice? or is there more to it? Again, to invoke meaningful conversation, as this i will watch closly for flame war sparks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pisces Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Being treated fairly in society. That is, being punished (be it an actual punishment laid out for you or a karmic bite in the ass ) for the wrongs you may commit and rewarded/congratulated (whatever) for any good deeds you perform. My views on it, I don't know, I haven't had an intelligent discussion in a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuuki Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Well, most people would agree that there is mroe then just adding those laws that tyrants make not only to set standard of what a typical citizen should follow. But usualy keep fear in the cititzens too, to keep them in line. considering if this 'republic' is controlle by let's say one chancelor but, that just a jokingly remark, of course. continuing on, those laws that give those tyrants the advantage, would of course change their own rules to yet again take that advantage for their own gain. but if you speak of true justice, then that tyrant's rule will eventually come to an end some day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wasslera Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 The dictators changing the laws to suit him and not others is not justice, but manipulation. If these laws are oppressing the people the dictator rules over then they are not the actions of a just man but that of a Cold-Hearted Bastard. The next question is how to bring the Cold-Hearted Bastard to justice. One who is in need of being brought to justice rarely brings himself and must be dragged kicking and screaming by his hair. This simple question brings up more questions of wether you believe in hell or not. If you do, then do you wait and let hell deal out the justice, or do you deal outa bit of your own justice here on earth? If there is no hell, then how do you ensure that the Cold-Hearted Bastard gets what he deserves? but, I've strayed. Justice is simply getting what you deserve, either in this life, or the next, or the afterlife or what have you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoom Rabbit Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Justice was when Applebee's refused my vacation after three years of employment, and then I tossed a piece of salmon into an old fishing boot hanging on the wall on my way out when I quit. Bastards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 By justice, i mean the definition of Justice as the greeks would have thought of it, which is Morality, or Right action. What are the right actoins, and what makes them.. well, right? Is there such a thing as right action? To start us off, i quote the Republic, Book I which has a related argument to this question(s) 1) Thrasymachus says that Justice is simply the stronger making thier position more advantageous for themselves. Like Tyrants make lawqs to give themselves an advantage, and dictators, the same. Is this justice? or is there more to it? justice is something we build up in mind. life itself has no justice and there is no plan or place for so called justice. if it's war, a tyrann, terror attacks, religious differences, a raid, a rape, kidnapping, child abuse, drug delicts, murder, not paying parking tickets, suppressed women, mass murder, .. .. to the one who is doing this and to the one who is trying to judge this concerning any justice/morality.. THINK OF THAT HUGE ASTEROID HEADING TOWARDS EARTH.. he will "bring the justice" and an end to all those concerns.. WHOEVER YOU ARE. and if its not the asteroid the it will be the sun. so i always question myself.. do we WANT to make it? or will another damn species make it? i do WANT.. what's up to you mr. polluter? or you mr. terrorist? or you mr. religious freak? or like that. (peace) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cmdr. Cracken Posted October 1, 2003 Author Share Posted October 1, 2003 So we can now assume that justice, or right action, is an abstract concept? If this concept of Right Action or Justice is mearly based on your own personal definition, and heritage (See Ray's post), how can we ever come to a universal definition of Justice? is it even possible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuuki Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Maybe not, if any certain group of words had mulitple meaning, beasd on when it was spoke, and for what meaning it is intended to, any word would never have a single solitary definition (unless someone decsides to show a word from a dictionary, you're not geting the point ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nute Gunray Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 There is no such thing as Justice. And Socrates, Glaucon, Trasymachus, Polemarchus, and the rest were all douchebags of the highest order. **** you Plato's Republic. **** you in your 18 hour conversation's ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cmdr. Cracken Posted October 2, 2003 Author Share Posted October 2, 2003 um... could you elaborate Nute? I always find your views interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XERXES Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 Justice in my opinion is set by the laws of the country. The laws make the justice I think... Or maybe actions are justified by the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cmdr. Cracken Posted October 2, 2003 Author Share Posted October 2, 2003 XERXES: We can assume whatever country you are in is rulked by humans. if not... then you have other problems. But if it is ruled by people, are people not perfect? isn't there some bias in thier decisions? Yes, people favor certain people over others, or themselves. And since people create the laws, and people are known to be more favorable to others, themselves, or plain wrong, since people are not perfect, the laws therefore could be flawed. Hence, it is possible that the laws are indeed unjust, and justice is lacking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nute Gunray Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 The dictionary tells us that Justice is Fairness. Look out into the world. Is there fairness in the world? No. In nature, there is no such thing. Justice is an artifical construct for whatever reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XERXES Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 then how would you describe nature? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoom Rabbit Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 Originally posted by XERXES then how would you describe nature? The quantum flux of cause and effect acting upon that which we perceive as real? I think that justice is in the eye of the beholder. You will never find a definition of what is just and what isn't that applies to absolutely everyone. Take for example an Israeli attack on Palestine that kills innocent civilians, which is in response to an Palestinian attack that also killed civilians; when the initial beginning of hostilities is lost in history, it's impossible to say which side's attack is justice and which is not. (If either.) So, if someone asks me if an act is just...I have to then ask them, 'According to whom?' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 Originally posted by Nute Gunray The dictionary tells us that Justice is Fairness. Look out into the world. Is there fairness in the world? No. In nature, there is no such thing. Justice is an artifical construct for whatever reason. a short example. you and your familiy take a trip to the turkey. you go for a walk on the beach with your wife and your 3 kids. the kids are collecting some stones they find somewhere on the beach. "oh look daddy, these are nice.. can we keep them?" .. on your way back home you get arrested at the airport for taking "antique" stones out of the country .. which is agains the "law" in the turkey. so the father has to stay "for one day" to make a statement for the police. now he is there for 3 weeks in jail with 12 people who are there for murder n stuff. no shower no daylight no nothing. because three little kids randomly collected stones. STONES. now tell me. how NOT antique can a stone be? i mean.. i saw a picture and i tell you .. it could have been used in a building once.. and it could be not. WHO CARES?? it was found on a common beach where tourists are bouncing 'round all the day long. they were not trying to hide it or something. .. man.. in this case is so many justice happening.. it leaves only one question open.. cant that darn asteroid hurry up a bit?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surfnshannon Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 turns on brain give it a minute....it needs to warm up Ahem, Justice as defined by STTCT... An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. In other words, If someone wrongs you than you have the right to punish them in the same or equal way. Okay that didn't come out right.... Well, what I mean is...Justice is the thought that if somebody wrongs or wrongs a person or does not act justly - that they should suffer the concequences. If someone kills someone, then they should pay for that wrong doing. No I don't think Justice can be given out fairly by people. Especially by those who have been wronged by the person they want to bring to Justice. I think that the only the only one who can bring someone to Justice is the Lord. In the end, those who were not "just" will be dealt with by God and he shall decide the fate. And he's God - so I think he's biased, but I doubt anyone will question his authority up there. Just an opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabez Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 Justice, eh? This is basically a discussion on how to define "good", which has troubled ethic debaters for hundreds of years. The term “good” is wildly overused in many ethical debates, seeing as it is nigh on impossible to define the word without referring to something else to compare it to. Often people try to overcome this by referring to “good” as God’s will, seeing that He is the omnipotent epitome of good, and so therefore whatever He says is the ultimate definition of the word “good”. This, however, proves useless if you are an atheist, as you cannot use God as an example to show what “good” means; and anyway, if you are using God as an example, then aren’t you just comparing the word to something else, and not after all really offering a definitive explanation as to what the word actually means? Aristrotle had a lot to say on the subject of what we should mean by “good”. Firstly, he said that the definition comes from our experience, and not from another source like God: he believed that an object is “good” if it fulfils what our experience says is its purpose. For instance, a knife is good if it can cut well; a chair is good if it allows people to sit down on it. This leads onto the question “what is humanity’s purpose?”, however. Aristrotle thought that our purpose is to reach a state of what he called eudaimonia – namely, to achieve our ambitions and to strive for happiness in our lives. This, however, proves problematic when used in ethical debates, as often the people who are happiest are not the most “good”, or morally right people, for one can achieve happiness through causing suffering to others. Many people will disagree with this, though. In fact, there are many different definitions of the word good, resulting in what it means becoming a simple matter of opinion. Meta-ethicists believe that an ethical discussion can’t take place on a fair basis if what the term “good” means is founded on opinion, however. For example, someone might say something a person did was the “good” thing, because they were following their duty. Another person might interpret the word good as to mean the thing that produces the most loving result, so they might also agree that the person did the “good” thing. What the two people think is in fact very different, even though they both agree that the outcome was “good”. The word is too vague, then, when it comes down to a definite conclusion as to whether you think an ethical action was moral or immoral. Ethical Naturalists think that what is “good” can be proven through natural, analytic, terms, that can also be used in science and maths. You can achieve this through careful observation on the world and its processes. For example, if the outcome of someone’s actions is pleasurable, then they are moral, or “good”. Similarly, if the result is of suffering, then they are immoral. This links to Science and Maths because Ethical Naturalists believe that you can measure pleasure and pain to show what good is. However, can you really measure emotions? For something pleasurable to you may be painful to someone else, and vice versa. In addition, some people get pleasure from immoral acts like torture - does that still fall under the word “good”? G. E. Moore said it was impossible to define “good”, and anyone who did committed Naturalistic Fallacy. He also said that you cannot get an ought from an is, which therefore is saying that you cannot use good in ethical arguments because what good means will also be a matter of opinion (the ought), and since you cannot get an ought from an is, it is impossible to work out what is good from a factual situation. Conversely, you could say that you can define good, because it is something you feel, rather than see; you cannot define good in the same way that you can define the colour blue, that you can still know what good means through humanity’s own interpretation of what is right or wrong. Emotovism doesn’t agree with that, though. They don’t believe you can have a universal definition for what is good. In fact, they believe that all moral statements are opinion, and so are therefore meaningless to use in ethical arguments. Prescriptivism, on the other hand, says that you can know what “good” means by thinking if what you are about to do would be perceived as good if you experience it yourself. It is not always so easy to imagine something happening to you, though, and even if you could, you may share a different opinion to the person you are about to effect, which doesn’t make it a “good” action. Ross developed on Intuitionism to say that what is good is more to do with motive and intention rather than the action itself; if you help someone because you want to be nice, then it is certainly moral. If you only do it because you’re hoping for a reward, though, then it is not defined as “good”. Hence the definition of good according to Ross is someone with noble intentions. In conclusion, most ethical theories believe that you cannot universally define good, and the ones that do run into many problems concerning ethical debates, because everyone has different opinions as to what the word means. This does not, however, mean that ethical debates are impossible, because they are after all centred on people’s opinions, and however hard you may try to achieve a final result on what is moral or immoral, you will never find one due to the constantly changing nature of humanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nute Gunray Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 Originally posted by RayJones a short example. Just so you know, this is also illegal in most parts of the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 yes.. maybe its illegal. maybe. but who will judge the stones lying on the beach and allure little children to get their father arrested? who will judge the children.. they collected these stones, not the father. and who has the right to be the judge in a case of billon years old stones? is this the kind of problem that will lead our society to death and all that? is that the kind of problem which is a problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoom Rabbit Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 Originally posted by Gabez Justice, eh? This is basically a discussion on how to define "good", which has troubled ethic debaters for hundreds of years... (abridged) Heckuva post, stranger. Welcome to *Aresen.* Let me post a question thus: 'What is the difference between justice and vengeance?' I submit that such a question cannot be answered subjectively without using the words good or bad...and both are objective terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyTordesLegend Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 .....that time a guy called me a wanker as I was driving past him, so I swerved towards him and clipped him in the nuts with my wing mirror.....heehe.....JUSTICE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nute Gunray Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 Originally posted by RayJones yes.. maybe its illegal. maybe. but who will judge the stones lying on the beach and allure little children to get their father arrested? who will judge the children.. they collected these stones, not the father. and who has the right to be the judge in a case of billon years old stones? is this the kind of problem that will lead our society to death and all that? is that the kind of problem which is a problem? Who will judge? The Turkish government. Who will judge the children? The Turkish government Who has the right? The owner of the stones, the Turkish government. No, because Turkey is not our society and its not a problem at all. You don't take other people's stuff, whether you know it is or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 Originally posted by Nute Gunray Who will judge? The Turkish government. Who will judge the children? The Turkish government Who has the right? The owner of the stones, the Turkish government. No, because Turkey is not our society and its not a problem at all. You don't take other people's stuff, whether you know it is or not. after all it only a stone. nothing of importance. no drugs no weapons no bodyparts. plus they didnt do it on purpose. its not that they stole something from a museum or picked a brick out of a wall. .. a plain simple stone.. that is what i dont go with.. in my opinion noone has the right to own a stone that way. and the turkey is a society on this planet.. they are human beings like you and me.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Wilson Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 Justice is concept, like commuisum. Both work well on paper, but both are flawed. What is Justice? A way to rule, where the inocent are destroyed along with the guilty. For example a man is accused of Murder. He is not guilty. By the time the trail has finished, the press will have turned him into a monster for a crime he did not commit. Or better yet, he is found guilty and punished. That is justice today What is justice? Money. With money good lawers can be hired, even for the guilty. in some cases bribary can come into effect. That is Justice In short, There is no justice. In tall, There is but its really, really crap. This rant at justice was brought to you by Wilson Industrys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.