The Logical Impossibility Conundrum
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-06-2015, 04:32 PM
RE: The Logical Impossibility Conundrum
Remember that the word "justice" has no intrinsic meaning. That collection of phonemes in itself doesn't mean anything. So start out at the beginning by being VERY clear about what it is that you will be using that word to mean. If "justice" is defined as the judgement of a divine arbiter then yes, god is just BY THAT DEFINITION. If you want to use the word to mean equal payment for actions then no, god is not just. But you have to set out those definitions at the beginning.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes natachan's post
22-06-2015, 06:13 AM
RE: The Logical Impossibility Conundrum
(09-04-2015 02:53 AM)Mirewood Wrote:  This typically devolves into a conversation about morality. This is a Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. I am typically presented with the false dichotomy of "Devine Command" vs. "Subjective Morality" and am told that without God I have no basis for my Morals. And Since the Christian has the law-maker who sets the standard of right and wrong on their side, they have the upper-hand. If I attempt to describe how my Combination of "Virtue Ethics" and "Utilitarianism" provide me with an objective standard I am told I am mistaken.
judgment.

No, it's not a red herring. Your entire argument about logical impossibility, requires objective morality to be true. You can't say something is contradictory to Justice, to Moral Good, etc.. unless the values here are objective.

Your entire argument attempts to define what these terms would mean, if they were "perfect", and proceeding as if this is given, not recognizing that you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you believe morality is subjective, then you're entire argument can be dismissed before it even begins.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2015, 06:16 AM
RE: The Logical Impossibility Conundrum
(20-06-2015 06:35 PM)Mirewood Wrote:  Yes, many of these definitions share things like 'fairness' and 'equity' but I'm sure they all don't. But, so what? Many humans share the same eye color, it doesn't mean that you have to have this eye color to be human. Therefore a Just system does not require fairness and equity to be considered Just.

The fact that there are justice systems which do not live up to your requirements seems to nullify your claim completely, in the most poetic of ways. And before you ask, I am not going to suggest an alliterative version of justice for you, you have to come up with that."

I find this 'rebuttal' to be utterly asinine, and apart from bashing my opponent over their head with a dictionary, I don't have many good ways to combat such idiocy. This conversation was somewhat Ironic because prior to going down this line of though, the theist claimed that " Justice, to be truly just, has to take into account not just the act perpetrated, but also the environment, the context, the motive, and the intent." To suggest that "Justice isn't always just punishment based on one's own merit" (which is a fundamental misunderstanding of merit). They even went as far as to say that "If someone raped my daughter, and his mother offered to serve the jail time instead of the perpetrator, so that her son could go free, I'd scream, "No fair!" --> which is exactly what Christ's sacrifice provides: A way for sinners to escape the punishment they merit.

Are you saying there are objectively right and wrong answers to what is just or not? That objective moral values exist here?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2015, 08:32 AM
RE: The Logical Impossibility Conundrum
(22-06-2015 06:13 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  ...
No, it's not a red herring. Your entire argument about logical impossibility, requires objective morality to be true.
...


Nope. There is no need to equate justice with morality (unless you are politician lawyer or priest).

Think upon the wisdom of Solomon...

Two 'mothers' claiming a baby ... split the little mite down the middle...

Justice (i.e. fairness)? Certainly. Moral? Most societal norms would say certainly not.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2015, 08:51 AM
RE: The Logical Impossibility Conundrum
(22-06-2015 08:32 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Nope. There is no need to equate justice with morality (unless you are politician lawyer or priest).

Think upon the wisdom of Solomon...

Two 'mothers' claiming a baby ... split the little mite down the middle...

Justice (i.e. fairness)? Certainly. Moral? Most societal norms would say certainly not.

So while you may believe the answer to what is moral, will always be subjective, the answer to what is Just is not, and can be objective?

I don't particularly understand how someone who subscribes to subjective morality, tries to distinguish justice to be different in this regard.

As a believer, I do recognize something in Solomon's judgements, as both wise, and just, but it's a scheme that falls into a belief in objective morality, and that recognition here, which I think may be mutual, is something that I see as supporting my view on objective morality. I don't know how that works if you subscribe to subjective morality, when this would mean there can be no real illogical or wrong answers to what is moral or not, anymore so than what is beautiful. And I see this being extended to the question of what is just as well. That justice is just another subjective scheme, like morality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2015, 08:59 AM
RE: The Logical Impossibility Conundrum
(22-06-2015 08:51 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  ...
So while you may believe the answer to what is moral, will always be subjective,
...

I don't. So the rest of your point is moot.

Drinking Beverage

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
22-06-2015, 09:42 AM
RE: The Logical Impossibility Conundrum
Justice =\= morality. They are often related but they are not the same thing. Justice operates based on certain axioms and rules. While an eye for an eye is just, it is terribly immoral.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2015, 09:51 AM (This post was last modified: 22-06-2015 10:03 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: The Logical Impossibility Conundrum
(22-06-2015 09:42 AM)natachan Wrote:  Justice =\= morality. They are often related but they are not the same thing. Justice operates based on certain axioms and rules. While an eye for an eye is just, it is terribly immoral.

Two eyes for an eye is not just?

Would two feet for an eye be just?

I would think the fairness you're appealing to here, is just a personal estimation. And the axiom and rules being appealed to are primarily in regards to a particular societies legal system.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2015, 10:13 AM
RE: The Logical Impossibility Conundrum
Again, that depends on how you define justice. It usually means equal payment. If I steal one dollar, I pay back that dollar. That is justice. I'm not sure how to quantify feet and eyes since this is more about utility. And if you want to argue that what could be considered equal payment is subjective I have to disagree.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2015, 10:40 AM
RE: The Logical Impossibility Conundrum
(22-06-2015 10:13 AM)natachan Wrote:  Again, that depends on how you define justice. It usually means equal payment. If I steal one dollar, I pay back that dollar. That is justice. I'm not sure how to quantify feet and eyes since this is more about utility. And if you want to argue that what could be considered equal payment is subjective I have to disagree.

Equal payment is not synonomous with justice. Justice is a term, that implies something which is morally right and fair. Justice is a concept that varies widely among cultures, just as morality does. You can say that equal payment for murdering one's family, would be to have your family murdered as well. This would be equal, but some might not consider this just.

But I'm curious if you're saying, that unlike DLJ, you believe that morality is subjective, but justice is not?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: