I've thought about arranging my world according to rational maxims, and the principle of being 'just' seems ultimate, moreso than knowledge or maybe even wisdom. I am defining justice as "that everything receives no less, and no more, than what it deserves"
But the statement of taking justice to really be the foremost devotion decoheres because you must impute the function of what someone deserves into the world. If that thing is objectively there, doesn't it imply that "Justice" is not as important as it? If it is not there, then valuing Justice can only come through some other kind of aspirational maxim which, in the first place, accords people of deserving anything, and additionally, of deserving precisely their due.
Thus I am led from this ponderance to reconsider the concept of justice as a virtue, which leads me back to the cardinal virtues of Greek philosophy, Justice, Courage, Prudence, and Temperance. Any way I look at it, it seems even this conception presupposed some higher fact of the matter about what would be just, and Justice was doing that thing.
So we have a few questions, none of which are well-posed at the moment. What are hierarchies of virtue? What is it in Human beings that relates them to virtues? (Motivational states? Rational maxims? Virtuous dispositions? Inclination?) Is there a highest virtue? Can Justice be that thing? Where between the Human and the ideal does 'Justice' lie, semantically?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
When someone uses the word justice It simply means to be a rationality to back up their actions. This justice could range from many things. From going out and attacking someone, to charging them with a fine. Both are just, because both are being rationalized
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." - Michael Shermer
Justice is a bad word in my mind.
Justice can be bought by the rich in a court of law > and rarely afforded by the poor.
A friend of mine copped a nasty head injury from a super rich kid some 15 years ago, which resulted in my friend being unable to work.
> rich kid was ordered to pay out after years of trying to bleed my friend through lawyer attrition > in the end the justice system says it's okay for him to pay in 50-dollar instalments once a month, because he doesn't work, and will never work because he doesn't need to....
Yes, I have missed your point, but Justice in the law system, and what is considered *right and just* have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
Justice is a bad word in my mind.
Justice can be bought by the rich in a court of law > and rarely afforded by the poor.
A friend of mine copped a nasty head injury from a super rich kid some 15 years ago, which resulted in my friend being unable to work.
> rich kid was ordered to pay out after years of trying to bleed my friend through lawyer attrition > in the end the justice system says it's okay for him to pay in 50-dollar instalments once a month, because he doesn't work, and will never work because he doesn't need to....
Yes, I have missed your point, but Justice in the law system, and what is considered *right and just* have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
Taking your story at face value, wouldn't we characterize this as an "injustice" or "miscarriage of justice" given that your friend received less compensation than he deserved? Justice is an ideal to which the legal system aspires, but that doesn't mean the laws and courts are always just.
Justice is a bad word in my mind.
Justice can be bought by the rich in a court of law > and rarely afforded by the poor.
A friend of mine copped a nasty head injury from a super rich kid some 15 years ago, which resulted in my friend being unable to work.
> rich kid was ordered to pay out after years of trying to bleed my friend through lawyer attrition > in the end the justice system says it's okay for him to pay in 50-dollar instalments once a month, because he doesn't work, and will never work because he doesn't need to....
Yes, I have missed your point, but Justice in the law system, and what is considered *right and just* have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
Taking your story at face value, wouldn't we characterize this as an "injustice" or "miscarriage of justice" given that your friend received less compensation than he deserved? Justice is an ideal to which the legal system aspires, but that doesn't mean the laws and courts are always just.
That would imply that his form of justice would be the same as yours. And indeed it isnt because of what he posted.
This thread is talking about a gloppy word that can be used both ways depending on your perspective. I dont see this going anywhere.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." - Michael Shermer
Taking your story at face value, wouldn't we characterize this as an "injustice" or "miscarriage of justice" given that your friend received less compensation than he deserved? Justice is an ideal to which the legal system aspires, but that doesn't mean the laws and courts are always just.
Yes I suppose what you say is fair. I just feel that when people talk about the *justice system*, that a price-tag is usually connected.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
But the statement of taking justice to really be the foremost devotion decoheres because you must impute the function of what someone deserves into the world. If that thing is objectively there, doesn't it imply that "Justice" is not as important as it? If it is not there, then valuing Justice can only come through some other kind of aspirational maxim which, in the first place, accords people of deserving anything, and additionally, of deserving precisely their due.
Thus I am led from this ponderance to reconsider the concept of justice as a virtue, which leads me back to the cardinal virtues of Greek philosophy, Justice, Courage, Prudence, and Temperance. Any way I look at it, it seems even this conception presupposed some higher fact of the matter about what would be just, and Justice was doing that thing.
So we have a few questions, none of which are well-posed at the moment. What are hierarchies of virtue? What is it in Human beings that relates them to virtues? (Motivational states? Rational maxims? Virtuous dispositions? Inclination?) Is there a highest virtue? Can Justice be that thing? Where between the Human and the ideal does 'Justice' lie, semantically?
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
There is no limit to what someone "deserves", there are only limits to what you can provide them based off of scarcity and cost.
Justice can be bought by the rich in a court of law > and rarely afforded by the poor.
A friend of mine copped a nasty head injury from a super rich kid some 15 years ago, which resulted in my friend being unable to work.
> rich kid was ordered to pay out after years of trying to bleed my friend through lawyer attrition > in the end the justice system says it's okay for him to pay in 50-dollar instalments once a month, because he doesn't work, and will never work because he doesn't need to....
Yes, I have missed your point, but Justice in the law system, and what is considered *right and just* have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
Taking your story at face value, wouldn't we characterize this as an "injustice" or "miscarriage of justice" given that your friend received less compensation than he deserved? Justice is an ideal to which the legal system aspires, but that doesn't mean the laws and courts are always just.
That would imply that his form of justice would be the same as yours. And indeed it isnt because of what he posted.
This thread is talking about a gloppy word that can be used both ways depending on your perspective. I dont see this going anywhere.
Yes I suppose what you say is fair. I just feel that when people talk about the *justice system*, that a price-tag is usually connected.