|REPLY TO THIS THREAD QUICK REPLY START NEW THREAD|
|Showing posts by Fvgfff Ffff in this thread (2 posts by Fvgfff Ffff out of 40 total posts in the thread)|
|... 12 additional posts not shown due to thread length.|
Mar 31, 12 at 10:52pm ^re: Justice
Log in to remove this advertisement
Simply observe the animal world to better understand. It is divided unto two general spectrums - the strong and the weak. The strongest survive, take, and rule; the weak conversely die, lose, and are ruled. As I've explained already, men do not adhere to such primitive and animalistic notions because we are the 'higher being'. "Abominable" acts are observed quite everywhere within our world, and I would presume the entire universe - killing and stealing is quite the normalcy in our world - if a Lion were to kill a Gazelle for consumption, it would not be put on trial so to speak, nor would a Lion be subjected to confinement if it were to steal food from another. This is simplistic and primitive instinct - there is no such notion as Justice embedded within the animals(which is essentially what the human race is) mindset. But Justice would have us complicate things and assume equality and when no such things are truly evident. The justice as we would know it is not a primitive nor is it an embedded principle. It is simply an imposed notion constructed by man.
|posts in thread|
|The Blazing Shadow|
Apr 6, 12 at 10:05pm ^re: Justice
"I don't think you get to decide Fvgfff Ffff what is "inherently Just" let alone make claims that "relative sentences, argumentation and counsel, and societal notions" do not constitute as justice. There are many ways justice can be implemented. Eye for an eye is not the only way."
Initially before I delve unto my retorts I would first like to apologize if you took animosity or dislike with the tone of my writing. I may at particular points come off as aloof and as such people may take unnecessary offense. If this was the case with you, then take this as my apology, and one in advance if it still persist. Anyway, these discussions are not about who possesses the authority to do or say things. It is about stressing philosophical notions publicly - no, I do not get to 'decide' what the universal notion of just is though I can certainly express it philosophically. If you take issue with this then you may be discussing in the wrong section of the forums.
Yes, there are many notions of true Justice and there are ample ways they can be expressed and observed. However, I feel the eye for an eye is the most objective form of fairness and thus Justice that we can conceive, in regards to action of course. If you feel you have a better and more objective notion than do please share. People all around the world have senses of Justices that are solely to their benefit, their experiences, their culture - but strictly speaking it is not objective. Relative Justice is not Justice. Justice plays no discrimination. If you rob, and in turn are robbed from, you have been given your fair share and thus Justice has been served. Not if you are robbed, your culture states to kill, then Justice has thus been served. Killing does not equate to theft in the sense that they are not identical - equal due has not been achieved in such a scenario.
But even the dimmest can see the problem of such a notion. The one that robbed another must thus be robbed, and that one robbed, and that one robbed, etc. until eventually everyone is stolen from, and thus what we have is true Justice. But true Justice does not exist nor is it as pertinent. This is where Mercy comes into play for us as humans. I'll be brief here and say that the correlation between Justice and Mercy is a strong one. The most pertinent I feel would be the latter. In a third-person perspective humans clamor for Justice(Treyvon Martin, Casey Anthony, etc. - whether these two people and their respective cases are simply conjecture do not matter for my points) until they themselves have committed an act of injustice. Then we as humans, at the moment of truth, would cry for Mercy at the hands of Justice. If one kills of premeditation he himself does not want to be inentionally killed. Even though I value objectivity, I still agree with that sentiment.
Ha, in regards to the "let alone make claims that relative sentences, argumentation and counsel, and societal notions do not constitute as justice" - I don't see too much of the problem. Let me elaborate on this a little more since you take issue with those statements: All of the above are relative. It is fairness to what man would constitute as fair. Subjective notions are so ambiguous that they're useless to cling to or implement when expressing philosophically. Their notions of Justice are opinions. I'm sorry that you feel what Society told you was Justice is indeed Justice. I'm sorry that thinking independently than what you see and hear is Justice is something you would disagree with. I'm sorry that what you adhere to whatever the Judicial System told you was Justice. I've said it before and I'll say it again, fairness is simply giving one their equal due. Though even though that in itself is relative I feel it is the most primitive and thus the most objective. There is no complication or relativeness is such a sentiment. To iterate, I'd love to see if you had a more objective and primitive notion to express than I.
"And arguably, argumentation and counsel is necessary to ensure that people are not abusing eye for an eye mentality. It removes reactionary justice...ie vengeance from the equation. Vengeance and justice are not the same thing."
For further notice, I'd appreciate it if you defined or elaborate on what you mean by 'abusing the eye for eye mentality', specifically the abuse portion. If you are prescribing what I've stated above(the cycle of true justice) then I feel I've pretty much addressed that. Also define 'reactionary' Justice if you will, too.
If you mean reactionary Justice in the sense of feeling, i.e emotion, then such a thing is a personal issue and has no dealings with Justice itself. Recall that the notion of Justice I prescribed does not discriminate. If one feels that someone deserves something that they themselves have not reaped, then what they thus have is relative Justice, and it is not interconnected to the Justice I am defining. The Judicial system would only aid in such a Scenario that the one who witnessed an act of injustice does not take it upon himself to commit injustice to the one he saw committing an act of injustice. But then we go unto the cycle of the Juicial System - what they decide to their relative sentences, their argumentation and counsel, this is what they feel is appropriate consequence to the one who initially committed the act of injustice. The key here is feel. What they 'feel' holds no worth in the face of objectivity.
"And I actually think you're wrong that its just a notion imposed by man. Its far more then a notion, and is central to humanity. Through out recorded history, we see society after society attempting to have some sort of justice involved in their society.Here is an article you might want to read, Title: Sense of Justice Built Into the Brain, Imaging Study Shows"
The link to the Scientific study poses no relevancy in regards to the concept of Justice and its complications, which yes, are indeed created by man. Let be break this down for you simply: their brains reacted to what they felt was unfair treatment or erroneous financial distribution. And, perhaps I am wrong here as I skimmed the irrelevant portions of that link, but they were drugged also and thus their reactions changed. In that case it reinforces my point and proves that the human brain is readily susceptible to outside interference and such a notion is not primitive but merely a generated idea. Either way, it still does not change the relativeness of such notions, nor does it make their interpretation of Just universal. The entire context of the article can be turned on its heel with simply observing some obscure cultures or conducting the experiment in a different context. Take someone from a Buddhist(if anyone reading this is Buddhist and notes that I have said something wrong then please do correct me)culture in the context of that experiment. Buddhist do not immediately take things that are of free-will given to them, for they believe they will re-live their lives until they have payed off that 'debt', and so they must be asked in a different manner in order to accept some of the offering. If someone whom the buddhist considers equal happens to receive some money and wants to divvy the money, and states 'I will split this money with you. Would you like to have half of this money?' then the Buddhist would obviously reply with a 'No'. But if the person persist and states something along the lines of 'It would truly fill me with happiness if you took at least 10% of this money', and the Buddhist replies 'Yes', then no such emotional reactions that the men experienced in your link would occur nor would I believe they would have a specific correlation to injustice in their brains. Thus there we have established that what the men and women considered injustice in that experiment is not absolute, and therefore is not 'ingrained/wired within our brains' as you put it.
"Its not just some notion, we are wired for it. Fairness isn't some notion, its a need that we humans have. And justice systems help meet that need."
1)I've explain why I disagree with such a notion and reinforced it with logic.
2)Fairness is a need, now?! Surely you jest. At this point I feel like you need to take a step back and look at the real world. Guiltless people are sent to prison daily. Innocent bystanders simply minding their own business are killed for no good reason. People in social media are judged off of political position instead of merit. Children in this country who are born to unfortunate circumstances possess no food whatsoever and yet we are the land of the most Obesity. Injustice is observed everywhere within our world all of the time, and yet you feel like humans as a collective possess a need for it? Please! It's an Egoist society we live in. Surely you realize at least this much. Though there are many advocates of what they consider to be 'fair' behavior, it still reaches nowhere.
3)The Judicial System employs Societies notion of Justice, which, as I've heavily demonstrated, is both completely relative in nature and bears no absoluteness whatsoever. Not only is it imperfect, it is ineffective, and prays and panders to social status, political power, and for the less fortunate, how good of a public offender you have. Ergo, we are left with the last statement of my initial post, Justice is simply an imposed notion enforced by man to assume equality when it, in fact, does not exist. And you say this is the engraved Justice within us humans?
|posts in thread|
|The Blazing Shadow|
|[All dates in (PST) time]||Threads List « Next Newest Next Oldest »|
|REPLY TO THIS THREAD QUICK REPLY START NEW THREAD|
Powered by neoforums v3.0.0
Copyright Neo Era Media, Inc. 1999-2016