1 2 3 4 5
Posted: 11/1/2006 1:51 AM
Quote
Zurreco
Former player
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
xoinx wrote:
Zurreco wrote:
No one wants their property stolen? What about social communists?
Well, to be exact, social communists believe that everything belongs to the state, hence the property isn't quite theirs to begin with.
To be fair, I was grasping for a quick way to complete a second example. I did the same with using Utopians in my justice example.
hi nitrodon streamline: cyn-chine
Posted: 11/1/2006 2:45 AM
Quote
Bob_A
Joined: 2/12/2006
Posts: 432
I think the problem is that i'm trying to argue (1) that there's an objective standard of justice by definition, while you trying to argue (2) that subjective opinions can't possibly form the basis of an objective standard. Is this right?
Posted: 11/1/2006 4:16 AM
Quote
JSmith
Joined: 8/1/2006
Posts: 428
Bob A wrote:
I think the problem is that i'm trying to argue (1) that there's an objective standard of justice by definition, while you trying to argue (2) that subjective opinions can't possibly form the basis of an objective standard. Is this right?
I think that any human standard of justice starts off subjective pretty much by definition. However, if we keep the same standards for long enough, it becomes a tradition that is considered immutable, and cannot be affected by anyones point of view. It is then an objective standard. Standards of justice that are not human in origin may be objective for the same reason, even though most of us would consider most such standards blatantly unjust.
Trying 127.0.0.1... telnet: connect to address 127.0.0.1: Connection refused telnet: Unable to connect to remote host
Posted: 11/2/2006 7:08 AM
Quote
Zurreco
Former player
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
I don't that there is a 'standard of justice', since there is no high authority that governs everything everywhere. Unless you want to claim that the tag team efforts of Physics and Chemistry are entities that can pass judgement, which I would accept on the grounds that they are so non-opinionated that they only baffle on what can and can not happen/exist, not on how we should value things. Yes, Bob A, I think that you're trying to create an entity (justice) that operates objectively out of a series of subjective standards. It isn't logical. Otherwise, people would start dictating that reality exists only in the ways that they personally see it, and that everyone who doesn't see it their way (read: everyone) is perpetrating against the law of the universe.
hi nitrodon streamline: cyn-chine
Posted: 11/2/2006 3:56 PM
Quote
Bob_A
Joined: 2/12/2006
Posts: 432
Good, but that's not what i'm doing. I'm postulating that the contents of justice can be found in human nature, which is fairly immutable for the time being. In any case, as i've said before, justice is objective by definition, so it seems that what you're arguing isn't so much that justice is subjective, but that it doesn't exist or is irrelevant.
Posted: 11/2/2006 4:21 PM
Quote
upthorn
He/Him
Emulator Coder, Active player (388)
Joined: 3/24/2006
Posts: 1802
Sega TAS of 2011 Sega TAS of 2010 Sega TAS of 2008 Sega TASer of 2007
Personally, I've long been of the opinion that 98% of the time, when people talk about "Justice", the word they meant was "Revenge".
How fleeting are all human passions compared with the massive continuity of ducks.
Posted: 11/2/2006 5:37 PM
Quote
Zurreco
Former player
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
Bob A wrote:
In any case, as i've said before, justice is objective by definition, so it seems that what you're arguing isn't so much that justice is subjective, but that it doesn't exist or is irrelevant.
I think you're putting words in my mouth I don't think justice is objective by its definition, since it is based off of the personal bias of those that promote their version of justice. You can't create something that is objective out of something that is subjective. The application of justice may be egalitarian, but the spirit of justice is not. Otherwise, there would be one universal law for all mankind that we can all agree on, and it's applications would be blind to all non-extenuating status.
hi nitrodon streamline: cyn-chine
Posted: 11/2/2006 11:59 PM
Quote
Bob_A
Joined: 2/12/2006
Posts: 432
I didn't say that's how you'd describe it, i said that's what it seems to be (that is, how i would describe it). Anyway, you're just proposing your own definition, which is completely different from the concept i was talking about.
1 2 3 4 5