This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
CopperCicada · M
Abrienda · 26-30, F
@CopperCicada It is not axiomatic as you write - the sun rises in the east is axiomatic, being something that is beyond dispute. That is certainly not the case here and you are merely trying to shut down debate without making an argument.
History provides many examples. The complete ruination of Berlin and much of the rest of Nazi Germany in return for the terror it brought to Europe and especially Russia and the expulsion of all Germans from Czechoslovakia after the war are but two indisputable examples of justice being done.
History provides many examples. The complete ruination of Berlin and much of the rest of Nazi Germany in return for the terror it brought to Europe and especially Russia and the expulsion of all Germans from Czechoslovakia after the war are but two indisputable examples of justice being done.
CopperCicada · M
@Abrienda "justice" is a social construct, a fiction, societies perpetuate to communicate that the social contract is intact after a transgression. Beyond that it has no substantial value.
Say a man is murdered. We call it "justice" to put another man, the murderer, in a cage. We call that great virtue. Self congratulate ourselves. Sure. It's good to get the prick off the streets...
But the substantial effect of the murder is entirely unchanged. There is a widow without a husband, kids without a father, parents without a son, colleagues without a team member.
"justice" isn't going to fix that. If anything it seems the promise of "justice" as closure, "justice" as healing, "justice" as a new beginning just makes the horrible reality worse. Husband, father, brother, son-- still gone. Even after the arrest, trial, and sentencing. Even after the murderer was gassed.
That's my experience as a witness to violence and violent ideology in my own life.
Say a man is murdered. We call it "justice" to put another man, the murderer, in a cage. We call that great virtue. Self congratulate ourselves. Sure. It's good to get the prick off the streets...
But the substantial effect of the murder is entirely unchanged. There is a widow without a husband, kids without a father, parents without a son, colleagues without a team member.
"justice" isn't going to fix that. If anything it seems the promise of "justice" as closure, "justice" as healing, "justice" as a new beginning just makes the horrible reality worse. Husband, father, brother, son-- still gone. Even after the arrest, trial, and sentencing. Even after the murderer was gassed.
That's my experience as a witness to violence and violent ideology in my own life.
Abrienda · 26-30, F
@CopperCicada First you misuse the word "axiomatic" to try and make your point, then show you do not understand the concept of "justice" is not a "social construct" but religious in nature(introduced into the West by Plato - the "divine command") and next resort to argument by anecdote which is an invalid argument because your "personal experience" is "by definition" (as you would say)completely subjective,no better a basis to support your position than my personal experience is to support mine. That is why I gave you two objective historical examples which you would/could not answer.
You finished with the equally invalid "appeal to authority" argument: why should we accept your "experience" as authoritative? Again "my experience" is (by definition) purely subjective unless you believe what happens to you (and you alone) is universally true for past, present and future. The only man who made that claim was Jesus Christ and I see no proof that you are he.
I think you should quit while you are behind. Or at least answer my two examples or come up with an argument that doesn't rely only on yourself to prove it valid. Meanwhile, go with God.
You finished with the equally invalid "appeal to authority" argument: why should we accept your "experience" as authoritative? Again "my experience" is (by definition) purely subjective unless you believe what happens to you (and you alone) is universally true for past, present and future. The only man who made that claim was Jesus Christ and I see no proof that you are he.
I think you should quit while you are behind. Or at least answer my two examples or come up with an argument that doesn't rely only on yourself to prove it valid. Meanwhile, go with God.
CopperCicada · M
@Abrienda I guess I missed the notice that we're doing formal philosophy here.
The OP asked a subjective question, and I gave a subjective answer.
Personally I don't feel arguing from the basis of personal experience is problematic in such a context.
We could argue "justice" from the vantage point of Plato's Republic. Or from Mill or Rawls. We could also break down power, equality, and fairness in a post-modern context. But in the end we're back to subjective experience. There's no way around it. The point of philosophy is to make sense of and give meaning to experience. Not dictate, define, circumscribe experience.
God can offer "justice".
Man can not.
Man is fundamentally incapable. That is what makes man-- well, man, and not God. As such, all our talk of "justice" is just euphemisms, constructs, language games.
No. I didn't respond to your examples...
I don't see "justice" in a nation destroyed.
Did the 3rd Reich deserve to be utterly and completely destroyed? Yes. Did those who destroyed it do something virtuous and good? Yes. Was it moral? Yes. But I don't see that as "justice". (That doesn't imply the negative, that it was injustice.)
That evaluation has nothing to do with a reticence to use force to conquer evil. It has nothing to do with pacifism. It has nothing to do with some favoritism, some partisanship, some political correctness. Just the belief that "justice" is impossible.
Back to the dreaded personal experience...
I once used physical violence in self defense. I seriously hurt somebody. I protected myself and others. That was a totally justified act. It was self defense. It was moral, ethical, legal. But not a stick of "justice" to it. (Again, that doesn't imply the negative, that it was injustice.)
No political correctness or political/social nuance to that evaluation. Just the insight that "justice" is an impossibility. Fundamentally so.
And that "fundamentally so" is why I say "axiomatically".
The OP asked a subjective question, and I gave a subjective answer.
Personally I don't feel arguing from the basis of personal experience is problematic in such a context.
We could argue "justice" from the vantage point of Plato's Republic. Or from Mill or Rawls. We could also break down power, equality, and fairness in a post-modern context. But in the end we're back to subjective experience. There's no way around it. The point of philosophy is to make sense of and give meaning to experience. Not dictate, define, circumscribe experience.
God can offer "justice".
Man can not.
Man is fundamentally incapable. That is what makes man-- well, man, and not God. As such, all our talk of "justice" is just euphemisms, constructs, language games.
No. I didn't respond to your examples...
I don't see "justice" in a nation destroyed.
Did the 3rd Reich deserve to be utterly and completely destroyed? Yes. Did those who destroyed it do something virtuous and good? Yes. Was it moral? Yes. But I don't see that as "justice". (That doesn't imply the negative, that it was injustice.)
That evaluation has nothing to do with a reticence to use force to conquer evil. It has nothing to do with pacifism. It has nothing to do with some favoritism, some partisanship, some political correctness. Just the belief that "justice" is impossible.
Back to the dreaded personal experience...
I once used physical violence in self defense. I seriously hurt somebody. I protected myself and others. That was a totally justified act. It was self defense. It was moral, ethical, legal. But not a stick of "justice" to it. (Again, that doesn't imply the negative, that it was injustice.)
No political correctness or political/social nuance to that evaluation. Just the insight that "justice" is an impossibility. Fundamentally so.
And that "fundamentally so" is why I say "axiomatically".