How can justice be achieved?
- Thread starter lixluke
- Start date
Simple:
How can justice be achieved?
Without going into detail, justice where people's rights are bieng upheld.
No nitpicking about the term justice.
Simple straight forward justice. Nothing elusive.
Furthermore, answering the question about how to fulfil the objective. How can it be achieved? Why must it be achieved. Practical questions.
Some websites about human rights, freedom, and justice:
http://www.justice.org.uk/
http://www.unitedforpeace.org/
For those of you still in kindergarten, these websites are just examples of the over all feel of what I mean is justice. Justice leaning towards meliorism. They are not the complete definition of justice. So don't come with some garbage like: "Oh so this justice you are pursuing is this and only this." No there is alot of aspects of justice as an objective. Freedom, ability to pursue happiness, enjoyment of life, etc. There are many more aspects to justice, but that is basically the frame of reference the question is pointing at. If you are only here to nitpick and attack definitions, then there is no point in replying to this thread.
How can justice be achieved?
Without going into detail, justice where people's rights are bieng upheld.
No nitpicking about the term justice.
Simple straight forward justice. Nothing elusive.
Furthermore, answering the question about how to fulfil the objective. How can it be achieved? Why must it be achieved. Practical questions.
Some websites about human rights, freedom, and justice:
http://www.justice.org.uk/
http://www.unitedforpeace.org/
For those of you still in kindergarten, these websites are just examples of the over all feel of what I mean is justice. Justice leaning towards meliorism. They are not the complete definition of justice. So don't come with some garbage like: "Oh so this justice you are pursuing is this and only this." No there is alot of aspects of justice as an objective. Freedom, ability to pursue happiness, enjoyment of life, etc. There are many more aspects to justice, but that is basically the frame of reference the question is pointing at. If you are only here to nitpick and attack definitions, then there is no point in replying to this thread.
A. Practical: How can justice be achieved? Why must justice be achieved.
B. Impractical: Why will justice never be achieved?
"Justice" defined as exemplified above.
The reason the A is practical in the pursuit of "justice" is because it opens up the possibility. By pursuing the answer to A, you may or may not directly achieve "justice". If you do not, you continue to pursue it until you do or the universe ends.
By pursuing the answer to B, you will definitely not directly achieve "justice". Therefore, you only perpetuate injustice.
There was a comment on perpetuating injustices for the sake of overall justice. It proposes that for justice in overall society, we should perpetuate certain injustices. That has nothing to do with this thread because the Justice I proposed is meant to be all inclusive.
How can we achieve justice? - meaning justice for all. Justice for the individual.
Not society at the expense of the individual. Not justice for a select few. Not even justice for the majority. That is not what true "justice" is.
Perpetuating injustice is everything the pursuit of justice is attempting to eliminate. The impractical question supports the perpetuation of injustice.
The first step towards the achievement of justice is the practical frame of reference. That means asking such practical questions. Questions relateted to creating a working design towards the objective result. The objective result is a society of justice. A society of justice has the potential to achieve a world of justice.
B. Impractical: Why will justice never be achieved?
"Justice" defined as exemplified above.
The reason the A is practical in the pursuit of "justice" is because it opens up the possibility. By pursuing the answer to A, you may or may not directly achieve "justice". If you do not, you continue to pursue it until you do or the universe ends.
By pursuing the answer to B, you will definitely not directly achieve "justice". Therefore, you only perpetuate injustice.
There was a comment on perpetuating injustices for the sake of overall justice. It proposes that for justice in overall society, we should perpetuate certain injustices. That has nothing to do with this thread because the Justice I proposed is meant to be all inclusive.
How can we achieve justice? - meaning justice for all. Justice for the individual.
Not society at the expense of the individual. Not justice for a select few. Not even justice for the majority. That is not what true "justice" is.
Perpetuating injustice is everything the pursuit of justice is attempting to eliminate. The impractical question supports the perpetuation of injustice.
The first step towards the achievement of justice is the practical frame of reference. That means asking such practical questions. Questions relateted to creating a working design towards the objective result. The objective result is a society of justice. A society of justice has the potential to achieve a world of justice.
This thread is a typical example of circular reasoning.
You suppose that justice can be achieved and then conclude that it can be achieved somehow. All you have accomplished is not contradicting your supposition.
Unlike proof by contradiction, which shows the assumption to be false, NOT arriving at a contradiction does NOT show that your assumption is true.
I'm sorry cool skill, but if you can't understand that much then you're missing a whole lot. Just because your argument doesn't have obvious contradictions doesn't mean its not flawed.
You suppose that justice can be achieved and then conclude that it can be achieved somehow. All you have accomplished is not contradicting your supposition.
Unlike proof by contradiction, which shows the assumption to be false, NOT arriving at a contradiction does NOT show that your assumption is true.
I'm sorry cool skill, but if you can't understand that much then you're missing a whole lot. Just because your argument doesn't have obvious contradictions doesn't mean its not flawed.
Wrong. This thread has nothing to do with circular reasoning. If you think so, you obviously don't know what circular reasoning is.
You are misinterpreting.
I have not made any assumptions. Show me where.
Then show me what you claim to be the correct conclusion.
You are misinterpreting.
I have not made any assumptions. Show me where.
Then show me what you claim to be the correct conclusion.
river-wind
Valued Senior Member
You state that people are misinterpreting. you tell them that they are wrong. But you never explain *why* they are wrong, other than throwing out the word "impractical".
Person A is living in this society. He is safe, happy, fullfilled, and all-around good to go.
Person B is living in this society. He is safe, happy, fullfilled, and all-around good to go.
Person A decides he wants to go on a plane trip. Person B decides the same thing.
Person B decides, halfway through the trip, that he is going to kill everyone on board with a knife, because he hears a voice telling him to do so.
Person B stands up, and announces his plans to everyone, and grabs a steak knife from a dinner tray.
Person A, no wanting to die, and having the right to do whatever he wants, tackles Person B, to prevent him from killing anyone.
Person A grabs for the knife, and in the scuffle, is stabbed. Person A slowly bleeds to death before Person B can be stopped, and medical attention given.
Now. Person B had his right to say he was going to kill everyone
Person B had the right to do the killings
Person A had the right to try and stop him
Person B had the right to prevent Person A from stopping him
Person B had the right to kill Person A
Person A has LOST all of his rights, in that he is now dead.
Person B has now lost all of his freedoms, and he is being detained on a plane by the other passengers. He cannot say what he wants, or do what he wants.
Where did the full freedoms of both Person A and Person B conflict? How might The situation have been prevented in the first place? Could it be done without limiting the rights of either person?
Would a Person living in a perfect society decide to kill? Would this series of events even need to be considered? What about a society in transition; between the world we have now, and the perfect world of the future?
Given that mental illness, something which can be caused by purely chemical factors, can lead to a desire to kill, then society itself would need not be the cause of these killings. If health care was so great that Person B's mental illness was discovered prior to this occurance, how might it be corrected before he boarded the plane?
If it is discovered in time, how might it be dealt with? What if Person B used his freedom to not go to the doctor? Should we force him, for the sake of Person A's rights and freedoms?
These questions must be asked. Not because of impracticality or a negative outlook, but because in order to bring human society toward this utopea you are hoping for, we have to start with today's existance.
And today, we have mentally ill patients on the street due to federal funding cutbacks.
We have religious zealotry resulting in the death of thousands.
We have hunger, illness, anger, hatred
We have food, health, calm, love
We have happiness, joy, simplicity, complexity.
We have sex, drugs, pregnancy, birth, old age.
We won't reach your utopia by simply thinking about life differently. There will need to be serious and fundimental changes to the world of TODAY, and all of its current problems.
How can we begin working towards your goals? And don't say that you've already told me thrity times. Everyone in this thread other than you says that you haven't. So tell me again, in a language that I can understand. You are the teacher here, the onus is on you to teach.
ok. So lets work through a real-world example of this definition of free speech, and its brother, free action.
Person A is living in this society. He is safe, happy, fullfilled, and all-around good to go.
Person B is living in this society. He is safe, happy, fullfilled, and all-around good to go.
Person A decides he wants to go on a plane trip. Person B decides the same thing.
Person B decides, halfway through the trip, that he is going to kill everyone on board with a knife, because he hears a voice telling him to do so.
Person B stands up, and announces his plans to everyone, and grabs a steak knife from a dinner tray.
Person A, no wanting to die, and having the right to do whatever he wants, tackles Person B, to prevent him from killing anyone.
Person A grabs for the knife, and in the scuffle, is stabbed. Person A slowly bleeds to death before Person B can be stopped, and medical attention given.
Now. Person B had his right to say he was going to kill everyone
Person B had the right to do the killings
Person A had the right to try and stop him
Person B had the right to prevent Person A from stopping him
Person B had the right to kill Person A
Person A has LOST all of his rights, in that he is now dead.
Person B has now lost all of his freedoms, and he is being detained on a plane by the other passengers. He cannot say what he wants, or do what he wants.
Where did the full freedoms of both Person A and Person B conflict? How might The situation have been prevented in the first place? Could it be done without limiting the rights of either person?
Would a Person living in a perfect society decide to kill? Would this series of events even need to be considered? What about a society in transition; between the world we have now, and the perfect world of the future?
Given that mental illness, something which can be caused by purely chemical factors, can lead to a desire to kill, then society itself would need not be the cause of these killings. If health care was so great that Person B's mental illness was discovered prior to this occurance, how might it be corrected before he boarded the plane?
If it is discovered in time, how might it be dealt with? What if Person B used his freedom to not go to the doctor? Should we force him, for the sake of Person A's rights and freedoms?
These questions must be asked. Not because of impracticality or a negative outlook, but because in order to bring human society toward this utopea you are hoping for, we have to start with today's existance.
And today, we have mentally ill patients on the street due to federal funding cutbacks.
We have religious zealotry resulting in the death of thousands.
We have hunger, illness, anger, hatred
We have food, health, calm, love
We have happiness, joy, simplicity, complexity.
We have sex, drugs, pregnancy, birth, old age.
We won't reach your utopia by simply thinking about life differently. There will need to be serious and fundimental changes to the world of TODAY, and all of its current problems.
How can we begin working towards your goals? And don't say that you've already told me thrity times. Everyone in this thread other than you says that you haven't. So tell me again, in a language that I can understand. You are the teacher here, the onus is on you to teach.
How so? He created a scenario that has completely nothing to do with what I have said.I will respond to the strange scenario next.
He has not proposed anything related to the topic at hand.
I'm being accused of not explaining, yet I constantly try to make it as clear as possible.
I am talking about possibilty not impossibility. I am talking about apples (ideas about possibilities), you are replying with oranges(reasons for impossibilities).
Furthermore, you would provide an example such as the airplane scenario.
How would you define it's relation to justice? Where did I ever state or imply all those things you spoke of in the scenario?
He has not proposed anything related to the topic at hand.
I'm being accused of not explaining, yet I constantly try to make it as clear as possible.
I am talking about possibilty not impossibility. I am talking about apples (ideas about possibilities), you are replying with oranges(reasons for impossibilities).
Furthermore, you would provide an example such as the airplane scenario.
How would you define it's relation to justice? Where did I ever state or imply all those things you spoke of in the scenario?
Ok, so how will you make the justice and rights of all the persons in the world not collide?
For example, I have a property with the only water source in the area and I use it all to water my gardens.
Behind the fence stand 50 other people dying from thirst, but I refuse to let them in.
It is my property and my right. However from their point of view it's an injustice,
they may decide to storm my house and get the water,
I may electroshock them and kick out of my land.
Of course, the justice is on my side, because it's my property. Justice prevails, I win.
However they may interpret it otherways.
There is not one interpretation of what justice is.
For example, I have a property with the only water source in the area and I use it all to water my gardens.
Behind the fence stand 50 other people dying from thirst, but I refuse to let them in.
It is my property and my right. However from their point of view it's an injustice,
they may decide to storm my house and get the water,
I may electroshock them and kick out of my land.
Of course, the justice is on my side, because it's my property. Justice prevails, I win.
However they may interpret it otherways.
There is not one interpretation of what justice is.
I thought I explained what I meant. Please tell me what it is you do not understand.river-wind said:
As far as the scenario, how does it reflect what I am talking about? Please give me examples of what I said, and how it relates to the scenario.river-wind said:
What does this question mean?river-wind said:
What freedoms? What conflict?
What is you are talking about? I do not understand your scenario.
You gave a hypothetical scenario. Then you give your list of hypothetical rights.
What is your purpose? What is your intention? What are you attempting?
Unless you make it clear, I really cannot make any feasible comment about the scenario.
Please clarify. Please show me what I have stated, and how it relates.
Could the situation have been prevented without limiting the rights? The situation that lead to the conclusion of having a dead person and a captive person? Any situation can and should be done without limiting the rights of a person. Nobody is disputing that.river-wind said:
Please provide an answer about how your situation could have been prevented. I need you to clarify what your point is.
How does it relate to the topic at hand? How would you describe the relevance of your situation?
But I have. Please read the last few posts before yours. I completely define the first step. Then tell me what it is about the definition you are confused about.river-wind said:
Cool Skill: You are alone in this right now. It is more logical for me to assume that the majority are correct here.
Stop evading everyone's questions. They are indeed on point, demonstrating instances where injustice will inevitably occur. Unless you can find a way to solve or get around such situations, your imaginary society can never be made manifest.
If you keep this up, I will have to come to the conclusion that you are intentionally jerking us around.
Stop evading everyone's questions. They are indeed on point, demonstrating instances where injustice will inevitably occur. Unless you can find a way to solve or get around such situations, your imaginary society can never be made manifest.
If you keep this up, I will have to come to the conclusion that you are intentionally jerking us around.
WTF.
Correct about what?
Nobody has even proposed anything that has to do with possibility.
You are doing the following:
Stating that injustice is inevitable. Justice will never be achieved.
Stating that injustice is practical.
Stating that injustice is necessary and is better for everybody overall.
Let's take a look at the impractical frame:
Is injustice inevitable?
Are Injustices/conflicts necessary?
Must there must be injustice.
Must injustice must be intentionally preserved or will injustice be preserved whether we want it or not. => Should we intentionally preserve injustice/Is it practical to intentionally preserve injustice?
Will the existence of injustice be practical for society?
Is the existence of injustice a practical quality of society?
Is a society with more injustice more practical than a society with less injustice?
How much injustice should there be in a society/What is the practical amount of injustice in a society?
Is a society of justice a society with the correct amount of injustice?
Thus far the impractical frame has made no proposition towards the proper course of action. Obviously by very definition, the impractical frame does not make any such proposal.
The practical frame focuses on action.
The impractical frame focuses on nothing.
Therefore, what is the intentional purpose of the impractical frame?
Nobody has yet stated their intentions or purpose for abiding my the impractical frame. That's why it is the impractical frame. There is no practical purpose for it. If anybody disagrees, please explain.
Correct about what?
Nobody has even proposed anything that has to do with possibility.
You are doing the following:
Stating that injustice is inevitable. Justice will never be achieved.
Stating that injustice is practical.
Stating that injustice is necessary and is better for everybody overall.
Let's take a look at the impractical frame:
Is injustice inevitable?
Are Injustices/conflicts necessary?
Must there must be injustice.
Must injustice must be intentionally preserved or will injustice be preserved whether we want it or not. => Should we intentionally preserve injustice/Is it practical to intentionally preserve injustice?
Will the existence of injustice be practical for society?
Is the existence of injustice a practical quality of society?
Is a society with more injustice more practical than a society with less injustice?
How much injustice should there be in a society/What is the practical amount of injustice in a society?
Is a society of justice a society with the correct amount of injustice?
Thus far the impractical frame has made no proposition towards the proper course of action. Obviously by very definition, the impractical frame does not make any such proposal.
The practical frame focuses on action.
The impractical frame focuses on nothing.
Therefore, what is the intentional purpose of the impractical frame?
Nobody has yet stated their intentions or purpose for abiding my the impractical frame. That's why it is the impractical frame. There is no practical purpose for it. If anybody disagrees, please explain.
Yes, yes, and yes. All three are correct.cool skill said:
Absolutely. Whenever two parties come into conflict and one wins, neither win, or when there is a compramise but a party is forced to accept the short end of the stick... there is injustice. When someone does better than someone else, even if that person does so through their own merit... there is injustice. When the government or other people restrict someone else in what they can do... there is injustice. If any of a billion circumstances are reaced, there is going to be injustice.cool skill said:
Absolutely. Nothing is gained without first being taken away from somewhere else. Someone will always feel imposed upon and exploited. Commerce and industry, by their very definition, depends on mutual exploitation.cool skill said:
Yes. Injustice or death.cool skill said:
Intentionally? No. Remove it when it can be done without causing more harm than good. It will still be impossible to remove it all. It is the nature of the universe to exist as much as gravity or electromagnetism, at least provided that there is a source of perspective.cool skill said:
The existence of something is always practical when there is no other choice. Firstly, civilization has continued so far with injustice and is still going strong. Secondly, read my bit about industry and commerce.cool skill said:
In managable doses, its necessary. A massive overdose can kill though.cool skill said:
There is a certain optimal range for a society to sit in. Too much injustice and it rips itself apart. Too little and its stagnant and nothing ever gets done. Its probably safer to stick closer to the too little side of the range, but you still need a little.cool skill said:
Like I said: its a range. Enough to keep things working but less than the amount that starts mass riots and an incapacitating amount of corruption. Somewhere between ancient egypt and soviet russia, I suppose.cool skill said:
A good and healthy civilization, full of vibrancy and strength but not thrown into chaos, has found an equilibrium point.cool skill said:
Accept a little as it is inevitable. Try an minimize it without going to silly, Nader-esque proportions. Get on with your life.cool skill said:
How so? Where is the injustice? Please elaborate what you mean.Clockwood said:
What is your impression of how I defined justice and injustice above?
This again appears to be a misinterpretation of what I am talking about.
I asked if anybody did not clearly understand what I meant, and there was no answer. I am talking about apples, and you are responding about oranges.
You are claiming that a certain amount injustice is necessary. We must ensure that some individuals are hungry, some individuals are oppressed, some individuals are exploited, some individuals are homeless, some individuals are enslaved, some individals are sick, etc.Clockwood said:
We must ensure that some individuals are persecuted despite abiding by the law. We must ensure that some individuals suffer from such persecution without regard to their human rights under law.
If we pursue the elimination of such exploitation, persecution, and injustices, our society would not function well?
To ensure that only the few least fit individuals of society are subject to injustices for the sake of those majority that are more fit.
I'm just trying to get straight on what you are saying.
How does my suggestion about pursuing the elimination of such injustice undermine: "A good and healthy civilization, full of vibrancy and strength but not thrown into chaos, has found an equilibrium point."?
How does ensuring the existence of such injustice make it a good and healthy vibrant civilization?
I have seen nothing convincing in your response about what really is wrong about pursuing the elimination of injustice. Why bother ensuring it's existence.
You claim that there is noting we can do to prevent it from existing.
It's inevitable. There will always be persecution and injustice no matter what we do. Therefore, what?
Aside from the fact that you cannot prove that injustice is inevitable, the reason I call it an argument of impracticality is because there is no course of action attached to it.
Assuming that your insinuation about injustice being inevitable is true, what then? What is the point? Injustice is inevitable. Therefore, what?
Therefore, the pursuit of justice is impractical?
Therefore, not pursuing anything is practical, and we should do nothing?
Therefore, there is no problem anyway, so there is no point in pursuing any change?
Therefore, it is practical to pursue a society ensuring that correct amount of injustice exists few most unfit to suffer for the sake of everybody that is more fit?
I asked what can we do to achieve justice. Such as fullscale plans on the elimination of injustice. You claimed that injustice cannot be eliminated. Therefore, what would you suggest?
Injustice is whenever someone is hurt or slighted without good reason. This can be anything from the enslavement of a culture to a simple mugging on the street. Heck, it can even be somebody charging a few too many cents for a slab of meat from the butcher. An injustice doesn't even need to be comitted by a human being. When a farmer works hard to produce a crop and then a drought ruins it, that is an injustice. Do you blame god?
You don't have to ensure jack squat. As long as we are human, there will be disease. There will be famine. There will be strife. Nothing you or I or anyone besides some mythical god can do anything about it. You can minimize it or you can let it spread but you can never get rid of it entirely.
Your best chance is to fight it on a case to case basis as no one solution will work on more than the slightest fraction of problems. Each solution will be different. In some cases, it will require war that will kill millions... an injustice in itself. In others, it will take so much money that you will have to either raise taxes or cut funding to other very helpful programs... also causing injustice. Some, perhaps the majority, just can't be fixed by man. Trying will bring the Tower of Babel crashing down on your heads.
You have to play your cards right. Any act you take to cure an injustice will also create injustice. You can only hope that you cause less than you fix. But you are doing this blindfolded and you won't even know until decades after the fact.
You don't have to ensure jack squat. As long as we are human, there will be disease. There will be famine. There will be strife. Nothing you or I or anyone besides some mythical god can do anything about it. You can minimize it or you can let it spread but you can never get rid of it entirely.
Your best chance is to fight it on a case to case basis as no one solution will work on more than the slightest fraction of problems. Each solution will be different. In some cases, it will require war that will kill millions... an injustice in itself. In others, it will take so much money that you will have to either raise taxes or cut funding to other very helpful programs... also causing injustice. Some, perhaps the majority, just can't be fixed by man. Trying will bring the Tower of Babel crashing down on your heads.
You have to play your cards right. Any act you take to cure an injustice will also create injustice. You can only hope that you cause less than you fix. But you are doing this blindfolded and you won't even know until decades after the fact.