Would you peel the skin off of a newborn baby?

[lightgigantic]

Not objectively. What is justice in one culture is not in another.
Justice is subjective.

justice is relative to power/management
One can only indicate an understanding of justice to the degree that one understands issues of power/management.
For a person who can only perceive relative paradigms of power, justice is a relative phenomena .

The question is however, is a relative understanding of power/management a complete one?

No doubt you will answer that you don't see the truth of such a claim (particularly P2), but perhaps now you can understand how such a claim is rational (there are no fallacies in the way the premises lead to the conclusion)

eg

P1 - justice is relative to power
P2 - there exists an absolute power in the universe (God)
conclusion - therefore there exists an absolute justice

 

[lightgigantic]

Nope.

If the only way I could save humanity was to skin a live baby (according to whatever deity), then humanity would not be worth saving... especially if humanity then went on and venerated the deity.

What about without any issues of deity but just exclusively saving humanity by skinning a baby (eg - suppose there was some scientific finding or biological requirement for such an act)?

 

[Enmos]

justice is relative to power/management
One can only indicate an understanding of justice to the degree that one understands issues of power/management.
For a person who can only perceive relative paradigms of power, justice is a relative phenomena .

The question is however, is a relative understanding of power/management a complete one?

No doubt you will answer that you don't see the truth of such a claim (particularly P2), but perhaps now you can understand how such a claim is rational (there are no fallacies in the way the premises lead to the conclusion)

eg

P1 - justice is relative to power
P2 - there exists an absolute power in the universe (God)
conclusion - therefore there exists an absolute justice

Can you elaborate on P1 and P2 ?
P1: I don't see how exactly justice must be relative to power.
P2: Can you define the absolute power you are speaking off further ? It would be interesting if you could try it without the notion of God involved.
I mean, the universe itself could be viewed as all powerful in some way. In other words substituting God for universe.

 

[lightgigantic]

Can you elaborate on P1 and P2 ?
P1: I don't see how exactly justice must be relative to power.
P2: Can you define the absolute power you are speaking off further ? It would be interesting if you could try it without the notion of God involved.
I mean, the universe itself could be viewed as all powerful in some way. In other words substituting God for universe.

re- P1 a natural consequence of power/management/authority is that certain things are deemed allowable and other things unallowable. issues of justice are discerning what things lie where in regard to the un/allowable - it reflects the will of the authority. For instance it would be pointless to talk of a government that exhibited no controlling influence over its geographical jurisdiction. On the contrary such a phenomena would indicate that the authority wasn't powerful enough to implement their will.

re- P2 the reason I use the word god is because you cannot discuss issues of justice outside of possessing a will. talking of implementing structures of justice without the input of "will" is problematic

 

[Enmos]

re- P1 a natural consequence of power/management/authority is that certain things are deemed allowable and other things unallowable. issues of justice are discerning what things lie where in regard to the un/allowable - it reflects the will of the authority. For instance it would be pointless to talk of a government that exhibited no controlling influence over its geographical jurisdiction. On the contrary such a phenomena would indicate that the authority wasn't powerful enough to implement their will.

So in essence that would mean that justice would change when the one in control is replaced.
In my view that means that justice is not relative to power/control but to the values/morals of the one in power. And this would mean that justice is subjective.

re- P2 the reason I use the word god is because you cannot discuss issues of justice outside of possessing a will. talking of implementing structures of justice without the input of "will" is problematic

I hate to say it but it sounds like you are using God as a cheat to avoid these problems. One should really leave the concept of God out of these kind of discussions since it or it's proposed influence on anything cannot be proven or disproven.

 

[lightgigantic]

Emnos

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
re- P1 a natural consequence of power/management/authority is that certain things are deemed allowable and other things unallowable. issues of justice are discerning what things lie where in regard to the un/allowable - it reflects the will of the authority. For instance it would be pointless to talk of a government that exhibited no controlling influence over its geographical jurisdiction. On the contrary such a phenomena would indicate that the authority wasn't powerful enough to implement their will.
”
So in essence that would mean that justice would change when the one in control is replaced.
In my view that means that justice is not relative to power/control but to the values/morals of the one in power. And this would mean that justice is subjective.

I think I made the comment earlier that justice as an absolute can only extend to the distance that one can discern power/management as an absolute.
If you have a management that doesn't undergo change, you have a justice that also doesn't undergo change

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
re- P2 the reason I use the word god is because you cannot discuss issues of justice outside of possessing a will. talking of implementing structures of justice without the input of "will" is problematic
”
I hate to say it but it sounds like you are using God as a cheat to avoid these problems. One should really leave the concept of God out of these kind of discussions since it or it's proposed influence on anything cannot be proven or disproven.

establishing the rationality of a claim and establishing the truth of a claim are two different things - I mentioned earlier that we were focusing on the former

Personally i don't see where the problem lies - if we are talking about an absolute power that has a will, god is the perfect word for it - in fact you can find different names for god that translate as exactly that - eg abhijnah

 

[Enmos]

I think I made the comment earlier that justice as an absolute can only extend to the distance that one can discern power/management as an absolute.
If you have a management that doesn't undergo change, you have a justice that also doesn't undergo change

You mean God.. I'm sorry but you are using God as a cheat.

establishing the rationality of a claim and establishing the truth of a claim are two different things - I mentioned earlier that we were focusing on the former

I don't see the point in doing such a thing.

Personally i don't see where the problem lies - if we are talking about an absolute power that has a will, god is the perfect word for it - in fact you can find different names for god that translate as exactly that - eg abhijnah

You will see that I left out 'will' purposely.


LG, this isn't going anywhere. I can hardly expect you to give up your notion of God in order to discuss this and vv.
Sorry.

 

[lightgigantic]

“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
I think I made the comment earlier that justice as an absolute can only extend to the distance that one can discern power/management as an absolute.
If you have a management that doesn't undergo change, you have a justice that also doesn't undergo change
”
You mean God.. I'm sorry but you are using God as a cheat.

once again, that is an issue of truth and not logic

rationally it still holds

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
establishing the rationality of a claim and establishing the truth of a claim are two different things - I mentioned earlier that we were focusing on the former
”
I don't see the point in doing such a thing.

the point is that you can discuss logic exclusively with concepts

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Personally i don't see where the problem lies - if we are talking about an absolute power that has a will, god is the perfect word for it - in fact you can find different names for god that translate as exactly that - eg abhijnah
”
You will see that I left out 'will' purposely.

then you have the problem of establishing how justice can function without will

LG, this isn't going anywhere. I can hardly expect you to give up your notion of God in order to discuss this and vv.
Sorry.

once again, discussion of the logic of a claim is a discussion of notions/concepts
If you really think like this, you should have explained yourself differently earlier

Me - do you mean to say there is no rational explanation for how ethics could be objective?
”
You - Unless you can show me otherwise..

 

[Enmos]

once again, that is an issue of truth and not logic
To me, God is not truth. It's a huge part of the problem in this discussion.

the point is that you can discuss logic exclusively with concepts
Well, that's great but you essentially said that you were turning a blind eye to whether or not the outcome of the discussion is true or not.

then you have the problem of establishing how justice can function without will
In the comparison of God with the universe of course.

once again, discussion of the logic of a claim is a discussion of notions/concepts
If you really think like this, you should have explained yourself differently earlier

Me - do you mean to say there is no rational explanation for how ethics could be objective?
”
You - Unless you can show me otherwise..
And you didn't because it can't be done. Not without God that is.

 

[lightgigantic]

once again, that is an issue of truth and not logic
To me, God is not truth. It's a huge part of the problem in this discussion.

then you should have made it a bit clearer at the onset by saying you want to discuss the truth and not the logic of the claim

the point is that you can discuss logic exclusively with concepts
Well, that's great but you essentially said that you were turning a blind eye to whether or not the outcome of the discussion is true or not.

i thought we were discussing whether the discussion was logical or not?

then you have the problem of establishing how justice can function without will
In the comparison of God with the universe of course.

well no - in comparison to management/power in the universe

once again, discussion of the logic of a claim is a discussion of notions/concepts
If you really think like this, you should have explained yourself differently earlier

Me - do you mean to say there is no rational explanation for how ethics could be objective?
”
You - Unless you can show me otherwise..
And you didn't because it can't be done. Not without God that is.

and lo and behold, the definition of god fulfills the logical requirements of the discussion

ok here is a brief discussion of the difference between truth and logic

this is a logical claim
P1 - all horses can fly
P2 - all pigs are horses
concl - therefore all pigs can fly

this is a truthful claim
P1 - It is almost lunchtime
P2 - I am upstairs
concl - therefore today is saturday

yes, logical claims are not necessarily truthful and truthful claims are not necessarily logical
yes, a good argument is both truthful and logical

but you wanted to deal with the logic of such a claim, and we have dealt with it

regarding the issue of justice, do you have anything to add about the logic of the claim or do you want to concede that it is indeed logical?

 

[superluminal]

I hate to harken back to the essence of the poll, and I haven't really read the rest of the posts, but has anyone pointed out that the option "I would peel the skin off a newborn baby just for fun" is missing? This is why I didn't vote.

 

[Enmos]

then you should have made it a bit clearer at the onset by saying you want to discuss the truth and not the logic of the claim

i thought we were discussing whether the discussion was logical or not?

well no - in comparison to management/power in the universe


and lo and behold, the definition of god fulfills the logical requirements of the discussion

ok here is a brief discussion of the difference between truth and logic

this is a logical claim
P1 - all horses can fly
P2 - all pigs are horses
concl - therefore all pigs can fly

this is a truthful claim
P1 - It is almost lunchtime
P2 - I am upstairs
concl - therefore today is saturday

yes, logical claims are not necessarily truthful and truthful claims are not necessarily logical
yes, a good argument is both truthful and logical

but you wanted to deal with the logic of such a claim, and we have dealt with it

regarding the issue of justice, do you have anything to add about the logic of the claim or do you want to concede that it is indeed logical?

Can you put your logical claim in one post for me ? I will decide then.

 

[lightgigantic]

Can you put your logical claim in one post for me ? I will decide then.

at the bottom of post 141

 

[superluminal]

this is a logical claim
P1 - all horses can fly
P2 - all pigs are horses
concl - therefore all pigs can fly

This again? Please pick on some other species once in a while. Flying hippos and cappibaras would be nice.

 

[lightgigantic]

This again? Please pick on some other species once in a while. Flying hippos and cappibaras would be nice.

once again, if you want more variety in my rebuttals you will have to provide more variety in your arguments

 

[superluminal]

once again, if you want more variety in my rebuttals you will have to provide more variety in your arguments

Can I peel your skin off LG?

 

[Enmos]

at the bottom of post 141

P1 - justice is relative to power
P2 - there exists an absolute power in the universe (God)
conclusion - therefore there exists an absolute justice

So you say that to say with certainty that there is a God is logic ?
Will you be upset if I reject that as logic ?

My premise was that objective reality has no intrinsic ethics. I don't know how God came into this.. :bugeye:

 

[lightgigantic]

Can I peel your skin off LG?

no
but you can pull out your hair if it makes you feel better

 

[superluminal]

no
but you can pull out your hair if it makes you feel better

No good my friend. Genetics already did that for me.

 

[lightgigantic]

P1 - justice is relative to power
P2 - there exists an absolute power in the universe (God)
conclusion - therefore there exists an absolute justice

So you say that to say with certainty that there is a God is logic ?

if you are asking about logical arguments for God, yes there are many - but before we move on to them I think we should clear up the argument at hand

Will you be upset if I reject that as logic ?

if you rejected it by irrational means, perhaps

My premise was that objective reality has no intrinsic ethics. I don't know how God came into this.. :bugeye:

given that the topic under discussion is whether objective reality has intrinsic ethics or not, that's kind of begging the question by just slapping a conclusion down bereft of premises.

However a good way to establish your conclusion would be to determine logical faults in my argument