Your Own Vocabulary
- Thread starter tresbien
- Start date
Im a little confused as to your meaning
Do I think the courts and jails provide justice?
No, i would like to see the whole criminal justice system turned into a mental health system where those who comit crimes are TREATED (or helped depending on why they did it) rather than "punished"
Do I think the courts and jails provide justice?
No, i would like to see the whole criminal justice system turned into a mental health system where those who comit crimes are TREATED (or helped depending on why they did it) rather than "punished"
Why not give us your definition of justice and we can take it from there ?
A complex consideration
Justice is a complex consideration. There are, of course, certain terms upon which many can agree. But words like equal and fair have different meanings. Thus, even if we can agree that justice is found in equality, and justice reflects a condition wherein all are treated fairly, we might still argue about what that equality and fairness means.
A similar conundrum presents a challenge to the concept of morality. While many might agree that morality is determined by God, there are disagreements about what constitutes God, or which revelation is genuine. Additionally, there are those who would argue that there is no God. In the end, the notion of morality seems, at its philosophical core, subjective.
I, personally, disagree with both. I believe the keys to morality can be identified and, hopefully, eventually affirmed by studying the practical trinity of Life, the Universe, and Everything. No, not the book by Douglas Adams, but the whole of existence. So morality, for me, has a theoretical, practical basis.
And this is where a practical definition of justice begins to emerge. Justice and morality, in their practical, theoretical states, are intertwined. What is equal or fair is not always apparent. There are those in the United States, for instance, who would say that Affirmative Action is fair, while others would point out that assigning bonus points for one's sex or ethnicity is inherently unequal. As long as the debate revolves around those polar assertions, it will go nowhere. To the other, considering the idea of Affirmative Action in its dynamic context, one can see fairly easily that the idea was a temporary fix, a philosophical bandage, a device intended to help society move toward justice, toward a condition of equality and fairness.
At present, justice has an intuitive definition, and that doesn't do much for those who would demand a specific answer. But in the first place, no specific answer will suffice. Specific answers tend to be static, and no static definition can accommodate the dynamic context of the human endeavor. In American history, we can mark certain steps toward justice: the Declaration of Independence and its revolutionary aftermath; the emancipation of slaves; women's suffrage; progress toward Civil Rights equality. But that progress is best defined by its sociopolitical trajectory away from injustice. The idea of true justice, a proper standard that can be fulfilled, is at present a holy grail of sorts. The imperfections of any static standard for justice become more apparent the closer we get to fulfilling it. And perhaps we will not know justice until we get there, but it is a beautiful notion and a hopeful proposition for our human species. Justice will help protect and preserve our endeavor to ensure our posterity in the Universe.
Justice is a complex consideration. There are, of course, certain terms upon which many can agree. But words like equal and fair have different meanings. Thus, even if we can agree that justice is found in equality, and justice reflects a condition wherein all are treated fairly, we might still argue about what that equality and fairness means.
A similar conundrum presents a challenge to the concept of morality. While many might agree that morality is determined by God, there are disagreements about what constitutes God, or which revelation is genuine. Additionally, there are those who would argue that there is no God. In the end, the notion of morality seems, at its philosophical core, subjective.
I, personally, disagree with both. I believe the keys to morality can be identified and, hopefully, eventually affirmed by studying the practical trinity of Life, the Universe, and Everything. No, not the book by Douglas Adams, but the whole of existence. So morality, for me, has a theoretical, practical basis.
And this is where a practical definition of justice begins to emerge. Justice and morality, in their practical, theoretical states, are intertwined. What is equal or fair is not always apparent. There are those in the United States, for instance, who would say that Affirmative Action is fair, while others would point out that assigning bonus points for one's sex or ethnicity is inherently unequal. As long as the debate revolves around those polar assertions, it will go nowhere. To the other, considering the idea of Affirmative Action in its dynamic context, one can see fairly easily that the idea was a temporary fix, a philosophical bandage, a device intended to help society move toward justice, toward a condition of equality and fairness.
At present, justice has an intuitive definition, and that doesn't do much for those who would demand a specific answer. But in the first place, no specific answer will suffice. Specific answers tend to be static, and no static definition can accommodate the dynamic context of the human endeavor. In American history, we can mark certain steps toward justice: the Declaration of Independence and its revolutionary aftermath; the emancipation of slaves; women's suffrage; progress toward Civil Rights equality. But that progress is best defined by its sociopolitical trajectory away from injustice. The idea of true justice, a proper standard that can be fulfilled, is at present a holy grail of sorts. The imperfections of any static standard for justice become more apparent the closer we get to fulfilling it. And perhaps we will not know justice until we get there, but it is a beautiful notion and a hopeful proposition for our human species. Justice will help protect and preserve our endeavor to ensure our posterity in the Universe.
But what does that mean?
As to the latter, what constitutes alike? Do specific circumstances get consideration, or is it a more general version of alike? In other words, is "speeding" the same if you're rushing your wife to the hospital to deliver a baby as it would be if you were just driving fast for the hell of it as it would be if you were racing a friend? Is dealing drugs the same if you were caught dealing drugs as it would be if you were simply convicted of possessing multiple containers? Is "drunk driving" the same if you registered a 0.01% BAC and were arrested on officer's discretion as it would be if you registered a 0.16% (e.g., twice the legal limit)?
To the other, if two people are found guilty of murder, do you treat the crime of passion the same as the drive-by shooting the same as the guy who believed, but failed to appropriately demonstrate, that he was defending himself?
As to fidelity to declared rule, perhaps it's a fine line to tread, but I refer you to a recent blog entry by New York Times contributor Stanley Fish:
Justice is blind, but what of fidelity? If the declared rule was that Americans commit treason by objecting to the Iraqi Bush War, should the courts abide?
From these questions, I would then propose, in consideration of the contexts of the answers, broader examination of other notions of justice: socioeconomic, political, &c.
____________________
Notes:
Fish, Stanley. "Does Constitutional Theory Matter?" Think Again. NYTimes.com. January 27, 2008. See http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/does-constitutional-theory-matter/index.html
Iceaura said:
As to the latter, what constitutes alike? Do specific circumstances get consideration, or is it a more general version of alike? In other words, is "speeding" the same if you're rushing your wife to the hospital to deliver a baby as it would be if you were just driving fast for the hell of it as it would be if you were racing a friend? Is dealing drugs the same if you were caught dealing drugs as it would be if you were simply convicted of possessing multiple containers? Is "drunk driving" the same if you registered a 0.01% BAC and were arrested on officer's discretion as it would be if you registered a 0.16% (e.g., twice the legal limit)?
To the other, if two people are found guilty of murder, do you treat the crime of passion the same as the drive-by shooting the same as the guy who believed, but failed to appropriately demonstrate, that he was defending himself?
As to fidelity to declared rule, perhaps it's a fine line to tread, but I refer you to a recent blog entry by New York Times contributor Stanley Fish:
Justice is blind, but what of fidelity? If the declared rule was that Americans commit treason by objecting to the Iraqi Bush War, should the courts abide?
From these questions, I would then propose, in consideration of the contexts of the answers, broader examination of other notions of justice: socioeconomic, political, &c.
____________________
Notes:
Fish, Stanley. "Does Constitutional Theory Matter?" Think Again. NYTimes.com. January 27, 2008. See http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/does-constitutional-theory-matter/index.html
Justice is the justifiable consequences of the Natural Universe. If a car hits someone by accident, it was ultimately justifiable because it happened. Nothing happens that is not justifiable, or else it couldn't happen. This is the non-slogan version...the real thing!
The slogan version is when man tries to assume responsibility for maintaining justice, which clearly is out of his control...(hint hint: how much huge scaled crime has our world been exposed to and is still being exposed to?). However, this does not make the effort unworthy, for without a justice department criminal offenses would increase greatly. The best the department can hope to achieve is to deter injustice as much as possible.
Also...since the first paragraph holds to...then justice is always served...just not always by the same group of people...as Nature itself can serve up justice (that is, nature need no justification, it is always justified). Difficult as this may be to understand, even when a criminal acquires a vast sum of money by fraudulence, he is somehow justified...by the fact that in the future he will pay even more then he took and that he was helping to make someone else pay, because they at one time took more then they should. Then whole set of reactions involving how justice works is amazingly one of the most complex set of reactions in existence.
These are some quranic verses on justice.Pls comment on them justly and unbiasly.
O ye who believe! Stand out firmly For justice, as witnesses To Allah, even as against Yourselves, or your parents, Or your kin, and whether It be (against) rich or poor: For Allah can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (Of your hearts), lest ye Swerve, and if ye Distort (justice) or decline To do justice, verily Allah is well-acquainted With all that ye do. (The Noble Quran, 4:135)"
"O ye who believe! Stand out firmly For Allah, as witnesses To fair dealing, and let not The hatred of others To you make you swerve To wrong and depart from Justice. Be just: that is Next to Piety: and fear Allah. For Allah is well-acquainted With all that ye do. (The Noble Quran, 5:8)"
"But if anyone earns A fault or a sin And throws it on to one That is innocent, He carries (on himself) (Both) a falsehood And a flagrant sin. (The Noble Quran, 4:112)"
"Allah commands justice, the doing Of good, and liberality to kith And kin, and He forbids All shameful deeds, and injustice And rebellion: He instructs you, That ye may receive admonition. (The Noble Quran, 16:90)"
"...Help ye one another In righteousness and piety, But help ye not one another In sin and rancour: Fear Allah: for Allah Is strict in punishment. (The Noble Quran, 5:2)"
"And if ye do catch them out, Catch them out no worse Than they catch you out: But if ye show patience, that is indeed the best (course) For those who are patient. (The Noble Quran, 16:126)"
There is a mistranslation: The Arabic word for "ye do catch them out" is "aaqabtum" which literally means "punish" or "to punish". The correct and more accurate translation is as follows:
"And if ye punish, then punish as ye were punished (by them). But if ye show patience, that is indeed the best (course) For those who are patient. (The Noble Quran, 16:126)".
I like u all regradless to u beliefs
O ye who believe! Stand out firmly For justice, as witnesses To Allah, even as against Yourselves, or your parents, Or your kin, and whether It be (against) rich or poor: For Allah can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (Of your hearts), lest ye Swerve, and if ye Distort (justice) or decline To do justice, verily Allah is well-acquainted With all that ye do. (The Noble Quran, 4:135)"
"O ye who believe! Stand out firmly For Allah, as witnesses To fair dealing, and let not The hatred of others To you make you swerve To wrong and depart from Justice. Be just: that is Next to Piety: and fear Allah. For Allah is well-acquainted With all that ye do. (The Noble Quran, 5:8)"
"But if anyone earns A fault or a sin And throws it on to one That is innocent, He carries (on himself) (Both) a falsehood And a flagrant sin. (The Noble Quran, 4:112)"
"Allah commands justice, the doing Of good, and liberality to kith And kin, and He forbids All shameful deeds, and injustice And rebellion: He instructs you, That ye may receive admonition. (The Noble Quran, 16:90)"
"...Help ye one another In righteousness and piety, But help ye not one another In sin and rancour: Fear Allah: for Allah Is strict in punishment. (The Noble Quran, 5:2)"
"And if ye do catch them out, Catch them out no worse Than they catch you out: But if ye show patience, that is indeed the best (course) For those who are patient. (The Noble Quran, 16:126)"
There is a mistranslation: The Arabic word for "ye do catch them out" is "aaqabtum" which literally means "punish" or "to punish". The correct and more accurate translation is as follows:
"And if ye punish, then punish as ye were punished (by them). But if ye show patience, that is indeed the best (course) For those who are patient. (The Noble Quran, 16:126)".
I like u all regradless to u beliefs
It is interesting to see quotes from the Qu'ran. Allah's name appears many times. In the bible it is the name God that appears as the Highest of High. I tend to mix these as I use words like Natural Universe to describe what someone else might use God or Allah to describe. Since the name of this thread is: Your Own Vocabulary....I thought it might be a good idea to consider how many names and titles there are for God, Allah, The Universe, Krishna, the Almighty, etc, etc. One of my personal favorites is Kali...but that depicts God as a female.
So...how many names can we derive from different cultures and cultural perspectives to describe God or the Universe?
Can we make a list?
So...how many names can we derive from different cultures and cultural perspectives to describe God or the Universe?
Can we make a list?
Allah (, ) is the standard Arabic word for "God". The term is best known in the West for its use by Muslims as a reference to God. Arabic-speakers of all faiths, including Christians and Jews, use the word "Allah" to mean "God". The Muslim and Christian Arabs of today have no other word for 'God' than 'Allah'. In pre-Islamic Arabia, Allah was used by pagan Meccans as a reference to the creator-god, possibly the supreme deity.
See more at Wikipedia.org...
http://www.babylon.com/definition/Allah/English
Dear JOE , ALLAH HAS BEAUTIFUL NAMES.Would u mind reading them dear reader
See more at Wikipedia.org...
http://www.babylon.com/definition/Allah/English
Dear JOE , ALLAH HAS BEAUTIFUL NAMES.Would u mind reading them dear reader
I would enjoy that! It should prove valuable in making comparisons and deepening understanding. Could you post them in the thread entitled:
"Allah" is the god of the christians, muslims, and jews
since it appears that the thread "Who is the Prophet Mahommed" has vanished,
that the thread in bold writing above is obviously related to Allah and his names,
and that the thread above doesn't look like it is going to vanish.
there is NO justice for most people in the UK, example, when a child can get attacked and almost killed on her way home from school by two "girls" and the courts find them not guilty by association, it is a piss take, they ahd CCTV evidence aswell.
justice is a joke, courts are built because they have to been seen to be doing somthing about criminals. what a laugh though!
and why shouldn't itbe?
there is justice in this forum, just not what you call justice
We Christians certainly DO NOT EVER use the word "Allah". We may use "Abba" which means "father" but NEVER "Allah"--the god of the muslims.
prove it
Mod Hat - Oh, for the love of ....
Mod Hat — Oh, for the love of ....
Um, yeah—
—what PJ said.
Except here's the thing, Sandy: You cannot prove it. In fact, you are exactly wrong. This particular ignorant assertion of yours is a digression best suited for the Religion forum. So keep it out of EM&J. Seriously, I'm aware that you don't like how some people regard you. So take a note: you're not helping yourself.
I will clear the issue up here and now, that we might move on with the topic at hand:
Life goes on.
(A note for PJ: Sorry to spoil the fun. I have no general objection to a bit of cat and mouse from time to time. But this discussion is tenuous enough as it is. I like the general theme about defining justice. And while religiously-derived assertions are, to a point, fair game, this is a pure digression that could, theoretically, carry on infinitely. But, yes—I, too, smiled at the punch line.)
Mod Hat — Oh, for the love of ....
Sandy said:
Um, yeah—
PJdude1219 said:
—what PJ said.
Except here's the thing, Sandy: You cannot prove it. In fact, you are exactly wrong. This particular ignorant assertion of yours is a digression best suited for the Religion forum. So keep it out of EM&J. Seriously, I'm aware that you don't like how some people regard you. So take a note: you're not helping yourself.
I will clear the issue up here and now, that we might move on with the topic at hand:
Associated Press. "Malaysia backpedals on Allah ban for Christian paper, renews its permit". IHT.com. December 31, 2007. See http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/12/31/asia/AS-REL-Malaysia-Allah-Ban.php
Life goes on.
(A note for PJ: Sorry to spoil the fun. I have no general objection to a bit of cat and mouse from time to time. But this discussion is tenuous enough as it is. I like the general theme about defining justice. And while religiously-derived assertions are, to a point, fair game, this is a pure digression that could, theoretically, carry on infinitely. But, yes—I, too, smiled at the punch line.)