NationStates Jolt Archive

What is justice? How can one determine whether some action (or response, or state of being) is just?

I ask because of something that arose in a different thread.
If you don't understand the concept by now, you are horribly developmentally disabled, and I'm afraid there's nothing I can do for you.
I had asked for an explanation of justice, and this is the response I got.

Of course, I deem this response wholly inadequate. If someone understand's something, he should be able to explain it to others. One's inability to explain it demonstrates an apparent lack of understanding oneself.

This is all a corollary to my broad assertion: If something is knowable, it's learnable from a book.

I'm not saying a book is necessarily the best way to learn any given thing, but the information necessary must be writeable, else is fails to be information.

So, would anyone care to take a shot at what Dempublicents declined to do? What is justice?

This is all a corollary to my broad assertion: If something is knowable, it's learnable from a book.
I'm not saying a book is necessarily the best way to learn any given thing, but the information necessary must be writeable, else is fails to be information.


This doesn't really address your central question about justice, but I think your assertion above is highly problematic. There are many phenomenological things that are knowable only through experience, and not vicarious description (from a book or otherwise). Human emotions, for one.

one of the best answers to the question I have seen is not to define justice, but to point out how difficult it is to define:

The Ten Commandments were made for man alone. We should think it strange if they had been made for all the animals.

We should say "Thou shalt not kill" is too general, too sweeping. It includes the field mouse and the butterfly. They can't kill. And it includes the tiger, which can't help it.

It is a case of Temperament and Circumstance again. You can arrange no circumstances that can move the field mouse and the butterfly to kill; their temperaments will ill keep them unaffected by temptations to kill, they can avoid that crime without an effort. But it isn't so with the tiger. Throw a lamb in his way when he is hungry, and his temperament will compel him to kill it.

Butterflies and field mice are common among men; they can't kill, their temperaments make it impossible. There are tigers among men, also. Their temperaments move them to violence, and when Circumstance furnishes the opportunity and the powerful motive, they kill. They can't help it.

No penal law can deal out justice; it must deal out injustice in every instance. Penal laws have a high value, in that they protect -- in a considerable measure -- the multitude of the gentle-natured from the violent minority.

For a penal law is a Circumstance. It is a warning which intrudes and stays a would-be murderer's hand -- sometimes. Not always, but in many and many a case. It can't stop the real man-tiger; nothing can do that. Slade had 26 deliberate murders on his soul when he finally went to his death on the scaffold. He would kill a man for a trifle; or for nothing. He loved to kill. It was his temperament. He did not make his temperament, God gave it him at his birth. Gave it him and said Thou shalt not kill. It was like saying Thou shalt not eat. Both appetites were given him at birth. He could be obedient and starve both up to a certain point, but that was as far as he could go. Another man could go further; but not Slade.

Holmes, the Chicago monster, inveigled some dozens of men and women into his obscure quarters and privately butchered them. Holmes's inborn nature was such that whenever he had what seemed a reasonably safe opportunity to kill a stranger he couldn't successfully resist the temptation to do it.

Justice was finally meted out to Slade and to Holmes. That is what the newspapers said. It is a common phrase, and a very old one. But it probably isn't true. When a man is hanged for slaying one man that phrase comes into service and we learn that justice was meted out to the slayer. But Holmes slew sixty. There seems to be a discrepancy in this distribution of justice. If Holmes got justice, the other man got 59 times more than justice.

But the phrase is wrong, anyway. The word is the wrong word. Criminal courts do not dispense "justice" -- they can't; they only dispense protections to the community. It is all they can do.

justice is a figment of our imaginations. sometimes someone has a conception of it that many other people agree with and then some people who can write make laws out of it. most of the time everyone has a different idea of what it entails, especially after someone has gone to the trouble of writing the original one down.

Justice is that which restores right where there was wrong. In practice, this is generally technically impossible; you can't undo a murder, so instead you seek a sort of karmic balance, by depriving the murderer of his life in return for that which he took. Unfortunately, the logical extension of this concept of justice, which is appealing on its surface for its simplicity and ease of understanding, is "an eye for an eye", which in practice becomes quite barbaric and ends up crossing the line from justice to vengeance. Justice, therefore, is something that must be arbitrated by a neutral party. Justice is the restoration of right through the actions of someone without a stake in the matter and who, therefore, can be ensured to make the decision fairly. Justice is more complicated than mere evening the score, but it is also the only way to ensure that the score is actually evened. Justice levels; vengeance escalates.

IIRC, I went back and changed that post because it sounded too harsh. But the fact remains that concepts of justice, much like emotional growth, are generally formed during childhood. Someone who has reached adulthood and does not have a grasp of these concepts missed something along the way in emotional, moral/ethical, and conceptual development.

To be just is to impartially determine the appropriate course of action when a grievance is brought before you. In the law, it could refer to ensuring that the legal consequences of an action are appropriate for the offense and that such consequences are meted out impartially.

Giving out a life sentence to a 17-year old who ran a red light would not be appropriate, but a fine certainly would be. And that fine should be the same for any person who commits the exact same crime.

Ignoring circumstance is not just. Treating a man who killed another in self defense in the same manner as one who acted in cold blood would not be just and this is true no matter what ethnicity/religion/etc. either of them are.

What is justice? How can one determine whether some action (or response, or state of being) is just?

I ask because of something that arose in a different thread.

I had asked for an explanation of justice, and this is the response I got.

Of course, I deem this response wholly inadequate. If someone understand's something, he should be able to explain it to others. One's inability to explain it demonstrates an apparent lack of understanding oneself.

This is all a corollary to my broad assertion: If something is knowable, it's learnable from a book.

I'm not saying a book is necessarily the best way to learn any given thing, but the information necessary must be writeable, else is fails to be information.

So, would anyone care to take a shot at what Dempublicents declined to do? What is justice?

Why don't you define it?

Really, you should read Plato's Republic. There you can see how hard it can be to define justice. Hell, Plato (speaking as Socrates) had to build an entire city to get to the point.

But Dempublicents1 has a point. You know what the word means. Putting it into a strict definition will always have its problems, as Plato shows quite well (read his various dialogues of definition; he makes it a real bitch to define things). Something like justice is basically what Epicurus called Prolepseis, ie preconceptions. If I say "man," you don't need a definition; you know what I mean. Justice is essentially the same way.

Sorry, I dig ancient philosophy. It's amazing how it still manages to be (rarely) useful. For instance, as far as anything knowable being found in books...read Plato's Meno. They debate whether or not virtue can be learned (and defined...). We know what virtue is, but can it be learned from books, or truly taught? If not, how do we know what it means?[/boring stuff]

I suppose none of that actually answered anything, huh?

This doesn't really address your central question about justice, but I think your assertion above is highly problematic. There are many phenomenological things that are knowable only through experience, and not vicarious description (from a book or otherwise). Human emotions, for one.
I would argue that human emotions aren't knowable, thus satisfying my claim.

Why don't you define it?
I can't. I'm working from a position of total ignorance on this one.
Really, you should read Plato's Republic. There you can see how hard it can be to define justice.
But if people don't know what it is, how the entire legal system claim to be based on it?
But Dempublicents1 has a point. You know what the word means.
If I knew what it meant, I could write it down and share it with everyone. I could reduce it to a univerally applicable maxim. But I can't - therefore, I don't know what it means.
Something like justice is basically what Epicurus called Prolepseis, ie preconceptions. If I say "man," you don't need a definition; you know what I mean. Justice is essentially the same way.
Preconceptions are irrational. You can't know something without having first learned it.
Sorry, I dig ancient philosophy. It's amazing how it still manages to be (rarely) useful. For instance, as far as anything knowable being found in books...read Plato's Meno. They debate whether or not virtue can be learned (and defined...). We know what virtue is, but can it be learned from books, or truly taught? If not, how do we know what it means?[/boring stuff]
That's fair. I'm a fan of Socrates (but not Aristotle).

Justice is that which restores right where there was wrong. In practice, this is generally technically impossible; you can't undo a murder, so instead you seek a sort of karmic balance, by depriving the murderer of his life in return for that which he took. Unfortunately, the logical extension of this concept of justice, which is appealing on its surface for its simplicity and ease of understanding, is "an eye for an eye", which in practice becomes quite barbaric and ends up crossing the line from justice to vengeance.
How can you tell where that line is?

Plus, once the murder has been done, killing the murderer doesn't do anyone any good. Without some actual benefit to someone, isn't punishing him necessarily vengeance?

By your description, no one benefits from the meting of punishment, so why do it? You're just harming someone to no end, and that strikes me as evil behaviour. Punihsment only makes sense if there's some measurable benefit that results.

IIRC, I went back and changed that post because it sounded too harsh.
That's a current quote.
But the fact remains that concepts of justice, much like emotional growth, are generally formed during childhood.
Explain that one to me. Are you suggesting that the concept of justice is intuitive, and people simply know it without having learned it anywhere?

Because I broadly deny the existence of intuitive knowledge.
Someone who has reached adulthood and does not have a grasp of these concepts missed something along the way in emotional, moral/ethical, and conceptual development.
What is it they've missed? And, again, if you haven't missed it, can't you simply explain it to them?

I'm not asking that you impart value of justice to these people, just tell them what justice is. Whether they come away actually caring about justice is immaterial; I want to know if you can explain the term well enough that they know what the hell you're taking about.
To be just is to impartially determine the appropriate course of action when a grievance is brought before you. In the law, it could refer to ensuring that the legal consequences of an action are appropriate for the offense and that such consequences are meted out impartially.
That strikes me as more related to fairness than justice, except for the standard of appropriateness. What do you mean by appropriate?

Can I tell what you would deem appropriate, or does that require an understanding of justice first? Is it justice that determines what's appropriate?
Giving out a life sentence to a 17-year old who ran a red light would not be appropriate, but a fine certainly would be. And that fine should be the same for any person who commits the exact same crime.
Those are just examples, so they both fail to serve as definitions and lack any justification. What's just about those?
Ignoring circumstance is not just. Treating a man who killed another in self defense in the same manner as one who acted in cold blood would not be just and this is true no matter what ethnicity/religion/etc. either of them are.
But what about that is or isn't just? Given a new situation for which you haven't provided an example, how can I tell what you will consider just? You must know this, because you're able to apply whatever standard you're using to new situations as they arise.

This is what I'm asking. Can you describe justice in a way that I can apply broadly?

Justice is fairness...but what is fairness? Fairness is equality...but what is equality? Equality is balance...but what is balance?

I sound like Polonius...

My point...take a Philosophy or Law course, because I don't know. :p

Or go with your gut. What is justice to you?

I can't. I'm working from a position of total ignorance on this one.

Have you been living under a rock your whole life?

But if people don't know what it is, how the entire legal system claim to be based on it?[/qutoe]

People do know what it is, although, much like with everything, there are disputes over the particulars.

[quote]If I knew what it meant, I could write it down and share it with everyone. I could reduce it to a univerally applicable maxim. But I can't - therefore, I don't know what it means.

Are you at all aware of reality? Do you really think that everyone has to agree with you for you to be correct? Wasn't it you who argued that FGM is wrong no matter what anyone else thinks?

That's a current quote.

Odd. The edit must not have gone through, then.

Explain that one to me. Are you suggesting that the concept of justice is intuitive, and people simply know it without having learned it anywhere?

I'm suggesting that the concept of justice is part of a person's mental development. It will certainly be affected by the culture in which that person lives and their own experiences - just as all conceptual understanding is. But even animals with less cognitive ability have some concept of fairness and justice.

What is it they've missed? And, again, if you haven't missed it, can't you simply explain it to them?

No. Much like emotional development, this is a concept that is largely formed by personal experience. I cannot give you personal experience. I can explain my own to you, but that won't really define the concept for you, as your experiences have been different.

That strikes me as more related to fairness than justice, except for the standard of appropriateness. What do you mean by appropriate?

You cannot have justice without fairness.

And by appropriate, I mean appropriate. You really seem to need a dictionary.

Tell me this, if a child steals a toy from his friend's house, what should a parent do?

Can I tell what you would deem appropriate, or does that require an understanding of justice first? Is it justice that determines what's appropriate?

You can tell what you would deem appropriate. I can tell you what I would deem appropriate. When you get enough opinions, the truth is likely to lie somewhere in between the extremes.

What do you think is the appropriate action for a parent to take when a child steals a toy from his friend's house? What if that same child physically assaults another child?

What do you think is appropriate action for society to take when someone steals from another? When someone rapes another? When someone murders another?

Are you really going to pretend that you have no framework with which to answer these questions?

Those are just examples, so they both fail to serve as definitions and lack any justification. What's just about those?

Some things are best explained by example.

But what about that is or isn't just?

The fact that it is completely unreasonable to treat two vastly different situations in the same manner.

Given a new situation for which you haven't provided an example, how can I tell what you will consider just?

You compare it to the old examples.

If I give you 10 examples of addition, what do you do when I give you a new problem you haven't seen before?

This is what I'm asking. Can you describe justice in a way that I can apply broadly?

I already have.

My point...take a Philosophy or Law course, because I don't know. :p
I already have a degree in that.
Or go with your gut. What is justice to you?
I have no reason to trust my gut.

I already have a degree in that.

In philosophy? And you never discussed the concept of justice? Please tell me what university you went to so I can be sure not to trust any degree from it or ever send my kids to it.

I have no reason to trust my gut.

Then you have no reason to believe you exist at all. *Poof* This conversation is useless because you simply don't exist.

Have you been living under a rock your whole life?
No. I learn in a rational and systematic way, and I deny that any other means actually results in knowledge. Justice isn't something for which I've yet found an adequate definition.
People do know what it is, although, much like with everything, there are disputes over the particulars.
So you know. So tell me.
Are you at all aware of reality? Do you really think that everyone has to agree with you for you to be correct?
Of course not. Whether people agree with you is entirely irrelevant. The world exists independently of your opinions regarding it.

I do think that if we disagree, at most one of us is correct. We cannot both be correct unless we disagree.
Wasn't it you who argued that FGM is wrong no matter what anyone else thinks?
FGM?
I'm suggesting that the concept of justice is part of a person's mental development. It will certainly be affected by the culture in which that person lives and their own experiences - just as all conceptual understanding is. But even animals with less cognitive ability have some concept of fairness and justice.
And I'm suggesting that if you have a coherent concept of justice you can write it down and teach it to others.

Simply throwing the word around without an explicit definition makes any argument that appeals to it entirely meaningless (and wholly unpersuasive).
No. Much like emotional development, this is a concept that is largely formed by personal experience. I cannot give you personal experience. I can explain my own to you, but that won't really define the concept for you, as your experiences have been different.
It will define your concept to me.
You cannot have justice without fairness.
That's helpful. That's a universal maxim.
And by appropriate, I mean appropriate. You really seem to need a dictionary.
I know what appropriate means generally, but it's interpretive. Whether one thing or another is appropriate can't be learned from the dictionary defintion of the word. There's more to the concept as you're using it; there has to be, else your appeal to it is a complete non sequitur.
Tell me this, if a child steals a toy from his friend's house, what should a parent do?
That's depends if I've established rules for that.

If not, I'll return the toy and explain what the consequences for future similar infractions will be. If he does it again, I will subject him to exactly the penalty I described. By offering consistent, predictable punishment, I'm both being fair and providing an opportunity to learn about consequences.
You can tell what you would deem appropriate. I can tell you what I would deem appropriate. When you get enough opinions, the truth is likely to lie somewhere in between the extremes.
But why do you deem appropriate that which you deem appropriate? And why do you think the truth lies somewhere within the set of publicly held opinions? You've jumped to that conclusion.
What do you think is the appropriate action for a parent to take when a child steals a toy from his friend's house? What if that same child physically assaults another child?

What do you think is appropriate action for society to take when someone steals from another? When someone rapes another? When someone murders another?
See above. Penalties in keeping with previously described guidelines. To do otherwise would fail the test of fairness.
Are you really going to pretend that you have no framework with which to answer these questions?
Beyond my appeal to fairness, yes. Again, if you have a framework you can explain to me why one penalty is appropriate while another is not, and you can give me the tools to do that myself should I come across an action or penalty with which I was previously unfamiliar.
Some things are best explained by example.
Patently false. Examples are instantial. Definitions are universal. Instances are not universally generalisable.
The fact that it is completely unreasonable to treat two vastly different situations in the same manner.
If it's unreasonable, what are your reasons for thinking so?
You compare it to the old examples.

If I give you 10 examples of addition, what do you do when I give you a new problem you haven't seen before?
Wait for more information. Without broadly applicable maxims, I can't tell if one example is relevantly similar to another without them being identical.
I already have.
No you haven't.

In philosophy?
The philosophy of law, specifically.
And you never discussed the concept of justice?
Of course we discussed it. I eventually deemed the term meaningless because no one could define it.
Then you have no reason to believe you exist at all. *Poof* This conversation is useless because you simply don't exist.
If I failed to believe I exist, that would not require either than I didn't exist or that I believed I didn't exist.

Your grasp of logic seems to come and go.

I cannot fully define justice, but I have come to the conclusion that the most significant part of justice is truth. There can be no justice without there first being truth.

your problem is you assume everything has a definition that can be applied to it. I challenge you to adequatly define yellow

your problem is you assume everything has a definition that can be applied to it. I challenge you to adequatly define yellow
Yellow is the hue of the portion of the visible spectrum lying between orange and green, evoked by radiant energy with wavelengths of 570 to 590 nanometers.

How's that?

Yellow is the hue of the portion of the visible spectrum lying between orange and green, evoked by radiant energy with wavelengths of 570 to 590 nanometers.

How's that?

horrible. I don't mean I want the wavelength of yellow light.

I mean, tell me, define for me, what the color yellow looks like.

Snow is just ice.

Yellow is the hue of the portion of the visible spectrum lying between orange and green, evoked by radiant energy with wavelengths of 570 to 590 nanometers.

How's that?That is an incomplete definition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Additive_color
It should be noted that additive color is a result of the way the eye detects color, and is not a property of light. There is a vast difference between yellow light, with a wavelength of approximately 580nm, and a mixture of red and green light. However, both stimulate our eyes in a similar manner, so we do not detect the difference. (see eye (cytology), color vision.)edit: which brings up the point. Does light have colour independent of our perception of it? If not, then your definition is entirely lacking.

No. I learn in a rational and systematic way, and I deny that any other means actually results in knowledge.

So infants don't learn anything?

Justice isn't something for which I've yet found an adequate definition.

That probably has to do with the fact that you want other people to explain it to you, rather than looking for it yourself.

So you know. So tell me.

I have.

Of course not. Whether people agree with you is entirely irrelevant. The world exists independently of your opinions regarding it.

And yet people still disagree. None of us knows for sure, on many matters, who is right and who is wrong, although we continue to try and determine it.

The same is true with justice. It is as I defined it, but people disagree on the particulars. None of us can say with absolute certainty that any one of us is right.

I do think that if we disagree, at most one of us is correct. We cannot both be correct unless we disagree.

I'll assume that second disagree was a typo?

FGM?

Female genital mutilation. Must not have been you.

And I'm suggesting that if you have a coherent concept of justice you can write it down and teach it to others.

I wrote it down in my first post in this thread, and then provided examples.

I know what appropriate means generally, but it's interpretive.

I thought "Whether people agree with you is entirely irrelevant. The world exists independently of your opinions regarding it." If this is true, then matters of interpretation simply represent a case in which someone is wrong and someone else isn't. There is a single appropriate action, whether we know what it is or not.

That's depends if I've established rules for that.

How will you establish those rules?

If not, I'll return the toy and explain what the consequences for future similar infractions will be.

How will you establish those consequences? What should they be?

How "similar" does the "similar infraction" have to be to receive the exact same consequence? How will you determine that? What should it be?

But why do you deem appropriate that which you deem appropriate?

Why does anyone deem appropriate that which they deem appropriate? Why do you deem appropriate that which you deem appropriate?

And why do you think the truth lies somewhere within the set of publicly held opinions? You've jumped to that conclusion.

Because it is generally true. When there are a set of publicly held opinions, the truth nearly always lies somewhere in between the extremes.

See above. Penalties in keeping with previously described guidelines. To do otherwise would fail the test of fairness.

You are intentionally avoiding the real question here. How do you create the guidelines in the first place?

Beyond my appeal to fairness, yes.

How can you be fair if you haven't first deemed an appropriate response? How can you fairly apply rules that you haven't yet determined?

My question wasn't how you would apply the rules, but what the rules are in the first place. What should the consequence for a child stealing a toy be? What about assaulting another child? What should the consequence for an adult stealing be? Raping? Murdering?

You think that there should be rules. Good. Now what should the rules be?

Again, if you have a framework you can explain to me why one penalty is appropriate while another is not, and you can give me the tools to do that myself should I come across an action or penalty with which I was previously unfamiliar.

An appropriate penalty fits the severity of the crime and serves to help prevent said crime from occurring again. While running a red light can be a danger to others, and thus merits a response, it is unlikely to result in actual harm and generally does not have the intent of harm. In fact, if it does result in harm, there are (appropriately) other laws which apply. Rape causes harm. It isn't simply endangering another, but actual harm has been done - and has been done deliberately. The person who commits rape has caused a great deal of harm and is a danger to others. As such, the penalty is much more severe than that of running a red light.

Patently false. Examples are instantial. Definitions are universal.

LOL! That is such a ridiculous statement that it almost doesn't warrant a response. Surely you are aware of the evolving nature of language? That a single word may mean quite different things to two different people, and that this is simply an aspect of language?

Instances are not universally generalisable.

Instances are all we have. Every given situation is different, and must be treated as such.

If it's unreasonable, what are your reasons for thinking so?

The fact that it is true. It is unreasonable to take two very different situations and treat them in the same manner.

Why does a doctor test and treat a patient differently when one set of symptoms is present than when another set of symptoms is present?

Wait for more information. Without broadly applicable maxims, I can't tell if one example is relevantly similar to another without them being identical.

Out of curiosity, are you autistic or something similar? I don't mean this as an insult. It just seems that you view the world in a way so dissimilar from most people that it's almost impossible to relate to you.

No you haven't.

Yes, I have. I gave you a definition in my first post in this thread. You simply want to take the lazy way out and wait for me to tell you what you have to figure out on your own.

Of course we discussed it. I eventually deemed the term meaningless because no one could define it.

You mean that no one could define it in a way that didn't leave you to do at least some of the work?

Is something which you have to figure out for yourself always meaningless?

If I failed to believe I exist, that would not require either than I didn't exist or that I believed I didn't exist.

Is this another typo? If you fail to believe you exist, then you don't believe you exist. And, if you cannot trust your own gut - your own senses and experiences, as it were - then you have no reason at all to believe you exist.

Do you believe that you exist?

Yellow is the hue of the portion of the visible spectrum lying between orange and green, evoked by radiant energy with wavelengths of 570 to 590 nanometers.

How's that?

Can all people see yellow? Is it "visible" to everyone? What defines the "visible spectrum" other than what most people can see?

Does everyone see "yellow" in the same way? If you were to somehow begin to sense things through my senses, would you see "yellow" differently? Would it, perhaps, look like "green" to you - based on your own experiences?

Justice is one part legal redress for committed wrongs, and one part base emotional satisfaction of redress of perceived wrongs. There's the legal/rational side of justice, and the instinctual side of justice. People are more than calculators made of flesh and bone; there's an emotional part intrinsic to humanity that you can't say doesn't exist simply because you can't define it.

I would argue that human emotions aren't knowable, thus satisfying my claim.

You can know emotion without being able to define it. 'Knowing' is simply a matter of experience.

I would argue that human emotions aren't knowable, thus satisfying my claim.

That seems to be another long bow drawn in support of another. Human emotions unknowable? I suppose I'd need to ask what it is exactly you mean by "know"; but anger? fear? affection? Everyone "knows" and recognises these things because they are a part of the human condition.

It seems to me that your argument is circular: only "knowable" things can be described, because only things that can be fully described can be "known".

Justice, my dear, is relative.

(You have no idea how much that pains me to admit, but sometimes there's no way around it)

The problem with defining justice is that our language is limited, but the best definition I can come up with is that justice is the act of restoring fairness and equality, of taking a wrong and making it as right as it can be made. And yes, I do believe in objective right and wrong, without which justice has very little meaning.

So "Justice" is to take something that is wrong, and to make it right. So to understand justice requires an understanding of what is wrong and what is right.

As for what right and wrong are, they're harder to define than Justice.

Justice is fairness...but what is fairness? Fairness is equality..
Based on what?

Justice, my dear, is relative.

(You have no idea how much that pains me to admit, but sometimes there's no way around it)

No it isn't.

Justice is, broadly speaking, giving to a rational being that which he or she deserves, and refraining from giving to a rational being that which he or she does not deserve.

The application of justice is relative, because people's perceptions of what others deserve and do not deserve is colored by inadequate knowledge, emotion, socialization, etc., but that is a definition that applies in all circumstances at all times. Granted, skeptical considerations leave us never entirely sure we are acting justly, but I can't really think of a situation in which that definition does not apply to an external and eternal standard of justice.

Justice is, broadly speaking, giving to a rational being that which he or she deserves, and refraining from giving to a rational being that which he or she does not deserve.

Similarly, I can declare that bachelors, broadly speaking, are unmarried.

all of us die and all of our works come to dust. the sun rises on all of us, and diseases know no preference. that is justice. everything else is a petty, stupid human construction. outside of the reality of the natural world, justice is a subjective, arbitrary concept used to justify our own whims and selfishness. I find the adage "Justice is blind" to be a very apt statement, though not in the way most people mean it.

Similarly, I can declare that bachelors, broadly speaking, are unmarried.

have you done large-scale empirical research on this subject? what was your survey method?

You can know emotion without being able to define it. 'Knowing' is simply a matter of experience.
If you can't define it, how do you know that you know it?

The problem with defining justice is that our language is limited, but the best definition I can come up with is that justice is the act of restoring fairness and equality, of taking a wrong and making it as right as it can be made. And yes, I do believe in objective right and wrong, without which justice has very little meaning.

So "Justice" is to take something that is wrong, and to make it right. So to understand justice requires an understanding of what is wrong and what is right.

As for what right and wrong are, they're harder to define than Justice.

More complex than just equality, instead from my point of view, justice is a form of balancing. It's an art, not a science, very subtle, very complex.

No it isn't.

Justice is, broadly speaking, giving to a rational being that which he or she deserves, and refraining from giving to a rational being that which he or she does not deserve.

The application of justice is relative, because people's perceptions of what others deserve and do not deserve is colored by inadequate knowledge, emotion, socialization, etc., but that is a definition that applies in all circumstances at all times. Granted, skeptical considerations leave us never entirely sure we are acting justly, but I can't really think of a situation in which that definition does not apply to an external and eternal standard of justice.

That's the question I thought I was answering, but thank you for making the clarification between the actual concept of justice, and the application thereof for me in the use of this thread.

To me or to other people?

I can't tell how other people perceive yellow, but I know that I've denoted it as yellow. It's yellow because I said so.

All sensations are like this. Sweet, sour, hot, cold - how they feel to you isn't necessarily how they feel to others, so any description isn't relevant. Yellow is the colour that resembles the bit between orange and green in a spectrum. That colour was defined as yellow, so any colour that looks like that one is yellow, additive colour or not.

Yellow is the colour you perceive when subjected to light between 570 and 590 nm in wavelength. That's what yellow is. Describing it further is silly.

Same color as pretty sunflowers, with their delicious seeds!

horrible. I don't mean I want the wavelength of yellow light.

I mean, tell me, define for me, what the color yellow looks like.
To me or to other people?

I can't tell how other people perceive yellow, but I know that I've denoted it as yellow. It's yellow because I said so.

All sensations are like this. Sweet, sour, hot, cold - how they feel to you isn't necessarily how they feel to others, so any description isn't relevant. Yellow is the colour that resembles the bit between orange and green in a spectrum. That colour was defined as yellow, so any colour that looks like that one is yellow, additive colour or not.

Yellow is the colour you perceive when subjected to light between 570 and 590 nm in wavelength. That's what yellow is. Describing it further is silly.

Banksy has his very own definition of Justice:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=519487

If you can't define it, how do you know that you know it?

give me a definition of a game

give me a definition of a game

Fun!

Justice is best symbolized in the form of a tire iron, wielded by an infuriated motorist seeking ''road justice''.

So infants don't learn anything?
How would we know? Infants aren't sentient.

And why do you think they don't learn in a rational and systematic way? Children brun themselves on hot things because they don't know they're hot. Afterward, they do know. That's pretty systematic.
That probably has to do with the fact that you want other people to explain it to you, rather than looking for it yourself.
I've been looking for years, and I still have nowhere to start.
I have.
No you haven't. You offered a highly interpretive description with a meaning that's open for debate. That's not a definition.
And yet people still disagree. None of us knows for sure, on many matters, who is right and who is wrong, although we continue to try and determine it.
I don't see what point you're trying to make here? Are you saying that we don't know what justice is? Because that would make for a quick answer to my initial question, and result in shooting down a lot of arguments that appeal to justice made in recent threads.
The same is true with justice. It is as I defined it, but people disagree on the particulars. None of us can say with absolute certainty that any one of us is right.
So that is what you're saying. Justice is unknown. Finally a straight answer.
I'll assume that second disagree was a typo?
Yes, sorry.
Female genital mutilation. Must not have been you.
That was me - just not an abbreviation I recognised.

My point there was that if one thinks FGM is wrong then it's inconsistent to support infantile genital mutilation on children of any gender.
I wrote it down in my first post in this thread, and then provided examples.
Your initial definition relied upon a terribly imprecise term: appropriate.
I thought "Whether people agree with you is entirely irrelevant. The world exists independently of your opinions regarding it." If this is true, then matters of interpretation simply represent a case in which someone is wrong and someone else isn't. There is a single appropriate action, whether we know what it is or not.
But if the meaning isn't known, then using the word to define other terms is pointless. Definitions need to rely on universally known language to be useful. And yes, I realise that will likely result in a very long string of defined terms.
How will you establish those rules?
For the purposes of justice, does it matter? I based my response on fairness, and I don't think fairness cares how I get to the rules as long as I enforce them consistently and predictably.
How will you establish those consequences? What should they be?
Whatever I think will discourage the behaviour, weighed against the long-term effects of the consequences and how many resources I want to devote to discouraging that particular activity.
How "similar" does the "similar infraction" have to be to receive the exact same consequence? How will you determine that? What should it be?
I'll define it in advance.

Your questions - "What should it be?" - presuppose a normative aspect to the rules that you have no reason to believe exists.
Why does anyone deem appropriate that which they deem appropriate?
That neither of us has an answer to that question is why I object to your definition for justice relying so heavily upon the word.
Why do you deem appropriate that which you deem appropriate?
I don't deem things appropriate. If I have criteria, they're far more specific than appropriateness.
Because it is generally true. When there are a set of publicly held opinions, the truth nearly always lies somewhere in between the extremes.
I'd need data to support that. Induction is a bad idea at the best of times; without data, this is not the best of times.
You are intentionally avoiding the real question here. How do you create the guidelines in the first place?
I don't think fairness cares how I create the guidelines. If you think justice cares, then you'll have to explain why that is.
How can you be fair if you haven't first deemed an appropriate response? How can you fairly apply rules that you haven't yet determined?
Rules that haven't yet been determined cannot be applied fairly. Therefore they should not be applied until after they've been determined and made known to those subject to them.
My question wasn't how you would apply the rules, but what the rules are in the first place. What should the consequence for a child stealing a toy be? What about assaulting another child? What should the consequence for an adult stealing be? Raping? Murdering?

You think that there should be rules. Good. Now what should the rules be?
I think they should be sufficient to deter, weighed against the other considerations I mentioned above in a cost-benefit sort of fashion. But in establishing those rules I'm not appealing to justice at all. If you think I should, first you need to explain what justice is.

The rules are tools to achieve an end.
An appropriate penalty fits the severity of the crime and serves to help prevent said crime from occurring again. While running a red light can be a danger to others, and thus merits a response, it is unlikely to result in actual harm and generally does not have the intent of harm. In fact, if it does result in harm, there are (appropriately) other laws which apply.
That one I don't get. Why do we penalise someone less for doing exactly the same thing but happening to be lucky enough not to hurt anyone?

It's like attempted murder laws. If the point of the law is to stop me from trying to kill people, then why reward me for being incompetent?
Rape causes harm. It isn't simply endangering another, but actual harm has been done - and has been done deliberately. The person who commits rape has caused a great deal of harm and is a danger to others. As such, the penalty is much more severe than that of running a red light.
But why? I can see having a stiffer penalty for more severe crimes because you're more concerned about preventing them, so you're willing to invest more resources in deterrence. But you seem to be appealing to desert, and that I don't get.
LOL! That is such a ridiculous statement that it almost doesn't warrant a response. Surely you are aware of the evolving nature of language? That a single word may mean quite different things to two different people, and that this is simply an aspect of language?
Scientists seem quite good at defining terms precisely. Are they not using language?
Instances are all we have. Every given situation is different, and must be treated as such.
Are your principles/values/preferences based solely on instances? Do you have no universal rules you always follow?

If you have no universal rules, then you start every new instance from a position of complete uncertainty. But you're not claiming you're doing that - therefore you either do have universal rules or you're engaging in wild induction that have no basis in reason - you're basically guessing.
The fact that it is true. It is unreasonable to take two very different situations and treat them in the same manner.

Why does a doctor test and treat a patient differently when one set of symptoms is present than when another set of symptoms is present?
If it's reasonable, then you have reasons. How do you know it's true?

Doctors do that because they have enormous sets of data which tell them what is likely to be true. They're still gambling with people's lives, but they're making very good bets.
Out of curiosity, are you autistic or something similar? I don't mean this as an insult. It just seems that you view the world in a way so dissimilar from most people that it's almost impossible to relate to you.
I think you're the third person on NSG to ask me that.

Not that I'm aware. I recognise that I exhibit some symptoms of high-functioning autism (highly logical, hyperlexic childhood, social anxiety, odd physical ticks, poor digestion). But I'm also aware that I've intentionally stepped back from the world to determine what it is people actually know, and that list turns out to be pretty short. It could just be that I'm really introspective, and that combined with my logical training (remember, I studied philosophy and astrophysics) leaves me with an idiosyncratic point of view. But it's also a purely rational one.
Yes, I have. I gave you a definition in my first post in this thread. You simply want to take the lazy way out and wait for me to tell you what you have to figure out on your own.
I asked for a definition I can apply broadly, and your use of interpretive terms makes your definition inapplicable generally. It fails the broadly applicable test.
You mean that no one could define it in a way that didn't leave you to do at least some of the work?

Is something which you have to figure out for yourself always meaningless?
It can't be the case that I have to figure it out for myself. If it were, then we'd have no reason to believe we agreed at all as to what it meant, so including it in any important document would almost always lead to a disagreement. And then we'd take it to a judge who would hold yet another definition of the word and we'd both go away unhappy.

Can you describe with any sort of precision what YOU mean by justice?
Is this another typo? If you fail to believe you exist, then you don't believe you exist. And, if you cannot trust your own gut - your own senses and experiences, as it were - then you have no reason at all to believe you exist.
You correctly determined that I have no reason to believe that I exist. That does not, however, require that I don't exist, or that I believe I don't exist, and that's the conclusion you drew.

If I fail to believe I exist, I could simply fail to hold an opinion on the issue (as I do on most issues because I lack cause to draw a conclusion). You discounted that possibility by caying "You simply don't exist", but you can't get there from here.
Do you believe that you exist?
Of course not.

I really don't see how this question has any easy answer. All you can do is try to somehow balance out the wrong act with an "appropriate" punishment, whatever that may be. What else can you do?

Fun!

that won't work - unless, for example, masturbation is a game and high pressure chess tournaments are not

that won't work - unless, for example, masturbation is a game and high pressure chess tournaments are not
Which obviously goes into the subjectivity of the matter.

Which obviously goes into the subjectivity of the matter.

i don't know about that. i think it's objectively true that masturbation in itself isn't a game (though one can imagine games based around masturbation, obviously), while chess is, no matter how little fun the participants happen to be having with it.

If you can't define it, how do you know that you know it?

Let me put it this way; If you're chasing after a potential sexual encounter, do you need a written or verbal proof of interest, or can you sometimes tell the person's interest by body language? You can't always describe exactly what's going on, but you 'know' what's going on...

It's like knowing what anger is. You don't necessarily need to be able to describe it to know what it is, since most of us have experienced it.

Like I said, knowing is a matter of experience. You can read about sex, and get an idea of what it is based on how it's described. But you'll never 'know' it until you try it.

Justice is similar. You'll know if it's served based on how you feel about the outcome.

What is justice?
Justice is the enforcement of a system of contractual ethics. How's that?

How would we know? Infants aren't sentient.

We know that they manage to being learning. It's fairly obvious.

And why do you think they don't learn in a rational and systematic way? Children brun themselves on hot things because they don't know they're hot. Afterward, they do know. That's pretty systematic.

No, it isn't. It's learning by mistake. They happen to touch something, and it happens to be hot and hurt, so maybe they won't touch it again. They aren't systematically checking for temperature.

I've been looking for years, and I still have nowhere to start.

You've been given multiple places to start, you simply want someone else to tell you what they think, instead of determining what you think.

No you haven't. You offered a highly interpretive description with a meaning that's open for debate. That's not a definition.

Yes, it is. Just about all of language is a matter of interpretation.

I don't see what point you're trying to make here? Are you saying that we don't know what justice is?

No, I'm saying that we don't know the particulars of justice with certainty. We know what the concept of justice is, just as we know what the concept of courage is, or what the concept of value is. But those terms are all interpretive terms. We can all agree on what value is, but not on what carries value. We all agree on what courage is, but not on what actions are courageous. And we can all agree on what justice is - simply not on the particulars.

Your initial definition relied upon a terribly imprecise term: appropriate.

And?

But if the meaning isn't known, then using the word to define other terms is pointless. Definitions need to rely on universally known language to be useful. And yes, I realise that will likely result in a very long string of defined terms.

Actually, what that results in is language itself being useless.

For the purposes of justice, does it matter?

Yes.

I based my response on fairness, and I don't think fairness cares how I get to the rules as long as I enforce them consistently and predictably.

Really? So it would be "fair" for you to cut a child's fingers off for the infraction of yelling at you? Would that be an appropriate action to take?

Whatever I think will discourage the behaviour, weighed against the long-term effects of the consequences and how many resources I want to devote to discouraging that particular activity.

Hmmmm.....this sounds suspiciously like, "The penalty should be appropriate to the crime...."

I don't think fairness cares how I create the guidelines. If you think justice cares, then you'll have to explain why that is.

Because justice relies upon the action taken being appropriate. If the guidelines are not made in such a way that the penalty, as it were, is appropriate to the crime, then the penalty is unjust.


I think they should be sufficient to deter, weighed against the other considerations I mentioned above in a cost-benefit sort of fashion. But in establishing those rules I'm not appealing to justice at all. If you think I should, first you need to explain what justice is.

Yes, you are appealing to justice. You are looking for a way to appropriately and fairly deal with an infraction.

That one I don't get. Why do we penalise someone less for doing exactly the same thing but happening to be lucky enough not to hurt anyone?

Because no one was harmed by the action.

But why? I can see having a stiffer penalty for more severe crimes because you're more concerned about preventing them, so you're willing to invest more resources in deterrence. But you seem to be appealing to desert, and that I don't get.

"Appealing to desert?" There is a stiffer penalty for more severe crimes (a) because more harm has been done by the more severe crime, (b) the person who would commit such a crime is more of a danger to others, and (c) the government has a clearer interest in deterring such crimes.

Scientists seem quite good at defining terms precisely. Are they not using language?

Are you kidding me? It's like pulling teeth to get scientists to define precise terms and all use them in the same manner. The term "stem cells" were in heavy use throughout the field of biology before scientists finally sat down and though, "You know, we really need to standardize the definition on this." Different words are often used in different manners from one lab to another, so it is incredibly important to read and understand the exact methods and definition used by a particular scientist.

Yes, some things are defined precisely, but the vast majority of words - even within science - are not.

Are your principles/values/preferences based solely on instances? Do you have no universal rules you always follow?

The "universal rules" are derived from the instances, and change as I learn more through further instances.

If it's reasonable, then you have reasons. How do you know it's true?

The same way doctors know that their best bet is to treat a patient with one set of symptoms differently from a patient with another - large amounts of experience and learning.

I asked for a definition I can apply broadly, and your use of interpretive terms makes your definition inapplicable generally. It fails the broadly applicable test.

Interpretive terms can be applied broadly.

It can't be the case that I have to figure it out for myself. If it were, then we'd have no reason to believe we agreed at all as to what it meant, so including it in any important document would almost always lead to a disagreement. And then we'd take it to a judge who would hold yet another definition of the word and we'd both go away unhappy.

Thus is the nature of human interaction.

Can you describe with any sort of precision what YOU mean by justice?

I already have. You just don't like the fact that it includes terms you have to interpret.

You correctly determined that I have no reason to believe that I exist. That does not, however, require that I don't exist, or that I believe I don't exist, and that's the conclusion you drew.

No, not really. *sigh* Can't recognize a joke when you see one, eh?

Of course not.

Really? Then why do anything at all?

If you're chasing after a potential sexual encounter ... can you sometimes tell the person's interest by body language?
No. Never.
Justice is similar. You'll know if it's served based on how you feel about the outcome.
I don't feel. I think.

No. Never.

I don't feel. I think.

Okay Spock. Live long and prosper anyway. :p

No, it isn't. It's learning by mistake. They happen to touch something, and it happens to be hot and hurt, so maybe they won't touch it again. They aren't systematically checking for temperature.
They are after that first burn. Before it, they had no reason to believe temperature was a thing that mattered.
You've been given multiple places to start, you simply want someone else to tell you what they think, instead of determining what you think.
So far, I've done a better job of defining appropriate than you have. But you need to understand what your own definition is in order to apply your own standard of justice. So far, I've seen no evidence that you do.

How do YOU decide what punishment a child should receive? Let's say he killed the neighbour's cat. How do you decide what an "appropriate" response is?
Yes, it is. Just about all of language is a matter of interpretation.
Not if it's to be a precise tool it isn't.
No, I'm saying that we don't know the particulars of justice with certainty. We know what the concept of justice is, just as we know what the concept of courage is, or what the concept of value is. But those terms are all interpretive terms. We can all agree on what value is, but not on what carries value. We all agree on what courage is, but not on what actions are courageous. And we can all agree on what justice is - simply not on the particulars.
We can all agree on what justice is? So what's justice? That's what I've been asking all along.

And even if we can't agree on the particulars, you must know what they mean to you, because you're somehow able to apply your definition to the world.
And?
That makes your definition meaningless outside your own head.
Actually, what that results in is language itself being useless.
Not useless, just harder to learn (but easier to use well).
Yes.
Why?
Really? So it would be "fair" for you to cut a child's fingers off for the infraction of yelling at you?
If he'd been warned and had reason to believe I was serious, yes.

Every rule needs to hold up under even the most extreme example. Otherwise it's not a rule.
Would that be an appropriate action to take?
You tell me. I still don't know what appropriate means here.
Hmmmm.....this sounds suspiciously like, "The penalty should be appropriate to the crime...."
If that's what you mean by appropriate - that the penalty should be measured against specific relevant criteria, and here they are - why didn't you just say that instead of appropriate?

I don't particularly want to cause permanent physical harm to anyone because I don't see what good it would do, so if I can deter the crime some other way and still get the level of deterrence I want (the optimal level of crime is not zero), I'll do that.
Because justice relies upon the action taken being appropriate. If the guidelines are not made in such a way that the penalty, as it were, is appropriate to the crime, then the penalty is unjust.
Is that just a corollary to your definition, or is there some reason why that would be unjust?
Yes, you are appealing to justice. You are looking for a way to appropriately and fairly deal with an infraction.
But I'm not doing it because it's just. I'm doing it because it produces outcomes I like.
Because no one was harmed by the action.
But that's no fault of the actor. Are you punishing the actor for things he did, or fomr things that happened later over which he may have had no control?

If I fire a rifle at someone on the street, that's what I've done. My punishment should be based on that, and be unaffected by whether someone else in the crowd saw me at the last second and tackled my target. I fail to see how the actions of others are relevant in determining the severity of my crime.

Or, I ask again, are you appealing to desert?
"Appealing to desert?" There is a stiffer penalty for more severe crimes (a) because more harm has been done by the more severe crime, (b) the person who would commit such a crime is more of a danger to others, and (c) the government has a clearer interest in deterring such crimes.
From the point of view of the actor, they're the same crime. In both cases, he tries to harm someone. In one case, he fails. But he didn't intend to fail, so his behaviour can only be influenced by the established consequences for success. By allowing a weaker penalty for failure, you're adding in irrelevant criteria.
Are you kidding me? It's like pulling teeth to get scientists to define precise terms and all use them in the same manner. The term "stem cells" were in heavy use throughout the field of biology before scientists finally sat down and though, "You know, we really need to standardize the definition on this." Different words are often used in different manners from one lab to another, so it is incredibly important to read and understand the exact methods and definition used by a particular scientist.
I have a farily low opinion of biologists within science, but chemists and physicists are very precise. And even in you biology example, in that one lab everyone knew exactly what a given technical term meant, because otherwise they couldn't work together.
Yes, some things are defined precisely, but the vast majority of words - even within science - are not.
Then they shouldn't be used to define others without being refined through added detail.
The "universal rules" are derived from the instances, and change as I learn more through further instances.
Those aren't universal rules. Those are broad generalisations, and their suspect accuracy is well known.
The same way doctors know that their best bet is to treat a patient with one set of symptoms differently from a patient with another - large amounts of experience and learning.
But somehow, doctors have learned how to share their data. Why can't you?
Interpretive terms can be applied broadly.
Not in a way such that all users will agree as to their meaning, thus redering them useless.
Thus is the nature of human interaction.
But it needn't be. Reason is within our grasp. Just turn off your intuition for a minute and consider what you know.
I already have. You just don't like the fact that it includes terms you have to interpret.
How can I use your definition of justice to reach your conclusions if I don't know what your definition means to you?

And why are you so unwilling to tell me what your definition means to you?

What if you met a space alien who had no knowledge of human culture? How would you explain justice to him?

I don't feel. I think.

http://www.arcadiaclub.com/img/desk/terminator.JPG

Not that I'm much different...

No. Never.

Sounds like a personal problem.

I don't feel. I think.

Sounds like a total lack of humanity.

They are after that first burn. Before it, they had no reason to believe temperature was a thing that mattered.

They are still unlikely to go around systematically checking the temperature of everything they might touch.

So far, I've done a better job of defining appropriate than you have. But you need to understand what your own definition is in order to apply your own standard of justice. So far, I've seen no evidence that you do.

That's because, unlike you, I don't need validation from others.

How do YOU decide what punishment a child should receive? Let's say he killed the neighbour's cat. How do you decide what an "appropriate" response is?

An appropriate response is to explain to the child what he has done and what the consequences are, to explain how the child has made the neighbor feel, and to impress this upon the child in such a way that it will not occur again.

This is dependent upon the particular child. Some children will best respond to one form of discipline, while others need a different form. Any responsible parent will tailor the particular response to the particular child.

Not if it's to be a precise tool it isn't.

Language cannot be a precise tool, as none of us are mind readers.

We can all agree on what justice is? So what's justice? That's what I've been asking all along.

And I answered it, in my very first post in this thread.

And even if we can't agree on the particulars, you must know what they mean to you, because you're somehow able to apply your definition to the world.

Indeed. I've provided some examples of what I consider appropriate and fair. If you would like more, provide a situation.

That makes your definition meaningless outside your own head.

No, it means that others might misinterpret it - just like all ideas I might hold or language I might use.

Not useless, just harder to learn (but easier to use well).

Human beings are not computers, my dear.

Why?

Because the action must be approrpiate to the infraction to be just.

If he'd been warned and had reason to believe I was serious, yes.

Sounds to me like you are a disgusting human being. I hope that you are NEVER in any position of authority over children.

Every rule needs to hold up under even the most extreme example. Otherwise it's not a rule.[/qutoe]

A rule that is unjust should not be upheld.

[quote]If that's what you mean by appropriate - that the penalty should be measured against specific relevant criteria, and here they are - why didn't you just say that instead of appropriate?

Because that is the definition of appropriate? And if I can express something in one word, I see no reason to use several.

Is that just a corollary to your definition, or is there some reason why that would be unjust?

My definition has included the idea that the reaction must be determined by the action from the very beginning.

But I'm not doing it because it's just. I'm doing it because it produces outcomes I like.

The fact that you have no moral center does not mean that others do not.

But that's no fault of the actor. Are you punishing the actor for things he did, or fomr things that happened later over which he may have had no control?

The actor is punished for what he did and what he intended to do.

From the point of view of the actor, they're the same crime. In both cases, he tries to harm someone.

All crimes do not depend on actual intent to harm someone. Some crimes endanger others without any intent to actually harm someone. These crimes warrant a lesser penalty because the actor is not as much of a danger to others. They are not trying to harm others, although their actions may have endangered others.

I have a farily low opinion of biologists within science, but chemists and physicists are very precise.

Mathematically, you are correct. In terms, not necessarily - not on the cutting edge of scientific research, anyways. Even in biology, things which have been known for quite some time are generally both precise and standard - not because language itself is, but because a special effort has been made to ensure standardization. Scientists within any field will still have to be aware of the terms used before such standardization, however, in order to understand the foundation on which further research is built.

And even in you biology example, in that one lab everyone knew exactly what a given technical term meant, because otherwise they couldn't work together.

Are you under the impression that everyone in a lab is working on exactly the same thing?

Then they shouldn't be used to define others without being refined through added detail.

Take it up with the entire history of human language.

Those aren't universal rules. Those are broad generalisations, and their suspect accuracy is well known.

They are universal to me, which is what you were talking about.

But somehow, doctors have learned how to share their data. Why can't you?

The same reason that I can't "share" emotion. It is based too heavily in personal experience. I can give you all sorts of examples - just as doctors will give you examples of patient care. But you've already decided that examples mean nothing.

Not in a way such that all users will agree as to their meaning, thus redering them useless.

Then all of human society and human language is useless - according to you. Or, maybe more precisely - to you.

But it needn't be. Reason is within our grasp. Just turn off your intuition for a minute and consider what you know.

Reason and intuition are not mutually esclusive, and knowledge can be derived from both.

How can I use your definition of justice to reach your conclusions if I don't know what your definition means to you?

You can't use "my definitions" to reach "my conclusions." You can use "your definitions" to reach "your conclusions" - which may or may not agree with my conclusions.

And why are you so unwilling to tell me what your definition means to you?

I'm not. You simply don't like it when I do.

What if you met a space alien who had no knowledge of human culture? How would you explain justice to him?

The same way I have explained it to you. If he was unable to understand, I'd know that his grasp of humanity was equivalent to or less than yours.

That's because, unlike you, I don't need validation from others.
I can't discuss justice with people if they can't explain what they mean when they use the word
Language cannot be a precise tool, as none of us are mind readers.
Then language is useless.

But it's clearly not, therefore it must be a precise tool, at least some of the time.

That people misunderstand it is not evidence that it is imprecise. That's only evidence that they misunderstand.
I've provided some examples of what I consider appropriate and fair. If you would like more, provide a situation.
But what if you come across a situation that's new to you? How would you apply your standard to a new situation? The examples show me that you're able to deal with those specific instances, but not that there's any coherent pattern behind them, or that your rule is applicable in all possible cases.
No, it means that others might misinterpret it - just like all ideas I might hold or language I might use.
No, it means they're guaranteed to misinterpret it, or at least only ever stumble upon the right answer by random chance.
Human beings are not computers, my dear.
But we do have the capactiy to think like them when it is useful to do so.
Because the action must be approrpiate to the infraction to be just.
Now you're arguing in circles.
Sounds to me like you are a disgusting human being. I hope that you are NEVER in any position of authority over children.
I didn't say I'd use that rule, just that it didn't violate the principle of fairness.

That you think that rule would be unjust now demonstrates that there's some other component to justice beyond fairness. See? Now we're getting somewhere.

So, why wasn't that appropriate? That's the answer we're after.
Because that is the definition of appropriate? And if I can express something in one word, I see no reason to use several.
But that isn't THE definition of appropriate. You could have been far more precise, but instead you chose to be obfuscatory.

If you believed yourself to be a living god, and everything you said to be divinely true, then an appropriate response may well be to smite anyone who ever dared to question your authority. That's a possible correct use of the word. My definition was far more specific.
Even in biology, things which have been known for quite some time are generally both precise and standard - not because language itself is, but because a special effort has been made to ensure standardization.
So let's do that.
Reason and intuition are not mutually esclusive, and knowledge can be derived from both.
So now you're arguing in favour of the patently absurd intuitive knowledge. Are you honestly claiming that there are things you just know, without having learned them?
You can't use "my definitions" to reach "my conclusions."[/quote]
Of course I can. The rules of deduction work the same in your head as they do in mine. If you can follow the reasoning, so can I. If I can't follow the reasoning, then it's broken, and you reached your conclusions in error.
I'm not. You simply don't like it when I do.
Your definition is not sufficient on which to base reasoning. It is therefore impossible for you to reach your conclusions using them. Reason can't get you there.
The fact that you have no moral center does not mean that others do not.
You remind me of a professor I had. He once described me as "something less than human".

I didn't like him much after that.

Well, I'm not sure if it's just me, or the system, but it's pretty hard to make a mockery of justice nowadays.

Justice is a lofty concept to describe when people are rewarded positively in proportion to "good" deeds, and negatively in proportion to "bad" deeds.

It's highly subjective, but as an intuitive concept, everyone seems to be able to relate to it.

I can't discuss justice with people if they can't explain what they mean when they use the wordThen no one can ever discuss anything. This is because to discuss one subject you would have to define an issue, then the definition of the would have to be defined and then the words used in the definition of the definition would have to be defined, start a spiral that cannot finish.

eg.
YOU: What is justice?
ME: I think Justice is truth.
YOU: What is truth?
ME: Truth is reality and not a fabrication.
YOU: What is reality?
etc, etc.Then language is useless.

But it's clearly not, therefore it must be a precise tool, at least some of the time.

That people misunderstand it is not evidence that it is imprecise. That's only evidence that they misunderstand.I can think of two authors off the top of my head who would disagree with you - Thomas Hobbes, and George Orwell.

In addition there is the concept of the double entendre that would suggest that language can be imprecise.Are you honestly claiming that there are things you just know, without having learned them?How do you know how to breathe. You never witnessed someone breathing and copied them. No one has ever told you how to breathe before you were already breathing.

Justice is an abstract concept based on other abstract concepts of fairness and equity and, as such, has no place in the real world.

Justice is an abstract concept based on other abstract concepts of fairness and equity and, as such, has no place in the real world.
Sort of like the truth? ;)

Just ice is frozen water with no additives. Next question?

I can't discuss justice with people if they can't explain what they mean when they use the word

I have explained what I mean by it. You just want to keep digging further than is possible. You're like a child who keeps asking "Why?" over and over again until the parent gets exasperated and refuses to answer any further.

Then language is useless.

No, it isn't. Something need not be precise to be useful, although, in many cases, being precise can make it more useful. The thing with language is that every individual essentially forms his own. There are certain learned aspects, but the exact instance of language is individual and cultural, not universal. One can never be absolutely sure what another means when they say something, although we can get a pretty good idea.

That people misunderstand it is not evidence that it is imprecise. That's only evidence that they misunderstand.

If it were precise, there would be no room for misunderstanding.

But what if you come across a situation that's new to you? How would you apply your standard to a new situation? The examples show me that you're able to deal with those specific instances, but not that there's any coherent pattern behind them, or that your rule is applicable in all possible cases.

I would compare that situation to other situations, just as any person does when faced with any new instance.

No, it means they're guaranteed to misinterpret it, or at least only ever stumble upon the right answer by random chance.

Guaranteed? Hardly. Language may be imprecise, but it is not completely individual.

But we do have the capactiy to think like them when it is useful to do so.

Only because we have taken a tiny portion of our capacity to think and placed it in computers.

Now you're arguing in circles.

No, I'm returning to my original statement, which you seem to have dropped at some point.

I didn't say I'd use that rule, just that it didn't violate the principle of fairness.

Then you have a vastly different idea of the word "fair" than most.

That you think that rule would be unjust now demonstrates that there's some other component to justice beyond fairness. See? Now we're getting somewhere.

That fact was stated in my very first post in this thread.

So, why wasn't that appropriate? That's the answer we're after.

Because the punishment does not fit the crime, and causes more harm than good.

But that isn't THE definition of appropriate. You could have been far more precise, but instead you chose to be obfuscatory.

Actually, it pretty much is. Whether or not something is "appropriate" is always judged by a set of standards.

So let's do that.

It can't be done when working with concepts, rather than data. Even with data, there will be some fuzziness. We can standardize to a certain point, but the particulars will always be somewhat up in the air.

So now you're arguing in favour of the patently absurd intuitive knowledge. Are you honestly claiming that there are things you just know, without having learned them?

No, I'm claiming that there are things you know without being aware of learning them.

Of course I can. The rules of deduction work the same in your head as they do in mine. If you can follow the reasoning, so can I. If I can't follow the reasoning, then it's broken, and you reached your conclusions in error.

Or you simply have such a vastly different body of experience that neither my premises nor my approach seem right to you.

Your definition is not sufficient on which to base reasoning. It is therefore impossible for you to reach your conclusions using them. Reason can't get you there.

Yes, it can. And it does. Apparently, reason can't get you there, because you refuse to reason it out. You want someone else to do it for you and hand it to you on a silver platter.

You remind me of a professor I had. He once described me as "something less than human".

I didn't like him much after that.

Well, you've already stated that you have little respect for me. Not liking me is pretty much the next step, if not an equivalent one.

It would certainly appear that you are either intentionally removing a large part of the human experience from your life, or you are simply incapable of experiencing it. I hope it's the former - at least that would be by choice.

give me a definition of a game
I'm not confident I know for sure when one thing is a game and another thing isn't.

It's highly subjective, but as an intuitive concept, everyone seems to be able to relate to it.
I'm not good at relating to intuitive concepts. I don't see how such a thing is consistent with rational thought.

I have explained what I mean by it. You just want to keep digging further than is possible. You're like a child who keeps asking "Why?" over and over again until the parent gets exasperated and refuses to answer any further.
Parents should try to answer those questions. There never stops being an answer until you get to "It just is" or "I don't know".
One can never be absolutely sure what another means when they say something, although we can get a pretty good idea.
But we can be sure what people say, and that's really more important. If they use words that lack ambiguity, then we can know with precision what they say, regardless of what they mean.
If it were precise, there would be no room for misunderstanding.
You assume the listeners are smart.
I would compare that situation to other situations, just as any person does when faced with any new instance.
But that can't work unless you know broadly what characteristics matter. Without being aware of the possibly relevant similarities ahead of time, you can't do anything with the new instance without just making stuff up.
Only because we have taken a tiny portion of our capacity to think and placed it in computers.
The verifiable portion.
Then you have a vastly different idea of the word "fair" than most.
Should we investigate what fair means next?
Because the punishment does not fit the crime, and causes more harm than good.
That's far more informative than "appropriate".
Actually, it pretty much is. Whether or not something is "appropriate" is always judged by a set of standards.
But what standards? Your harm standard above is excellent.
No, I'm claiming that there are things you know without being aware of learning them.
And I dispute that. How do you know you know them?
Or you simply have such a vastly different body of experience that neither my premises nor my approach seem right to you.
Logic is universal.
Yes, it can. And it does. Apparently, reason can't get you there, because you refuse to reason it out. You want someone else to do it for you and hand it to you on a silver platter.
I can't reason my way to a specific conclusion if I don't know what the conclusion is supposed to be. I can come up with hundreds of possible conclusions, but there's no way to know which one you're using.
Well, you've already stated that you have little respect for me. Not liking me is pretty much the next step, if not an equivalent one.
I didn't say I didn't like you. There you go jumping to conclusions again. I didn't like him. You have no reason to believe the two of you are relevantly similar.

As for the biologist thing, biology was always my least favourite science because it just didn't feel like science to me. There was a lot of categorisation, but not a lot of testable hypotheses. Perhaps my view of biology is incomplete.
It would certainly appear that you are either intentionally removing a large part of the human experience from your life, or you are simply incapable of experiencing it. I hope it's the former - at least that would be by choice.
If it's an unreasonable portion I don't want it. But, I worry that so many of you seem willing to base large parts of your lives on something so unpredictable as the intuition of others.

I'm not confident I know for sure when one thing is a game and another thing isn't.

maybe not in all cases, but surely in general, yeah?

Let's see ...

Once upon a time there was a man called Socrates ....

Let's see ...

Once upon a time there was a man called Socrates ....

and he showed us the true nature of justice - if you are a big enough of a dick, even people who think you innocent will vote to have you executed.

and he showed us the true nature of justice - if you are a big enough of a dick, even people who think you innocent will vote to have you executed.

:D

Parents should try to answer those questions. There never stops being an answer until you get to "It just is" or "I don't know".

Indeed. But what if you get to, "It just is," and the child continues to ask, "Why?"

But we can be sure what people say, and that's really more important.

In what world? If I say something but meant something rather different, or I say something that, to me, means one thing and, to you, means another, the very purpose of our conversation has not been met.

If they use words that lack ambiguity, then we can know with precision what they say, regardless of what they mean.

....which means nothing in the context of communication. Apparently, you think the purpose of language is misunderstanding.

You assume the listeners are smart.

No, I simply assume that language is precise. If language itself were precise, there would be no room for misunderstanding. The intelligence of the person speaking or listening would be irrelevant.

What you fail to realize is that language exists only within human context and human experience. That fact, in and of itself, makes language imprecise. No matter how much we explain what we mean by a given word, the person who is listening will have a different contextual basis for it, and thus will never be certain of precisely what is being said.

But that can't work unless you know broadly what characteristics matter. Without being aware of the possibly relevant similarities ahead of time, you can't do anything with the new instance without just making stuff up.

Indeed.

The verifiable portion.

Verifiable by what? What, outside of human beings and human experience, has verified any part of human thought?

And I dispute that. How do you know you know them?

The same way I know that I know anything. I know.

Logic is universal.

Any logical process is based in axioms - which are generally not universal. If I begin with one premise, and you begin with another, we are highly unlikely to arrive at the same conclusion, even if we both are being completely logical.

I can't reason my way to a specific conclusion if I don't know what the conclusion is supposed to be.

If you start with the conclusion, you're actually doing things backwards. Your reason is supposed to lead you to the conclusion, not the other way around.

I can come up with hundreds of possible conclusions, but there's no way to know which one you're using.

Exactly. You cannot know what conclusion I have come to unless you ask me. And, even then, it might not be exactly any of your conclusions.

I didn't say I didn't like you. There you go jumping to conclusions again. I didn't like him. You have no reason to believe the two of you are relevantly similar.

No, but you implied it by saying that I remind you of him and then relating the fact that you didn't like him.

As for the biologist thing, biology was always my least favourite science because it just didn't feel like science to me. There was a lot of categorisation, but not a lot of testable hypotheses. Perhaps my view of biology is incomplete.

Indeed it is.

If it's an unreasonable portion I don't want it. But, I worry that so many of you seem willing to base large parts of your lives on something so unpredictable as the intuition of others.

I'm not sure what you mean here. What does the intuition of others have to do with it?

maybe not in all cases, but surely in general, yeah?
If I knew it in general, then I could apply it to all cases.

But it doesn't matter, because I'm not trying to base my entire position on my non-existent definition of the word game.

Indeed. But what if you get to, "It just is," and the child continues to ask, "Why?"
Explain why the line of questioning ends there.
In what world? If I say something but meant something rather different, or I say something that, to me, means one thing and, to you, means another, the very purpose of our conversation has not been met.
Our conversation doesn't have a purpose, because it isn't a thing. You talking has a purpose, and me listening has a purpose, and if you speak in a way that cannot rationally be misunderstood, you've accomplished your goal. If I misunderstand you, that's my problem.
No, I simply assume that language is precise. If language itself were precise, there would be no room for misunderstanding. The intelligence of the person speaking or listening would be irrelevant.
So if I misunderstand that's somehow the speaker's fault? What if I don't know the language?
What you fail to realize is that language exists only within human context and human experience. That fact, in and of itself, makes language imprecise. No matter how much we explain what we mean by a given word, the person who is listening will have a different contextual basis for it, and thus will never be certain of precisely what is being said.
If we define the entire language from the ground up, like we do with computer languages, that problem disappears.
Indeed.
But if you're just making it up then there's nothing stopping your "justice" from being entirely arbitrary, and necessarily unpredictable.
Verifiable by what? What, outside of human beings and human experience, has verified any part of human thought?
Axiomatic rules.
The same way I know that I know anything. I know.
You sound like G.E. Moore appealing to common sense.

Common sense has no place is a reasoned position.
Any logical process is based in axioms - which are generally not universal. If I begin with one premise, and you begin with another, we are highly unlikely to arrive at the same conclusion, even if we both are being completely logical.
But we can determine whether each system is sound.
No, but you implied it by saying that I remind you of him and then relating the fact that you didn't like him.
I implied nothing. In fact, I deny the existence of implication.
Indeed it is.
Sorry about that.
I'm not sure what you mean here. What does the intuition of others have to do with it?
Individually, you have little control over how justice is meted out in society. As such, the definition of justice used to govern your life is based primarily in the intuition of people who aren't you.

If I knew it in general, then I could apply it to all cases.

whatever would make you think that?

Our conversation doesn't have a purpose, because it isn't a thing.

Then I have no reason to talk to you.

Justice is the enforcement of a system of contractual ethics. How's that?
As much as I hate quoting myself, I suggested this some time ago and people have still gone on continuing to say "It's hard to put in to words but you know it when you see it". Is anyone actually interested in discussing what justice is, or are you all content in just going through the motions of having had a discussion?

Then I have no reason to talk to you.
You do if you want to express something.