Originally posted by sonship
So, if we consider the specific fallacy I was talking about, I'm afraid your arguments sort of resemble this type of fallacy:
(i) If there is no God, then there is no perfect justice (some rapists and murderers will get away scot-free, etc, etc).
(ii) "No perfect justice?!?" That would really suck!
This could be completely true ...[text shortened]... a total materialist here ?
Is free will to "choose" truth a reality or are you just fissing ?
In the meantime should I take it that you do believe that injustice exists if there is no ultimate justice.
Sure. Why not?
Your view on this matter is embarrassingly schizophrenic. On one hand, you hold that it is of the utmost importance that "ultimate justice" exists. On the other hand, you claim that if it does not exist, then there is no injustice to begin with. Well, I'll ask you again: if there is no injustice to begin with, then why all the fuss? One would have thought that if "ultimate justice" is so important, it would be because the lack of it entails something bad like a lot of injustice, not because the lack of it entails no injustice, which doesn't sound bad at all.
Could it be that you are just overthinking this? The common sense view would be that if there are injustices that never ultimately get righted, then there are injustices (that never ultimately get righted). It cannot be a good thing that your view appears to be at odds with this mere tautology.
I am going to assume that you can measure "crooked" against something "less crooked". But at the same time you have no ideal of absolute "straightness".
Relatively so, then, there can be lesser levels of injustice. That is all ?
Am I getting your thought right ? There does not have to be any perfectly "straight" line against which "crooked" can be detected ?
I think I've already addressed this somewhat in my responses to KJ's claim that truth requires a standard. It doesn't, as far as I can tell, since we can do fine with just reference to facts. Furthermore, even if it did require a standard or ideal, there's no reason why that ideal would have to be instantiated or embodied in some actual agent. Refer, again, to the ideal observer theory that DeepThought brought up previously, and to which I added some comments.
Do you think a more acceptable reason for our sense of injustice is because of determined reactions of chemicals in the grey matter of our brains, over which we have no rights to boast of "choosing" one attitude over another ?
Do you believe what you believe because of choosing to follow a better argument or because the chemicals fissing around as they collide, combine, and interact cause you to believe what you do ?
Strange questions. First off, I don't really know what you are asking. "A more acceptable reason" than what? Second, whatever implicit appeal you are making to libertarian freedom, I don't subscribe to it. I'm a compatibilist and therefore do not consider determinism to be irreconcilable with personal freedom. Thirdly, what does freedom of choice have to do with anything here anyway? Are you honestly trying to imply that your moral sensibilities are a matter of choice? Are you telling me that when you find something to be unjust or morally outrageous, it is the result of your choosing to find it that way?
29 Aug 16
Originally posted by KellyJayHey KJ. No worries. I'll set aside some time for it and start with chapter 1.
1st chapter is about all I have time for now. We can start there I'll give you more later as
time is freed up for this.
If you do obtain a copy of the Joyce book, I would say you could start in at chapter 2.
29 Aug 16
Originally posted by sonshipWow. Not even remotely close.
LemonJello,
I think in my reading your critique of my argument it seemed to put you in an [b]Noncognitivist camp - Possibly an Emotivist.
I say this based upon your ( I believe) summary of my position on justice/injustice in which your take on my conclusion, as you saw it was "That sucks!". IE. morality simply an expression of e ...[text shortened]... o you hold that moral arguments do not amount to actual true or false conclusions?[/b]
30 Aug 16
Originally posted by Rajk999I get you quote Jesus in some scriptures and ignore Him and the rest of the Word of God
I dont care for you to pay attention to what I say. I almost always quote Jesus Christ. . he says seek, strive, look etc etc .. you better pay attention to Him.
in other passages. You only quote what suits you, and when you are confronted with
scripture that does not back up your points you run off in a puff. You have done that with
me and others so do not say you pay attention to Jesus, because you do not. If you did
you follow all of the Word of God not just those things you use to justify your views.
30 Aug 16
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI think God has created a grand universe where we do make choices, and He does not
From the physics pictures we have there is no "universal now" that any mortal observer can see. What I was taking the "universal now" to mean was a sort of outside-the-universe view of the universe of General Relativity. It is a four dimensional object, all times preceding quantum collapses (or whatever controls what now is) from a vantage point ...[text shortened]... agree with your point regarding what is is, whether we understand or like whatever actually is.
stop us from making bad ones and does not force us into making good ones. I think God
is the only one that could do such a thing. From His perspective all of His creation would
be laid bare to Him, from the grandest star system to the smallest piece of the micro
universe and each and every part of it would be getting God's full attention at the same
time as well as how they were all connected and interacted with each other. General
Relativity seems like He'd have that handled without to much effort.
So with time and space completely understood by God morals would also be something
He'd have a grasp on far more than us. Yet at the same time if you accept scripture He
also allows us to set our own rules, but like the universe itself there are rules that no
matter what we do we will be bound to them.
30 Aug 16
Originally posted by LemonJelloOrdered the book and started reading first chapter.
[quote]Why God would be involved basically boils down to who else could put within mankind
our common knowledge of right and wrong? It has to come from a higher power or we
would be in a broken hodgepodge of various views instead of our common themes.
Different starting points would mean that our root causes would begin with someone
completely differe ...[text shortened]... regarding shared moral intuitions. See, for example, The Evolution of Morality by Joyce.
30 Aug 16
2 edits
Originally posted by DeepThoughtOk so what are you trying to say? That there is no distinction between human justice and divine justice?
First you've ignored a host of law codes which do specifically include protections for widows and orphans. Secondly you've misunderstood why there is a liability. If there is an entitlement and that entitlement is breached then the respondent is liable. The passages from Deuteronomy establish some foraging entitlements for the poor. In medieval Engla ...[text shortened]... recognize this. So once again I'm not seeing anything not included in human notions of justice.
Let me ask you this, what do you think are the human consequences of getting angry with your brother? According to any human justice system, can you be held liable for getting angry with someone?
30 Aug 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkDon't be disingenuous. You are being asked about the the consequences of what you call "real justice" for people like the pedophile, Adolf Eichmann, an atheist, and my Muslim neighbour, and not about a supposed consequence for Jesus. If you don't know what the consequences of what you call "real justice" for the three examples I mentioned, then how can you demonstrate to me that it's "real" justice?
Actually I do, the consequences of 'real justice' required the creator to die on the cross to redeem his creation.
Originally posted by FMFBy definition divine justice is administered by an omniscient God that sees every intent of the heart. Why do you want me to play God and pronounce judgement over people?
Don't be disingenuous. You are being asked about the the consequences of what you call "real justice" for people like the pedophile, Adolf Eichmann, an atheist, and my Muslim neighbour, and not about a supposed consequence for Jesus. If you don't know what the consequences of what you call "real justice" for the three examples I mentioned, then how can you demonstrate to me that it's "real" justice?
30 Aug 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI want you to demonstrate to me how the justice is "real" or "perfect" or "just" - compared to, say, the justice I proposed for [1][2][3] & [4] (earlier on this thread), and you can't do this by making assertions (without a scrap of evidence) about a supernatural being that you just so happen to be convinced exists. Do not feel the need to "pronounce judgement over people"; just demonstrate to me that the "divine justice" you keep mentioning is "justice" in any recognizable way.
By definition divine justice is administered by an omniscient God that sees every intent of the heart. Why do you want me to play God and pronounce judgement over people?
Originally posted by FMFIf you can't know that your version of justice is the 'correct one', what basis are you going to use to evaluate 'divine justice'? A gut feeling perhaps?
I want you to demonstrate to me how the justice is "real" or "perfect" or "just" - compared to, say, the justice I proposed for [1][2][3] & [4] (earlier on this thread), and you can't do this by making assertions (without a scrap of evidence) about a supernatural being that you just so happen to be convinced exists. Do not feel the need to "pronounce judgement o ...[text shortened]... strate to me that the "divine justice" you keep mentioning is "justice" in any recognizable way.
If there is no God, then there is no 'correct version of justice'. All you have are subjective opinions of people about what constitutes 'justice'.