What does justice mean to you?

@Lustig Andrei,

Lustig Andrei wrote:

Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

Kyrie eleison.

Minha culpa minha maxima culpa. (Portuguese is so elegant) Wink

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Lustig Andrei wrote:

Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

Kyrie eleison.

Minha culpa minha maxima culpa. (Portuguese is so elegant)

Yeah, but the second sentence is all Greek to me.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Speaking in guilt, we love sublimation don't we ? What would be of our rainy days without it ?

0 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

Touche !

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

By resolution I obviously considered dissolving collateral reactions a chain of cause

I would think that's a rather utopian resolution (and incredibly expensive), and one that just won't always work - What if a person doesn't want to have their collateral reactions dissolved? There are a plethora of people out there who prefer a self-view of victimhood, and plenty more who refuse to take responsibility for their actions' - She/He/You made me ###, if you/he/she hadn't @@@ then I wouldn't have XXX, it's the only way I can cope with YYY, if you were in my position - you'd do the same, everyone else is doing it, etc.

Quote:

I don't think retribution resolves anything as it adds destruction to destruction...If you ask me in the future rapers and the like will get proper brain surgery

You do understand that the type of Brain Surgery you are talking about involves destruction, right? And that there is no one area of the brain responsible for evil?

And despite the fear of 'retribution' not deterring a specific group of people, and recedivist criminals, it works on a high enough percentage of society, that society functions smoother with it.

Yes, it's 'destruction', but so is eating a plant, and so is a harsh word to a loved one, and so is any form of discipline (which is a taking away of something the person used to have...the removal leaving an empty space - ie destruction of a dearly held 'thing' in order to gain compliance, and the return of it upon compliance)

I can't say punishment is perfect, but then again, it seems to be a very necessary system in a world that isn't utopia.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

I am not talking Utopia Vik I am talking augmenting average IQ and enlightenment, that's the most important step to sort out barbaric drives...we are well on the way of augmenting our intellectual competences and I think the cost will be far less then the onus of leaving things as they are...did you know the 3 most important force changing human landscape economy and so on is stupidity...it costs trillions.

Non invasive nano brain surgery and balancing chemical production in the brain if well done when the time comes won't do any harm to no one...psychopaths and sociopaths are a perfect good illustration of what I mean, their brain is wrongly hardwired, they are damage goods, and you and I well know we use to think they were simply evil people...evil coinage is a lame shortcut to indulge in our urges, an excuse for our need for Darwinian competition...while I am all in favor of Darwinism, I still think we should play straight and be aware of our true motives...human decency wont stop Darwinism in its tracks, but just settle the bar on a higher level...

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Justice means that each person is treated fairly, no person is above the law nor is anyone subject to additional punishment for who they are. Justice means that the consequences for violating the rules of society are appropriate and commensurate with the degree of the violation. Punishment is fair and measured and sometimes even mitigated by mercy.

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

Like the title reads "What does justice mean to you?"

This is a definition of justice, do you agree with it?

Quote:
Justice is a concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, equity or fairness, as well as the administration of the law, taking into account the inalienable and inborn rights of all human beings and citizens, the right of all people and individuals to equal protection before the law of their civil rights, without discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, color, ethnicity, religion, disability, age, or other characteristics, and is further regarded as being inclusive of social justice.

Your quote represents a wonderful example of what justice, theoretically, ought to be, but the fact that justice is generally dealt in hindsight implies that justice is a fragile commodity and not an inalienable right. The question of, "what is just?" generally, only comes up after previous "pre-justice" relations have been compromised. A call for "justice" signals that "injustice" has already occurred. Here are two alternative definitions:

Justice is achieved when two or more conflicting groups or factions come to an agreement involving compensation or compromise, after the conflict.

Justice is an historical category, the accuracy of which is defined by the present historian's moral context to envelope the past's social evidence..

1 Reply

@Razzleg,

Quote:

Justice is achieved when two or more conflicting groups or factions come to an agreement involving compensation or compromise, after the conflict.

Justice is an historical category, the accuracy of which is defined by the present historian's moral context.

1 - An agreement needs not to be just as it usually it is settled in the proportion of powers in conflict...rather more subtle the need for moral equitable justice is justified in the need of developing an efficient society through the willing full convergence of different groups for a common goal. In that light Justice is about optimizing the usage of human resources.

2 - There's a difference between an historical account and justice being served...perhaps you are taking a soft suggestion that Justice is just an imaginary category, a tool by which prevalent powers subdue conquered groups through moral dominant principles and acculturation...but then again your usage of "accuracy" suggests an actual object...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Razzleg wrote:

Justice is achieved when two or more conflicting groups or factions come to an agreement involving compensation or compromise, after the conflict.

1 - An agreement needs not to be just as it usually it is settled in the proportion of powers in conflict...rather more subtle the need for moral equitable justice is justified in the need of developing an efficient society through the willing full convergence of different groups for a common goal. In that light Justice is about optimizing the usage of human resources.

In my first definition, i tried to define "justice" practically. An equitable, moral compromise is not necessary; "practical" justice" only requires that all parties involved be "satisfied" with the outcome. Certainly, a disproportionate amount of extraneous, social leverage generally remains with one party or the other. Nonetheless, practically speaking, "justice" is a situation-specific term. This is part of what i consider the difference between the terms "fairness" and "justice."

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Razzleg wrote:
Justice is an historical category, the accuracy of which is defined by the present historian's moral context to envelope the past's social evidence.

2 - There's a difference between an historical account and justice being served...perhaps you are taking a soft suggestion that Justice is just an imaginary category, a tool by which prevalent powers subdue conquered groups through moral dominant principles and acculturation...but then again your usage of "accuracy" suggests an actual object...

The second definition of "justice" that i suggested addresses the more abstract aspect of the term, but in a similarly situation-specific manner. Like my first example, it presents itself in a possibly un-resolvable, inequitable manner; the present is in conflict with the past. The historian can only view the circumstances of a past conflict in light of the evidence, but, by the same token, can only judge that evidence within the framework of his or her contemporary moral milieu. The question of justice here is not between contemporaries caught in conflict, but between generations and their different, general vantage points. The conflict of different parties in the past is resolved by present interpretation, which only serves to emphasize the difference/conflict between generations. In this case, "justice" represents the compromise and compensation between past real conflicts and present methods of detection and interpretation.

i'm not entirely sure that all made sense, and even if it didn't -- it doesn't matter much; its only my opinion, one way or the other.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

I am not talking Utopia Vik I am talking augmenting average IQ and enlightenment

Enlightenment is Utopian. Historically there has only ever been a small percentage of people who truly seek it. I doubt the percentage is much higher today. I think it unlikely we can ever get much greater a percentage to seek it. I truly think you are considering utopia.

Increasing IQ is an interesting concept (mostly because if you try to pin down 'intelligence' it eludes you) - and it (IQ) seems to help to increase employment (but will never eradicate it - which would be utopian), which in turn helps to decrease crime. Schools also seem to serve a form of indoctrination to society - which no doubt also helps decrease crime (unless the school itself is crime riddled - which usually reflects it's surrounding society). It also helps with logic - which puts downward pressure on crime...but what about those who fail? Again, wouldn't everyone passing be utopian?

And there have been intelligent criminals, and there will always continue to be.

Quote:

Non invasive nano brain surgery and balancing chemical production in the brain if well done when the time comes won't do any harm to no one...psychopaths and sociopaths are a perfect good illustration of what I mean, their brain is wrongly hardwired, they are damage goods, and you and I well know we use to think they were simply evil people

I haven't considered sociopaths evil for some time now - since I actually understood what the term entails. However, the condition does allow the ones who would be criminals to be much worse criminals (what we would consider evil)

And people can do evil without chemical imbalances. What then?

And where do we draw the line? Chemical sedation of 'evilness' seems like it could lead to a very slippery slope....the end of which could be quite evil.

I will stick with 'the system we currently have, while it has plenty of problems that could be fixed, is a necessary system'

It's not that I couldn't wish for your system to work - I wish it could...I just can't see it actually working.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

There is nothing Utopian in the raise of average IQ Vik, the last time it happened we entered the Neolithic after a mass extinction of the Homo Sapiens...I am just explaining you what augmentation through cybernetics and genetic manipulation will accomplish in a few decades...

The problem of employment is a problem of transition from an Industrial society to a leisure society it can be sorted with global rules...

Schools are obsolete dinosaurs, I actually wonder in what way will we replace our educational system...

Reasons for crime are mostly related with lack of resources, lack of a balanced upbringing, or mental illness, that is not to say crime would be extinct but rather to suggest its impact would be minimal...
Did you know that cops and criminals have the same genetic traits ? There are interesting study's about it...one has to wonder how come some go one way or another perhaps one of three above should justify that variation...

Again you misunderstand I never suggested Intelligence alone drives crime down, (which actually it does to an extent) but then you also need a balanced upbringing, education, and access to resources...naturally its a multifactorial process...your interpretation of my words as been to say the least conveniently linear...

When you say people can do "evil" perhaps you just mean people will keep competing, which actually is a great thing, there will be tech wars, there will be winners and loosers, rich and not so rich, strong minded people and more passive personality's, disagreements are natural and welcome...none of it changes one line regarding moving the bar one step up for human decency and raising the level on which we want to compete...

Again I am not talking of "chemical sedation of evil" through drugs that destroy your personality and who you are, I am talking for instance on settling dopamine serotonin levels in the brain to normal group genotype standards through non invasive procedures, probably nano technology and so forth...

The system we have is functional alright no one said it wasn't, but the intention was to talk about critical mass for change in the future an evolution on how our institutions approach the problems we have without demagoguery or a low level intellectual conception of morality and Justice which is exactly what we have right now compared to my personal standards of what it should be instead...

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

Justice is a concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, equity or fairness,

Ethics is itself the study of right and wrong actions, so I'm not sure how justice-as-rightness can be based on ethics-as-rightness. In addition, the inclusion of "natural law" presupposes that there's such a thing, and the inclusion of religion presupposes that religion has something to do with "rightness" or "justice." That, in turn, suggests that someone cannot be "just" who is not religious or who does not ascribe to natural rights (e.g. a utilitarian).

reasoning logic wrote:

as well as the administration of the law, taking into account the inalienable and inborn rights of all human beings and citizens,

There you go again with natural rights.

reasoning logic wrote:

the right of all people and individuals to equal protection before the law of their civil rights, without discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, color, ethnicity, religion, disability, age, or other characteristics, and is further regarded as being inclusive of social justice.

That seems to me to be a long way of saying that "justice is fairness," or, as some have put it, "justice is giving everyone what they deserve."

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

That seems to me to be a long way of saying that "justice is fairness," or, as some have put it, "justice is giving everyone what they deserve."

Fair and true, but reducing drag (a chaotic black hole of problems) from extreme poverty for instance, through having the right to the best possible education in relation to the available innate competence as satisfying basic needs won't make any less of giving people what they deserve by optimizing their output...unless of course your understanding is that we should kill the incompetents sooner rather then later to diminish the impact of their drag on general society...you either pull it one way or the other...

I know you haven't suggested any of those but giving people what they deserve without clarifying what do you think they deserve it is vague to say the least...it got me thinking...

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Saying Justice is Justice it is not an abstraction, just a trivial, simpleminded tautology...

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

There is nothing Utopian in the raise of average IQ Vik

Hi Fil, you need to reread what I wrote, for I didn't say this (it's obviously possible as it's already happened over time)

Quote:

The problem of employment is a problem of transition from an Industrial society to a leisure society it can be sorted with global rules...

Such as?

Quote:

Schools are obsolete dinosaurs, I actually wonder in what way will we replace our educational system...

That's, err...interesting. And you did say : u also need a balanced upbringing, education, and access to resources

Quote:

Reasons for crime are mostly related with lack of resources

That has elements of fact in it, but is rather simplistic. There are villages around the world with poorer living standards but much better crime rate than many crime riddled suburbs in major cities. The same will go for many country towns vs cities. What then does that suggest about the lack of resources being the reason for crime? (and the answer by the way, isn't that there isn't merit in your resources theory)

Quote:

your interpretation of my words as been to say the least conveniently linear...

Ah - no - it was what you posted. Now you are starting to clarify (and at that, only barely). My point has always been - justice (and crime in this case) is not as simplistic as people make out.

Carrying on from that point - once you start talking about the detail - to the extent that you start trying to get the mechanics working - you run into even more problems. But it seems many people stop at the theory - at the point that it sounds lovely. They never rarely take it to the degree that it can actually be tested to see if it works. Stopping at utopian (before there is enough detail to start having holes poked in it) has benefits to many people.

Quote:

Again I am not talking of "chemical sedation of evil" through drugs that destroy your personality and who you are, I am talking for instance on settling dopamine serotonin levels in the brain to normal group genotype standards through non invasive procedures, probably nano technology and so forth...

Ah, alright. That will probably solve a small percentage of crime. That isn't how I read it to be presented.

Personally, I think that corporal punishment (that's corporal punishment, not capital, and administered in private) is a much better solution to mid range crime (not high end crime). That said - many people disagree with the concept of any type of physical punishment. And of course, with the current mindset of the population (one of individual rights), it may not even work as intended.

On the other hand - if you send crims to jail, many just learn to be better crims, costing society money while they are in jail training, as well as costing society more money after they leave.

And the Fines system (at least where I live - uncollected fines are around $700m in a population of 5m) is becoming more and more ineffective.

So you have the deterrent value of the low end 'solution' becoming less effect at the low end, and the high end 'solution' training crims to be better crims...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes it would be better if we could stop it before it all got to that stage.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Lets just simply say my entire point revolves around the problem of free will and a new conception of Morality which is not based on guilt but on understanding why people act the way they act and in devising new ways to deal with aberrant behavior. There is nothing new on this approach nor it does have anything to do with naive or utopian conceptions of the world, obviously the book on how to get there is barely scratched and I just provided some insight on what direction we should follow...again on the contrary the idea of guilt and free will are the ones that might be deemed as utopian convenient collective delusions...

PS - The problem of employment considering the emergence of robots and AI will be sorted with heavy taxation on Industry with global rules for everyone...(or it wont work) Unless of course you think we might export the production to Mars, as people won't have work in massive scale, but they will certainly need to consume...a stable transition from the old paradigm to the new will need heavy intervention from the state regarding regulation and taxation, to accommodate the process peacefully.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

again on the contrary the idea of guilt and free will are the ones that might be deemed as utopian convenient collective delusions...

With guilt, are you trying to change the definition of utopian? The free will part - has always been an odd debate (it seems to revolve much around what people perceive as being 'free').

Quote:

but on understanding why people act the way they act and in devising new ways to deal with aberrant behavior

err, yes - the surgery / medical thing?. Unfortunately you just can't solve everyone's problems for them. At some point in time, people need to take full responsibility for/of who they are. It seems to me fairly obvious that if you give people excuses, most will use them. If they use them, they don't have to take responsibility for their actions / who they are / what they do - which simply perpetuates the underlying problem.

Quote:

PS- The problem of employment considering the emergence of robots and AI will be sorted with heavy taxation on Industry with global rules for everyone...(or it wont work)

The companies will go where there the taxes are least. Many worldwide ones already engage in this practice. Unless there's a world hegemony, there's always going to be World Leaders who disagree, or who can be bought off.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

To say that ""justice is giving everyone what they deserve" is to acknowledge ambiguously that "justice" is both what the courts officially decide is one's due and what individuals unofficially believe to be what is that due.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Quote:

With guilt, are you trying to change the definition of utopian?

1 - Please reformulate this makes no sense...you certainly can understand that if it is the case that there is no guilt because there is no free will the approach much change...wtf Utopia has anything to do with a wrong approach ???

2 - Manipulating what I said won't change what I said Vik...no it is not the surgery thing... it is a MULTIFACTORIAL process integrating several aspects that go from some non invasive surgical intervention when justified to psychology, education, moral introspection, group therapy, and so forth, sided with an inclusive stable economic project, capable of providing a foundation for a slow changing process on which the individual progressively gains awareness of its role in society...having genuine acceptance and believing the honest intention of society in this conversion, is paramount to its success...

3 - A Global society will need global rules, its a no brainer... the question will be sorted not because there will be a consensus based on good will, but rather because there will be a real need on reaching a consensus...(as usual)

1 Reply

What does justice mean to you?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know