Can justice be defined without taking god and others into account?
This is a question that arise in everyone one of our minds but we tend to ignore it because its to troublesome and mundane to think about it or we think that justice can be defined only under the dominon of"God and others well being".
I here do not want a definition of your concept of justice.I just want to know whether its possible to define it without taking god and others into account
Thanks :)
I here do not want a definition of your concept of justice.I just want to know whether its possible to define it without taking god and others into account
Thanks :)
Comments (45)
Does it require other people? Probably. It's hard to believe that if there were only one living human, they would give much thought to justice.
Well that's just silly.
However, OP, yes. It is possible to define justice as an atheist. Now, is there any reason to abide by it when nobody is looking and/or you're sure you could get away with it? Not so much.
Edit: I forgot to realize people conflate God with man-made religion and its doctrines regularly. In fact, most do I believe. Huge, huge difference. Replace the word 'god' with 'man-made religion and its doctrines' and we're on the same page.
No, it's not, and if we argue about it, I'll win.
Quoting Outlander
You clearly don't understand what justice is. Paying attention to it whether or not anyone is watching is kind of the point.
Quoting Outlander
Um, yes, that is actually the prevailing customary use of the word. I also believe it is the usage intended by the OP. If you would like to use it some other way, the burden lies with you to explain yourself.
The reason would obviously be that it's justice.
I second this.
I'm not being evasive, and I invite this discussion, but that's not achievable in a paragraph. It's much easier to demonstrate with a case study. Would you be willing to throw out a definition of justice or three and we can see how the existence of one (or maybe many for the polytheists out there) participant in a system who isn't required to follow any of that system's rules is inherently unjust?
Ignoring a few of the problems with your reply, by definition and social reality, the idea of justice that proceeds from the idea of God is taken to be a finality, complete in itself (unless one is talking about Whitehead). Further, this justice can only be said to proceed from experience in the most negative and unconscious way, which cannot be considered an intelligent approach to the construction of principles of justice. It is reactionary and emotive, it does not take human action into account within the complex systems that human action arises, and neither does it examine its principles in terms of their intelligence within an existential context, therefore it cannot be an answer to an honest question, "how do we make more intelligent principles," the justice of God is an authoritarian idealism projected onto man as though it were an infallible Eternal Code and map for human conduct.
See edit. You big winner, you.
Quoting Pro Hominem
The question was can it be defined sans theological background. Nothing more.
Perception of justice =/= justice. You're told Group A invaded Group B's lands and slaughtered women and children. It was Group C who told you this, and you believe them, so you do the same or otherwise punish Group A. Now say in reality it was Group C who actually did what they said Group A did and you remain unaware. In your mind, and that of everyone else who believes what you believe, this is justice. Is it really?
Quoting Pro Hominem
I don't need to explain myself, it lies in the definitions. God is God. Religious doctrines are man's attempts/efforts/dogmas to explain God and what is asked or required of us. If most of the world calls a spade a rake, is it? Well... perhaps. But let's use a real historic example. If most of the world says the Sun revolves around the Earth, does it? Not really.
I did see it. It doesn't change your inability to prove (or apparently even make) your point.
Quoting Outlander
This entire passage is so fraught with fallacies, I don't even know where to begin.
Your initial sentence seems to be the best. Let's start over. The question is "can we define a system of justice without (g)God?" My response is yes, and further that the addition of (g)God would violate the system and make it unjust. You appear to not like my answer, but have not yet articulated anything I can make sense of in response. Trying to put words in my mouth in the form of an incoherent straw man is not actually effectual. Try stating your own opinion as clearly as you can, or discussing something I have said using my actual words.
Quoting Outlander
Er, ok.... Um, let's try: please provide your definition of the word "God" since you claim to have a different one than the rest of us do.
This is exactly where the burden of proof lies.
And it isn't clear to me what you think justice is, or might be. You will provide another side to this conversation, or it won't happen.
I was specifically expounding on the reason why the idea of God negates justice. I didn't have to do this, I did it because it 1) helps to move the conversation forward for serious thinkers by providing clarifying content and 2) is the harder thing to do, instead of simply throwing the ball back into your court.
Quoting tim wood
I can barely comprehend what you are asking and saying here.
Quoting tim wood
Pro Hominem already mentioned one, you tried to imply of space standard for the reply, this is a typical trick of sophists. Reality doesn't work that way, if truth is complex, but you don't like it, all this means is that you will never comprehend it.
You are already sunk, the burden of proof lies with the original question, "Can justice be defined without taking god and others into account?" That depends, what do you mean by god? While I admit, it could be claimed that stating god negates justice seems to jump the gun, it doesn't matter, to make the charge would be useless posturing, you end and begin at the exact same place, with the question, what do you mean by god?
Are you aware that you are doing exactly that which you accuse me of doing?
You have been asked (explicitly) for your understanding, or a definition, or some clarity, and you have not provided any. Why not? Perhaps you are an empty shell?
You say I do not educate, but threaten. In fact, I have threatened nothing. I have stated that I do not wish to participate in a cross-examination, but would be interested in a discussion - an exchanging of information. Again, you seem averse, as you will only ask, but not answer questions. If you actually have nothing to say, then I will not really lose anything if you refuse to talk to me.
As for educating, I am doing it right now.
Sir, I may be new to this site, but I am not new.
My position is the exact opposite of what you imply here, nevertheless, I can see your struggle, poor fellow, you desperately want to be able to proceed as though your notion of god was more than an idea.
I see you are the type to avoid taking responsibility for the tone or the content of your words (although there is precious little content thus far). One might describe you as a bully, which is particularly interesting in a conversation that is meant to concern justice.
I will provide a little more information for anyone else who might be reading this and is actually interested in the thought as opposed to just acting like a pedantic tool. Since you are neither respectful nor considerate, I don't feel I owe you any respect or consideration.
Most Western conceptions of justice invoke ideas such as fairness, equality (of opportunity if not outcome), people getting their due, etc. In modern times, ideas such as liberty, freedom, dignity, and human rights are also present.
In contrast, Western conceptions of God describe a creator/created, master/slave, owner/property arrangement that is entirely inconsistent with these "justice adjacent" concepts. Being coerced into behavior that one does not wish to participate in through the threat of social or physical harm is not just, yet it is the foundation of most God-centered enterprises.
If you subscribe to some other version of "God", then you may say this doesn't apply to you. If that deity has a creator role, then this same criticism applies. If you have some non-deific formulation of things, then there is no "God" to discuss, so perhaps this doesn't apply to you.
My point is I think you're wrong and you don't. That's it- we're done.
Quoting Pro Hominem
Name one thing that's wrong. Dare ya. Someone commits an atrocity toward one group because they believe they deserve it and is justice, when as a matter of fact, they did nothing and this perceived idea of justice is really injustice. Do you agree or disagree? Define justice. Right being made wrong or people believing right was made wrong?
Quoting Pro Hominem
You know what God is, ok. I'm merely saying that books are books and some may not even be worth the paper they're printed on.
Edit: wrong being made right.. lol
Couldn't agree more.
God is just a word without concrete substance. I think this manifest comprehension of a distinction. Here the idea is without being, it never escapes the domain of its own abstraction.
Yes, but purely a formal one. There is no authority here.
Scripture is clear that God did not get "reworked" in the period between testaments. Malachi 3:6, NASB: "'For I, the LORD, do not change;..." God is consistently described as eternal, abiding, and unchanging. OT and NT are the same guy. The NT has lots of references to God's wrath and the avoidance thereof, which brings me to....
Quoting tim wood
People are coerced into "believing" or even "obeying" God (or his proxy, Jesus) or else they face horrible punishment. 1 Thessalonians 1:10, ESV: "and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come." Romans 2:5, NIV: "But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed." Matthew 25:46 NIV “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” The implications are clear: believe or else.
I particularly love this one: Acts 12:23 KJV "And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost." Gotta love that King James Version. It really drives it home. So much for the New Testament God of peace and love.
You ask what people are being asked to do that they don't want to? Well, everything. I don't want to reject my native reason and intelligence so that I can sit around spouting a bunch of nonsense and telling everyone how lucky I am that God allowed me to give up most of the things that make life fun and interesting so that I could blow smoke up his ass for the rest of eternity. I don't want to spend my life believing something that just plain isn't real and doesn't make any sense. Which brings me to...
Quoting tim wood
Actually, my view of the Christian God is, in fact, "most folks" view. There are more people on Earth who don't believe this stuff than do believe it. Especially in places with free access to good education. Which is why the church has been actively propagandizing people in poor, underserviced areas of the world. People who don't have the capacity to see through the haze of babble.
Make no mistake, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is as vicious as it gets. And he is most certainly not just. I don't say any of this to convince you of anything - if you were an evidence-based thinker, you wouldn't need the convincing - I say it because this is a philosophy forum and I am very, very familiar with what they "are for" as you put it.
PS - we could have had a much more civil conversation if you had approached me civilly.
I share every last ounce of justified and intelligent contempt you here articulate.
I agree with you.So you think that justice does not reside in an entity but in relation between the entities.
How do you think we got the conception that god is just?Did we start by conceptualizing that god was just or more simply was our morality back then deontological or Consequentialism.
Can you elaborate on that?
I did, read through the thread.
Define God as you're using the term.
I can tell you this much - regardless of your god-definition, god predates notions of a "just god" by centuries if not millenia. In the case of the Judeo-Christian god, the notion that "he" is just is an entirely modern creation, and not scriptural at all. Like every other part of the god concept, justice was created at the time it needed to be to keep the religion relevant to the flock.