Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Forum - Perennial Ideas and Debates that cross societal/time boundaries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 11th, 2012, 08:10 AM   #1
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Denmark
Posts: 1,582
Justice is your conscience put to a practical use


Justice is hard, if not impossible to make a Generalized rule of. Though I would say that Justice is what you believe is what you believe to be the righteous thing to do, according to the knowledge you possess about the matter, even if that mean you would suffer the consequences yourself if applied to you the other way around.

Example:

A thief is stealing an apple from your grocery store.

What you don't know is that the thief is a homeless person who is hungry and cannot get food in any other way than stealing an apple from your grocery store.

Justice is when you apply your conscience to a practical use when judging the theif and you are willing to suffer the same consequences if you were the homeless person who is hungry and cannot get food in any other way, even if you don't know that was the case when you are the store owner.

This would inevitably lead to a conclusion that we must allow examination of the reasons behind any actions we judge. Be it a crime or anything else.

I am not saying we should examine it ourselves. What I am saying is we should ALLOW it. In other words, let's hear the defense. Let's get to know if the thief had any other opportunities or if it was plain greediness, and if it was greediness, let us get to know wether it was neccessary for him to get to know more and if other people were harmed by his actions as opposed to what would have happened if he didn't commit the crime.

As an example of the highlighted sentence, I'd like to use software piracy as an example:

Lots of documentaries are only available for viewing or sale in the U.S. You cannot under any circumstances get to see them if you are not a U.S. citizen residing in the U.S. (Or Canada in some cases). You can't view it on Youtube (its not available in your country) and you cannot buy it on Amazon.com or History.com.

Who would suffer ANY loses AT ALL if a non-US citizen residing in Europe were to illegally download the documentary? Let's not talk about practical things here, as I can already now foresee that you will claim that allowing software piracy for some would allow it for everybody. I am talking about morality not politics. I am talking about ethics not legal matters.

Who would suffer? Nobody. If the non-US citizen in Europe were to download that documentary to get to know more about that subject, that individual is getting richer, and nobody is getting poorer. The U.S. company would not suffer any loses, because they wouldn't have sold it to him anyway.

That's what I am talking about justice: Loss or suffering should be compared to the actions taken by any individual when measuring what is justice. It is relative, YET it is in fact something which can be generalized into one rule: Follow your conscience.
philosopher is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 11th, 2012, 08:27 AM   #2

Black Dog's Avatar
Idiot of the year 2013
 
Joined: Mar 2008
From: Damned England
Posts: 8,277
Blog Entries: 2

I think people have been "following their consciences" for too long now, and ultimately, most don't actually HAVE a conscience.

What they DO have is a morality thrust upon them by wider society, which they adopt because of the herd instinct.

Thus, conscience depends upon flavour of the month and also, very importantly, upon the ultimate cost of that conscience. For instance, people will spend the extra £1 or two to buy fair trade coffee, but refuse to boycott Gap, Nike or other virtual slave labour users. Yet the crimes of the latter are far greater and need much more redress.

If, however, it became trendy to boycott Nike or whatever, they'd do it.

In short, their "conscience" is highly selective and is not a product of true morality. Under such a system, there can be no real justice.
Black Dog is online now  
Old December 11th, 2012, 09:38 AM   #3
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Denmark
Posts: 1,582

Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Dog View Post
I think people have been "following their consciences" for too long now, and ultimately, most don't actually HAVE a conscience.

What they DO have is a morality thrust upon them by wider society, which they adopt because of the herd instinct.

Thus, conscience depends upon flavour of the month and also, very importantly, upon the ultimate cost of that conscience. For instance, people will spend the extra £1 or two to buy fair trade coffee, but refuse to boycott Gap, Nike or other virtual slave labour users. Yet the crimes of the latter are far greater and need much more redress.

If, however, it became trendy to boycott Nike or whatever, they'd do it.

In short, their "conscience" is highly selective and is not a product of true morality. Under such a system, there can be no real justice.
I do not at any moment in my life doubt that the vast majority of people are immoral and don't have a conscience. In fact, I acknowledge that the vast majority of people are actually evil greedy bastards who would do what it takes to fulfill their greediness and harm others just for the fun of it.

When that is said, I do believe there is a small percentage of people who actually do possess a certain degree of conscience are whom are willing to follow it.

The selectivity in their conscience is down to the fact that large multinational companies are exploiting the world's population both at labor and at consumer level.

I am wearing a nike shirt because it feels comfortable and that was what I could get at that time. But I have other shirts of different labels that I wear too, again it was down to what I could get at that particular moment when I needed something to not freeze to death. To refrain from buying something from large companies would inevitably make life harder to get through because... they are the ones providing the things we need (or want - but not neccessarily based on the label of the company but upon the solutions they offer).

I never understood the concept of sticking to one company/label only.

For those few people who actually do have a conscience to follow, I suggest they follow that rather than follow the law, unless it is too dangerous not to follow the law.
For the rest... I just wish they would be damned for eternity (they already are. They have no soul, actually I sometimes wonder if other people are just robots responding in a manner similar to a human being).
philosopher is offline  
Old December 11th, 2012, 10:08 AM   #4
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 3,981

All law is an abrogation of liberty, a threat of violence by the state against the individual; thus, all law is immoral. We don't have law (or, the related concept, justice) because it is moral, we have it because it's necessary. Is it necessarily less 'moral' for one citizen to kill another individual than for the state to kill said citizen? No, but the latter contributes to social order and stability and the former detracts from it; thus the latter is regarded as legal, or just, and the former is not. What we really want is economic prosperity, for this to occur we need a measure of stability and from this, we have law and justice.
constantine is offline  
Old December 11th, 2012, 12:07 PM   #5
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Denmark
Posts: 1,582

Quote:
Originally Posted by constantine View Post
All law is an abrogation of liberty, a threat of violence by the state against the individual; thus, all law is immoral. We don't have law (or, the related concept, justice) because it is moral, we have it because it's necessary. Is it necessarily less 'moral' for one citizen to kill another individual than for the state to kill said citizen? No, but the latter contributes to social order and stability and the former detracts from it; thus the latter is regarded as legal, or just, and the former is not. What we really want is economic prosperity, for this to occur we need a measure of stability and from this, we have law and justice.
In TODAY's world (and just about the last 40.000 years of human history) we have/had the law for its neccessity.

What I am proposing is to change this view. To actually begin to make laws for their moral value rather than purely real political measures.
philosopher is offline  
Old December 11th, 2012, 01:20 PM   #6
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 3,981

Quote:
Originally Posted by philosopher View Post
In TODAY's world (and just about the last 40.000 years of human history) we have/had the law for its neccessity.

What I am proposing is to change this view. To actually begin to make laws for their moral value rather than purely real political measures.
From a purely moral perspective, how could we justify inflicting violence upon another simply to force them to conform to our will? And since law can not be imposed without some form of violence, whether it be against one's person, liberty, or property, how could we have any laws; or, at least, how could we enforce any law? It seems to me that your proposal breaks down in the enforcement stage.
constantine is offline  
Old December 11th, 2012, 03:36 PM   #7

Fox's Avatar
Fox
새옹지마
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Korea
Posts: 2,756

Justice is to society as a whole what virtue is to the individual mind: an ideal state wherein the component parts work together optimally to create a beautiful whole. A law is just or unjust insofar as it contributes to this or detracts from this.
Fox is offline  
Old December 12th, 2012, 12:38 AM   #8
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Denmark
Posts: 1,582

Quote:
Originally Posted by constantine View Post
From a purely moral perspective, how could we justify inflicting violence upon another simply to force them to conform to our will? And since law can not be imposed without some form of violence, whether it be against one's person, liberty, or property, how could we have any laws; or, at least, how could we enforce any law? It seems to me that your proposal breaks down in the enforcement stage.
We must first define a human being.
Currently the definition is purely biological.
I want a more metaphysical or philosophical if you like, approach to the definition of a human being.

The reason for that is because I don't regard psychopathic murderers, rapists or child abducters as "human beings". I want to extend this negative definition of non-human beings further and say that anyone who do evil things for the sake of being evil or just for the fun of it, do not qualify for the label "human".

With that in place we can use logical deduction into defining who is a human and who is not. Thus defining who should be subject to enforcement and who shouldn't.

In other words, I'll be using a new definition of Jus Civile, Jus Gentium and Jus Naturale. People who follow their true conscience and do good deeds to others are subject to Jus Civile.
Animals like pigs and cows and the like are subject to Jus Gentium.
Psychopaths and the like are subject to Jus Naturale.
philosopher is offline  
Old December 12th, 2012, 12:45 AM   #9
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Denmark
Posts: 1,582

Being human requires the ability to feel remorse at the time you recognize you have done something wrong.
A psychopath may recognize the wrongdoings. But a psychopath doesn't feel remorse.

Technology will enable us to tell who is feeling remorse and who don't.
philosopher is offline  
Old December 12th, 2012, 03:27 AM   #10
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Denmark
Posts: 1,582

I would like to add, that I am, of course, willing to put my assumptions and re-definitions to a challenge and change it if neccessary and decent arguments are in order.
philosopher is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology

Tags
conscience, justice, practical


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
From Real Politics to Conscience Politics philosopher Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 36 December 8th, 2012 09:34 AM
Does the study of history need practical application? Oakenwise General History 24 October 11th, 2012 06:17 AM
Is there any practical purpose for the Commonwealth? Mohammed the Persian General History 21 September 23rd, 2011 07:24 PM
Itís about conscience, stupid; not consciousness coberst Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 2 November 23rd, 2009 11:47 AM
Is God a practical joker? coberst Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 6 May 4th, 2009 12:33 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.