Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Virex]

Unless you want to claim you have a superior definition of equity that everyone should adhere to, I fail to see how telling people that the highest form of justice is in morality and fairness is going to sway anyone?

[Vector]

Morality and fairness are not revenge.  That's the entire point.  "Justice," as currently practiced, is just revenge--but to say that is all justice is is to leave no space for the majesty of Law.  Not laws, not power, not force, but law itself.

[aenri]

The only equity needed for justice is the equity in the face of law. Impartial judgement for the conflicting sides.

[Virex]

Morality and fairness are not revenge.  That's the entire point.  "Justice," as currently practiced, is just revenge--but to say that is all justice is is to leave no space for the majesty of Law.  Not laws, not power, not force, but law itself.

So you are claiming that your idea of fairness is superior to that of others. You know, you could have saved yourself a lot of keystrokes...


I'm saying this because there are plenty of people (not that I am one of them) to whom revenge is an indispensable part of fair treatment, in a sense a way to honor and repay the grief of the victim. To assume a priori that these people are unreasoning savages that need the light of the ancient philosophers to guide their way is highly offensive.

[scriver]

Vec, would you (or anyone else, really) mind explaining what "equity" means to us poor non-Englishers who doesn't know the history/feel/specifics of use of the word? My translator just tells me it means "justice" or some Economic lingo stuff.

[Vector]

1. It's not my idea.  It's not like it's something I can take credit for, snootily, and say "ah, yes, my thought is clearly superior."  It's something I've read in a large number of texts and think is true.

2. I think, simply, that we should call things by their real names.  Don't call vengeance justice.  Call it revenge.  If another justice exists, then call it by its name; but don't confuse things.

I'm saying this because there are plenty of people (not that I am one of them) to whom revenge is an indispensable part of fair treatment, in a sense a way to honor and repay the grief of the victim. To assume a priori that these people are unreasoning savages that need the light of the ancient philosophers to guide their way is highly offensive.

To assume that I am calling people unreasoning savages, a priori, is highly offensive.  I never said they were unreasoning savages.  I never said that their feelings were invalid.  Perhaps they don't want revenge at all, but believe it is their duty to enact it.  I don't know.

I cited Aristotle because I believe he is right.  I could have cited Kant or the Bible or any number of other texts, all saying the same thing; this is not an "ancient philosophers with guiding lights" problem.

And I'm not saying that I'm better, because I'm just as bad as anyone else.  I'm no ubermensch.

I'm saying that things we do, just because we want them so badly, might not be the first thing we want to call "ethical" behavior.


And also that I still don't think the death penalty is morally right, which has exactly the same issue you're already talking about.  Hell, why don't we go back to the spectacle of the scaffold, the torture, drawing and quartering in order to show the criminal exactly how he made us feel?  Don't I care about the right of the victims to enact vengeance on the body of the accused?  Don't I care about violent justice being served? 

No.  Not really.  I'd hope we're better than that.

Vec, would you (or anyone else, really) mind explaining what "equity" means to us poor non-Englishers who doesn't know the history/feel/specifics of use of the word? My translator just tells me it means "justice" or some Economic lingo stuff.

Just a minute... I have a passage to find.

This may take some time to get through, but this is what I mean.

[Virex]

1. It's not my idea.  It's not like it's something I can take credit for, snootily, and say "ah, yes, my thought is clearly superior."  It's something I've read in a large number of texts and think is true.

2. I think, simply, that we should call things by their real names.  Don't call vengeance justice.  Call it revenge.  If another justice exists, then call it by its name; but don't confuse things.

I'm saying this because there are plenty of people (not that I am one of them) to whom revenge is an indispensable part of fair treatment, in a sense a way to honor and repay the grief of the victim. To assume a priori that these people are unreasoning savages that need the light of the ancient philosophers to guide their way is highly offensive.

To assume that I am calling people unreasoning savages, a priori, is highly offensive.  I never said they were unreasoning savages.  I never said that their feelings were invalid.  Perhaps they don't want revenge at all, but believe it is their duty to enact it.  I don't know.

I cited Aristotle because I believe he is right.  I could have cited Kant or the Bible or any number of other texts, all saying the same thing; this is not an "ancient philosophers with guiding lights" problem.

And I'm not saying that I'm better, because I'm just as bad as anyone else.  I'm no ubermensch.

I'm saying that things we do, just because we want them so badly, might not be the first thing we want to call "ethical" behavior.


And also that I still don't think the death penalty is morally right, which has exactly the same issue you're already talking about.  Hell, why don't we go back to the spectacle of the scaffold, the torture, drawing and quartering in order to show the criminal exactly how he made us feel?  Don't I care about the right of the victims to enact vengeance on the body of the accused?  Don't I care about violent justice being served? 

No.  Not really.  I'd hope we're better than that.

I must've misinterpreted your post then. To me, the post sounded like "These are the words of a famous old philosopher, he's backing up my opinion, making it more important than yours. If only you would use your brains instead of your [insert random body part here] you can't do anything but agree with me, but since you refused to think, I shall have to do it for you."

[Vector]

Ah, no.  Sorry about that--it wasn't what I meant at all.

It was just "Interestingly, the opinion of what justice is has changed over a long period of time, and I think it's a cool thing to consider with widespread ramifications."

Aristotle was COMPLETELY full of shit in so many ways, but his statements about politics are still relevant in some respects.

[MonkeyHead]

What I read on the BBC news website today about the execution of Tony Davis and the legal cases that led to it made me feel sick to the pit of my stomach. Whoever calls such a mess "Justice" must have a radically different worldveiw to the one I hold.

[Virex]

Ah, no.  Sorry about that--it wasn't what I meant at all.

It was just "Interestingly, the opinion of what justice is has changed over a long period of time, and I think it's a cool thing to consider with widespread ramifications."

Aristotle was COMPLETELY full of shit in so many ways, but his statements about politics are still relevant in some respects.

If we're going to argue about Aristotle's concept of Justice, do remember that to him, justice was the habit of being just, not our concept of enacting justice. While you're right in that the opinions have changed a lot, I think the shift is so fundamental that it would not be just to refer to him without some explanation.


To quote our beloved old guy with a beard again: "The man who is just, having the habit, does not find it easy to act unjustly." Which is evidently untrue unless you hold the same view as the ancient Greeks, namely that there is only one possible right and that those who have been educated can't but agree with that good. (This is also a reason I misinterpreted your post, I assumed you might have held the same singular or should I say haughty, view on right and wrong as the Greeks)

[Vector]

Right, of course.  I'm really sorry about that--I'm so ensconced in all of this right now that I'm having a hard time remembering what I can expect other people to know.

When I have more energy, and once I've studied some more, I might try to do a little writeup or pull some particularly relevant passages, because I think it'd be a useful thing for us to discuss here.

[Nadaka]

http://news.yahoo.com/gop-leadership-faces-possible-tea-party-revolt-2012-043210695.html

I read this article and it is surreal. The Tea Party representative actually thinks they lost the debt limit negotiation, that republicans walked in and said "we give up" and that the democrats won.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The Tea Party wouldn't have been happy with the debt ceiling negotiations unless it ended with immediately defaulting on all US debts, dismantling all government agencies, and invading China.

[Nadaka]

The Tea Party wouldn't have been happy with the debt ceiling negotiations unless it ended with immediately defaulting on all US debts, dismantling all government agencies, and invading China.

I don't think they would be happy with anything less than that plus the 3rd coming of Jesus.

[G-Flex]

Obama also would have had to petrify the nation's poor himself with his Medusa gaze attack, which he would need to spend eighty years in the mountains developing first.