Christianity

[Harry Baird]

But HumptyDumpty according to Alice's dream was a solitary being with no affiliations to Alice or anyone else.

Well, whatever Humpty Dumpty's nature was is irrelevant to the point.

But language and interpretation of language is social.

There is a bell curve where there is eccentric use of words , and Humpty Dumpty was extremely eccentric. Lewis Carrol was very good at English and knew just how eccentrically surrealist he could be while still being understood.

So, you get the point, then. A definition of "just" as, essentially, "so unjust that 'sadism' doesn't even begin to describe it" is beyond even Humpty Dumpty's (Lewis Carroll's) eccentric surrealism, and is not understandable, except as doublespeak.

[Immanuel Can]

By the way, I'm not an atheist.

That may be. But then, what grounds your conception of "justice'?

If it's subjective, nobody needs to care whether or not it's met, and nobody can be accused if it's never met. If it's objective, it needs something in which to be grounded.

So in what do you ground your (perhaps) objective conception of "justice"?

[Belinda]

Well, whatever Humpty Dumpty's nature was is irrelevant to the point.

But language and interpretation of language is social.

There is a bell curve where there is eccentric use of words , and Humpty Dumpty was extremely eccentric. Lewis Carrol was very good at English and knew just how eccentrically surrealist he could be while still being understood.

So, you get the point, then. A definition of "just" as, essentially, "so unjust that 'sadism' doesn't even begin to describe it" is beyond even Humpty Dumpty's (Lewis Carroll's) eccentric surrealism, and is not understandable, except as doublespeak.

There are some ideas that transcend the efforts of the best wordsmiths and artists, and absolute justice is one of these beautiful ideas. All human affairs are compounded of good and evil. The more the evil the further from absolute justice. Where you draw the line is arbitrary and intersubjective. There is always going to be disagreement and risk of wars about where it's just to draw the line.

[Harry Baird]

By the way, I'm not an atheist.

That may be. But then, what grounds your conception of "justice'?

I really don't want to revisit our lengthy debate on the grounding of morality - from my first spate of posting to this forum many years back - via the related concept of justice, so I simply refer you back to that debate if you care to refresh your memory of my position (I expect that debate to have begun near the start of my posting history, so it should be easy to find).

In the meantime, I simply affirm that "justice" is a word in the English language (with correlates in other languages) with an accepted meaning (per the congruent dictionary definitions which I supplied earlier) grounded in human or otherwise conscious experience and understanding - and that's grounding enough.

I emphasise the bottom line though: you affirm a conception of justice based in the Bible that is the polar opposite of what the word actually means. On your account, then, the Bible is a book of doublespeak, which asserts that unimaginable injustice is justice. It is thus unreliable, and thus is not a book of divine revelation.

You don't like that, but that doesn't change the fact of the matter.

[Harry Baird]

Where you draw the line is arbitrary and intersubjective.

Only to a limited extent, just like where to draw the line between "white" and "black" is somewhat subjective - but not arbitrary. There is a clear white and a clear black, which are not arbitrary, even though the exact point at which either becomes grey can be a matter of opinion which varies between people, and maybe even between moods.

[ETA: but maybe I'm not really saying anything that different than you are, on reflection.]

[henry quirk]

Justice -- redress, scale-balancin' -- seems to me, is left to us, as individuals. I think it would be keen to have an *afterlife that unerringly reflected reward or punishment.

But, I think, mebbe, we don't get an afterlife or ultimate justice. We seem too precisely made for decision & action in the here & now to hand-sit and wait. We aren't made to be meek, to turn the other cheek, or to forgive easily.

So: when thy neighbor offends, beat his ass today, cuz there may be no tomorrow.




*I would like -- and believe I deserve -- Valhalla. An eternity of drinkin', wenchin', and wargames would be neat.

[Harry Baird]

Don't you go beating up on donkeys, henry quirk. Animal abuse => ticket to Valhalla cancelled.

[Belinda]

Where you draw the line is arbitrary and intersubjective.

Only to a limited extent, just like where to draw the line between "white" and "black" is somewhat subjective - but not arbitrary. There is a clear white and a clear black, which are not arbitrary, even though the exact point at which either becomes grey can be a matter of opinion which varies between people, and maybe even between moods.

Measuring stuff demands that we posit polarities. There are in reality no absolute quantities or absence of quantities. We have to try to measure quantity of any specific wrongdoing so that among other regularities we maintain social order. Solipsism is impossible and HumptyDumpty is a solipsist.

[Harry Baird]

There are in reality no absolute quantities or absence of quantities.

Just spit-balling here, but maybe there is an absolute on the positive side (of morality and justice), which is "perfect" justice and morality, i.e., that which can't be improved upon - but there is no absolute on the other side: evil - injustice and immorality - can descend to infinite depths.

[Nick_A]

Justice -- redress, scale-balancin' -- seems to me, is left to us, as individuals. I think it would be keen to have an *afterlife that unerringly reflected reward or punishment.

But, I think, mebbe, we don't get an afterlife or ultimate justice. We seem too precisely made for decision & action in the here & now to hand-sit and wait. We aren't made to be meek, to turn the other cheek, or to forgive easily.

So: when thy neighbor offends, beat his ass today, cuz there may be no tomorrow.




*I would like -- and believe I deserve -- Valhalla. An eternity of drinkin', wenchin', and wargames would be neat.

Henry.

*I would like -- and believe I deserve -- Valhalla. An eternity of drinkin', wenchin', and wargames would be neat.

I didn't think anyone could answer my question on objective justice. The only thing you left out is the cute wench whose behind you could play with. But that is OK. The bottom line is through victory belongs the spoils. Justice is defined as "might makes right." Philosophy has served its purpose.

[henry quirk]

Don't you go beating up on donkeys, henry quirk. Animal abuse => ticket to Valhalla cancelled.

*I'll beat that (or any) ass if it deserves it. I ain't waitin' on God. And if He has a problem with it: He can take it up with me now cuz there doesn't seem to be a later.




*This, it seems to me, is as it should be. We have this clear-cut sense of when we're wronged. We ought act on it now rather than leave it to other, supposedly wiser, men to deliberate on. And The Creator, I think, wants no part of scale-balancin', not directly. Justice -- to go gunnin' for the man who stole your water -- is for today, as you can and will.

-----

Nick,

I didn't think anyone could answer my question on objective justice.

What was the question?

*

The only thing you left out is the cute wench whose behind you could play with.

No, I didn't. You need wenches to wench.

*

Justice is defined as "might makes right."

Nope. Justice is redress. Might can help in redress (an obese agoraphobic will have a harder time gettin' the water-thief than a trim, outdoorsy type) but, no, might, in itself, is not the measure of right.

*

Philosophy has served its purpose.

Philosophy, for the most part, is nit-pickin' and self-castration. Philosophy is reducin' a painting, with its embedded meaning, to meaningless dabs of color on canvas.

Sensible folks ought to avoid philosophizin'.

[Harry Baird]

*I'll beat that (or any) ass if it deserves it.

You should have saved that as a great comment for a photograph on a BDSM website.

[Immanuel Can]

By the way, I'm not an atheist.

That may be. But then, what grounds your conception of "justice'?

I really don't want to revisit our lengthy debate on the grounding of morality

But you have to, because your whole claim depends on it.

"God is X" is a predication of something...in this case, "unjust."

But if X = only "what Harry doesn't like," then it's trivial. Likewise, if X = something else subjective, then that too is trivial. Harry's unhappy, plausibly: but who needs to care? It doesn't even carry any impllication that anybody but Harry needs to agree.

To make a substantive claim, X must = something objective. And objective value judgments have to be grounded in something.

So what is your claim that "God is unjust" grounded in?

...grounded in human or otherwise conscious experience and understanding - and that's grounding enough

And yet, it's not.

To say that "(some) human beings don't like X" (even if those who do the disliking agree on what it is they are disliking, which is yet to be shown)
is also trivial...not only because very clearly some human beings DO agree with God's conception of justice, but because no amount of human agreement makes a thing objective or true. It just makes it popular.

So there is no objectivity granted by the thing for which you are looking for grounding. And again, you're back to "I/we don't like."

I emphasise the bottom line though: you affirm a conception of justice based in the Bible that is the polar opposite of what the word actually means.

I don't see that's true at all.

For one thing, you have no grounded conception of justice, such that you could make such a claim. You might have as much as a popular delusion, though we have no reason to suppose you even have that much.

But let's go back to all your definitions themselves. Let's take a couple of common synonyms for "justice," such as "proportionality," or "equity," or "redress." If you have others, like "deserving," we can substitute them, too, and what I say will still be right.

All of them are question-begging in this context. For the question we need to answer, in order to establish "proportionality" or "equity" or whatever, is "What is proportional?" or "What is equitable?" (And that doesn't even get to the root of the problem, which is that you haven't been promised by the indifferent universe that you're going to get any "equity," "proportionality" or "justice" anyway, no matter how much you call for it.)

Some demonstration is required that you have reason to know what particular sins, the sinful nature and defiance and rejection of relationship with the Supreme Being deserve, and that it is all insufficient warrant for God to allow a person to choose eternal condemnation.

So I'm content to wait for your demonstration. Because without it, Harry, you may be angry, enraged, incensed, self-justifying, beligerent, insulting, God-hating or anything else you want to be...but it's just subjective feelings, devoid of any substance. And your accusation simply vaporizes on a complete inability to justify it as referring to anything objective at all.

If what you say is true, then you are simply raging against the dying of your own light.

[henry quirk]

*I'll beat that (or any) ass if it deserves it.

You should have saved that as a great comment for a photograph on a BDSM website.

It's never too late: direct me to your favorite site, and I'll go post it there.

[Harry Baird]

That may be. But then, what grounds your conception of "justice'?

I really don't want to revisit our lengthy debate on the grounding of morality

But you have to

No, I very much don't, and I won't. If you want to, then reread that historical debate, and if you have anything genuinely new to add, then respond with a link to that to which you're responding, and I'll address it. Otherwise, take a hike in the woods, camper.

So what is your claim that "God is unjust" grounded in?

Uh, the meaning of the word "just". If you don't like what words mean, then make up your own language where you get to choose what words mean for yourself.

[Note: God is, in fact, just. The affirmation "God is unjust" applies only to the Christian conception of God.]

I emphasise the bottom line though: you affirm a conception of justice based in the Bible that is the polar opposite of what the word actually means.

I don't see that's true at all.

And that's because you're motivated not to by your presumption that the Bible is true - a presumption which you are unwilling to challenge or have challenged.

Some demonstration is required that you have reason to know what particular sins, the sinful nature and defiance and rejection of relationship with the Supreme Being deserve, and that it is all insufficient warrant for God to allow a person to choose eternal condemnation.

Dude, your conception of reality is perverse, demented, and unreal given that you think that there is any reason for an omnipotent, loving, just Being to condemn any person to unimaginable eternal torment for finite transgressions, potentially only minor.

When are you going to get real? Or are you on a mission to defame God?