what justfies?

[Logik]

Reason is a vague broad and meaningless term

Only so when the definition is not sufficiently rigorous
I define it as the application of logic to the real world

That's a stipulative definition.

Lacks clear criteria for "purpose" e.g success and failure.

How do you know that you are successfully applying logic to the real world? e.g reasoning
How do you know that you are unsuccessfully applying logic to the real world? e.g not-reasoning

[surreptitious57]

I define it as the application of logic to the real world which has a practical benefit in some way
So it might provide a solution to a problem or find a way to make a task more efficient than it is

Greater efficiency within machines and systems is an ongoing application of logic as everything can always be improved on
If you think of a human being as a biological machine then they can be improved over time through the application of logic

[Logik]

I define it as the application of logic to the real world which has a practical benefit in some way
So it might provide a solution to a problem or find a way to make a task more efficient than it is

Greater efficiency within machines and systems is an ongoing application of logic as everything can always be improved on
If you think of a human being as a biological machine then they can be improved over time through the application of logic

Rinse repeat. In general - I agree.

In particular: it depends on how you choose to measure "improvement over time".

There's a saying in systems engineering: the wrong metric will drive the wrong behaviour. So how you define "improvement" becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Colloquially it's the phenomenon of unintended consequences

[surreptitious57]

Improvement over time is actually guaranteed because technology automatically advances
It is the obvious things such as : more smaller / lighter / faster / adaptable / endurable /
Every successful model of a brand or type should be an improvement on what came before

[DPMartin]

What justifies?

Is 'that', which is just.

Only 'that', which is in agreement with and by ALL, IS JUST.

nice thought
its true that the agreement justifies. it's justified to paint the car blue because the agreement states to paint the car blue. so could it be said the agreement is the reason an act is justified?
also does the agreement have to be with power to sustain and establish justification? what if a more powerful in agreement eliminates the previous agreement and those in the previous agreement?

[DPMartin]

Reason is a vague broad and meaningless term

Only so when the definition is not sufficiently rigorous
I define it as the application of logic to the real world

That's a stipulative definition.

Lacks clear criteria for "purpose" e.g success and failure.

How do you know that you are successfully applying logic to the real world? e.g reasoning
How do you know that you are unsuccessfully applying logic to the real world? e.g not-reasoning

reason is reason there's a reason why one does a thing, thinks a thing feels a thing. you could say the reason for feeling and thinking a thing is some biological fact or you could say the reason is because someone punched you in the face, either way there's a reason for. and to justify requires a reason.

reason could be the guy was robbing my house and threating the lives of my family so I unloaded my shotgun in his face.

its justified to the homeowner for that reason and if the law, the agreement of the land stipulates he can do that without consequence then its also justified in the society that rules the land because they agree in the agreement.

also reason could be I shot him six times because he spilt my beer, therefore that reason is justification to the individual but not likely to be justified in the law of the land. so by reason of the law of the land it is justified to incarcerate the shooter.

either way its reason that justifies.

[Logik]

reason is reason
(...)
either way its reason that justifies.

Ah well that explains it!

You could have just said justification justifies and we could've wrapped this up even quicker.

But no... it's just begging the question. How does reason work?

[Scott Mayers]

nope I asked what justifies.

You are clearly unable to discuss philosophy if you can't make sense of what I ask with clarity. Definitions are needed by your question to determine what it is you want. I could similarly ask, what does, "chutriadian" mean to you? If you won't initiate WHICH definition of "justified" is to you, how or why should anyone respond to your request?

I do not have any "justified" in my hand. Go fish.

no, read the OP, I asked didn't I? therefore if you don't have a response, then what is your problem? don't respond.

I already read it appropriately and believe that you just don't approve of my view. Unless you are just doing a survey of what some SYMBOL means to them, then the term "justice" can be virtually anything. If you are sincere, look deeper as I suggested. Go back to Socrates if you want to see how OLD this question is. Otherwise, you aren't asking anything. You may as well have opened up a thread asking,

"What does 'shruptisimal' mean to you?"

If I set up such an OP, would it NOT be reasonable to ask what do YOU mean by "shruptismimal"? Just because the symbol, "justice" appears to be a common word, doesn't mean your question of it has any meaning unless you have some preconceived idea of what it means yourself for asking.

EDIT POINT: I notice that you seem to be responding positively in parts to those discussing precisely the point I made that reference Plato's question, "what is JUST?" from the Republic. This is why I am guessing you are just biasing me for some personal reason and not an actual dismissal of me not answering your question. So I won't participate here and note your discrimination of me before responding to anything you write.

[Walker]

What justifies?

Is 'that', which is just.

Only 'that', which is in agreement with and by ALL, IS JUST.

"Only 'that', which is in agreement with and by ALL, IS JUST."

By the logic of ALL, only everything can be JUST.

‘That’ as distinguished by “Only” is a differentiation which cannot logically apply as a definition of ALL, seeing as how ALL allows for no differentiation.

Only ALL can justify ALL. That, cannot justify ALL.

On the flip side of the same token and more applicable to life, which is the dualistic measure of ALL ... ALL cannot justify 'That,' no matter the form of 'That', e.g., dualistic form of voice, physical movement, and thought (moving mind).

Justifying particular actions ('That'), on the basis of ALL, is merely arrogance.

[Age]

What justifies?

Is 'that', which is just.

Only 'that', which is in agreement with and by ALL, IS JUST.

nice thought
its true that the agreement justifies. it's justified to paint the car blue because the agreement states to paint the car blue. so could it be said the agreement is the reason an act is justified?

Yes this could be said.

'Agreement', by one individual or by ALL individuals is, 'what justifies'.

(Now before I continue I will apologize in advance. All of this can be explained in very few words, but i do have a tendency to TRY TO explain all-of-this in great detail so that it is much better understand where I am coming from and how these answers are arrived at. So, again apologies.)

Every thing that is "justified" is 'justified' only because some one or some people are "justifying" it (whatever the 'it' is). Those who have 'justified it' have agreed that 'it' could be and is 'justified'. However, if that 'justification', which is justified to and by one or a few ones, is actually 'just' and 'right' to ALL and EVERY one, then that is a completely other matter.

Only what IS JUST to and by EVERY one is what IS Truly Just. The rest is, appropriately or inappropriately termed, "a justification".

also does the agreement have to be with power to sustain and establish justification?

I do NOT see 'power' as necessarily having any part in this. Just 'agreement' does. For example just one person might agree on their own terms that some actions are justified, and to them those actions ARE justified, but to others those actions are NOT justified at all - like the actions of allowing children to die of starvation.

I do NOT see the 'agreement' within one, or with some, being 'with power', other than the 'power of agreement' itself has MADE the "justification", itself.

Maybe the power of CHOICE is what establishes and sustains justification? And, the power of CHOICE comes from the freedom to choose, maybe?

But anyway, to establish and sustain justification only agreement is needed. Even if that agreement is within "one's own self", as they say, or in agreement with ALL or any number up to ALL, the 'agreement' itself establishes AND sustains the 'justification'. If there is NO, apparent, conflict of views, then agreement is reached, within just one and/or up to ALL, and if NO conflict is being seen, then justifications are MADE.

'Justifying' comes from 'agreeing'. Whereas, 'agreement reached' is when justification is made. So, 'what justifies' is agreeing AND agreement (of views), maybe?

what if a more powerful in agreement eliminates the previous agreement and those in the previous agreement?

Then they are 'just' eliminated. Nothing more, and nothing less. The MORE that are in agreement, the less chances of the 'agreement' just being a subjective "justification", and more chances of the agreement being Truly JUST (or an objective Justification). Obviously, if ALL are in agreement, then there is NO one disagreeing. So, what is being justified by ALL, for all intention purposes, IS JUST, and thus, literally, Truly JUSTIFIED. What IS JUST is naturally just (and/or) justified.

But in saying this, OF COURSE, if another view comes along, and as long as EVERY one is OPEN to LOOKING AT that new view, and 'it' is MORE justified than the last one, and ALL are agreeing, then the last "justified" view gets eliminated and the so called "new" view becomes the JUST and RIGHT view, now.

The words 'justify', 'justifying', and 'justified, come from the word 'just', and obviously ONLY what IS Truly JUST can be Truly justified.

True JUSTIFICATION can ONLY come from agreement between and with ALL, and by and for ALL, ONLY. After all only what is JUST for ALL could and would be Truly Justified. All the other "justifications" are, literally, just "justifications" or attempts at "justifying" 'that' which can NOT be Truly 'justified' anyway. All adult human beings do this "justifying", of wrong actions, a LOT of the time and a LOT more than they realize. These "justifications" can be, and are only, "justified" by one or by some, as they are only for one or some. These "justifications" are NOT for nor by ALL. What is for and by ALL is just naturally JUST anyway. Andy by the way does NOT necessarily even need justification. It is just ALREADY internally KNOWN to be True and Just anyway.

What is in agreement with and by ALL is actually JUST True, Right, and Correct. By JUST, LOOKING AT what IS the actual and real Truth of things this can be SEEN. What IS JUST for, and by, ALL IS what IS also True JUSTICE.

In the days of when this is written, just about ALL of what is said to be "just", "justifying", "justified", "justification", and "justice" IS just ONLY for a relatively few and NOT for ALL, at all really.

In the coming days, however, what IS Truly Just will come about.

Now, to use the 'allowing children to die of starvation' example. There are NOT many adults who, in their own home, would allow a child to die from just not having enough food to eat. 'To allow that would be unjust', most adults would think, and AGREE. But how far away does a child have to be from you and/or your own home before you start allowing them to die just because they need SOME food? If a child is on your front porch or at your front door, then is all right/justified to allow them to die just because they need some food? or what about at the end of the driveway would you then let them die of starvation? or if they are on the corner at the end of your street would you drive past them everyday and let them die, or when they are in another neighborhood, or when they are in another city or country, is that when it is all right to ALLOW them to die?

When this is written, there ARE children dying of starvation EVERY day on this one and only home, called earth. This can be so easily prevented. Children do NOT need to die, but adult human beings ALLOW them to. So, what is the thinking within 'you', ALL adults, which ALLOWS you to ALLOW children to die, just because they are hungry and do NOT have enough food to eat? Are you having trouble to obtain enough food for yourself and so this is WHY children are dying?

What is it 'in agreement' individually with all of you ADULTS that ALLOWS you to ALLOW children to die? Obviously, 'you' the adult reader of this would NOT allow a child to die in your "own" (four walled) home but 'what is it' 'in agreement' within your views that ALLOWS you to ALLOW children to die, who are just "somewhat removed" from you? Why is one child more important to you than another child is?

What would be 'in agreement' collectively among ALL adult human beings, which would have MORE POWER which could and would completely ELIMINATE those previous "agreements" within yourselves individually, which ALLOWED you ALL to ALLOW such a thing to happen as LETTING children die before you?

What conflict is there, which is actually EXISTING, which is being IGNORED and what CHOICE could you ALL make that would PREVENT and STOP you ALL from ALLOWING children from dying, just because they NEED a little bit of food, in the future?

When, and IF, that more powerful in agreement eliminates the previous agreement and those in the previous agreement comes to the forefront, then you will SEE for yourselves what actually CAN, and DOES, occur, with an agreement that IS by, and for, EVERY one, as One.

[Age]

What justifies?

Is 'that', which is just.

Only 'that', which is in agreement with and by ALL, IS JUST.

"Only 'that', which is in agreement with and by ALL, IS JUST."

By the logic of ALL, only everything can be JUST.

Is there even a 'logic' of ALL?

The word 'ALL' has a definition/meaning. I did NOT previously know that ALL had a 'logic'. To me the word 'ALL' means absolutely ALL, or EVERY, of a particular group.

The group I was referencing, by using the word ALL here, is the human being group (or EVERY thing if any one wanted to go down that line). I did NOT know that I had to point this out. Thank you for the help.

Now, for just one example, do you agree that I should be allowed to kill your close family members just because I want to?

If you do NOT agree, then you are one who is NOT agreeing, therefore NOT ALL are agreeing, so from what I have written, then 'that' action of 'killing your family members just because I wanted to' would NOT be just nor justified. It really is just that simple.

If, however, there are/is actions/an action that ALL agree with, then 'that' could be and would be, in my view, just AND justified.

I am NOT sure how this got confused, misinterpreted, et cetera but I would NEVER say that that is NOT my fault.

Now, if you still find this perplexing or not understood, then just ask clarifying questions, or just do what you did here and challenge me with some thing that was NOTHING that I had intended nor even thought could be taken that way.

I do NOT see how you arrived at; 'By the logic of ALL, ONLY 'everything' can be JUST'.

Can you clarify this for me here?

Did you read the word AGREEMENT in my sentence?

Did you think the word ALL was in reference to absolutely EVERYTHING, universal, including that which is NOT in agreement? Or, was something else going on?

‘That’ as distinguished by “Only” is a differentiation which cannot logically apply as a definition of ALL, seeing as how ALL allows for no differentiation.

I really do NOT know HOW my sentence could be so taken out of context, but anyway; 'Only 'that' means only 'that' (action/behavior/whatever/anything), which is in AGREEMENT with and by 'ALL', (human beings, or EVERY thing on much deeper level), IS JUST.

Does this make sense or more sense now?

It is ONLY 'that' which is in AGREEMENT by ALL. It is NOT EVERY thing, including which is NOT in agreement.

Only ALL can justify ALL. That, cannot justify ALL.

I really think you may have MISSED reading the 'AGREEMENT' word. (Maybe I should have capitalist that word?)

On the flip side of the same token and more applicable to life, which is the dualistic measure of ALL ... ALL cannot justify 'That,' no matter the form of 'That', e.g., dualistic form of voice, physical movement, and thought (moving mind).

I do NOT understand this. But I am also NOT really that interested.

Are you TRYING TO explain 'what justifies' here?

Justifying particular actions ('That'), on the basis of ALL, is merely arrogance.

Okay, then I must be arrogant, according to YOUR logic.

Now that you have TRIED TO "justify" your view on what IS NOT the case, and if you are NOT arrogant, yourself, and are able to explain what is the truth here, then please go ahead and explain 'what justifies' instead.

If you clarified what I was actually saying first before you just ASSUMED what I was saying and TRYING TO explain from that perspective, then we would NOT be where we are right now. That is; waiting for you to tell us 'what justifies'?

[DPMartin]

What justifies?

Is 'that', which is just.

Only 'that', which is in agreement with and by ALL, IS JUST.

nice thought
its true that the agreement justifies. it's justified to paint the car blue because the agreement states to paint the car blue. so could it be said the agreement is the reason an act is justified?

Yes this could be said.

'Agreement', by one individual or by ALL individuals is, 'what justifies'.

(Now before I continue I will apologize in advance. All of this can be explained in very few words, but i do have a tendency to TRY TO explain all-of-this in great detail so that it is much better understand where I am coming from and how these answers are arrived at. So, again apologies.)

Every thing that is "justified" is 'justified' only because some one or some people are "justifying" it (whatever the 'it' is). Those who have 'justified it' have agreed that 'it' could be and is 'justified'. However, if that 'justification', which is justified to and by one or a few ones, is actually 'just' and 'right' to ALL and EVERY one, then that is a completely other matter.

Only what IS JUST to and by EVERY one is what IS Truly Just. The rest is, appropriately or inappropriately termed, "a justification".

also does the agreement have to be with power to sustain and establish justification?

I do NOT see 'power' as necessarily having any part in this. Just 'agreement' does. For example just one person might agree on their own terms that some actions are justified, and to them those actions ARE justified, but to others those actions are NOT justified at all - like the actions of allowing children to die of starvation.

I do NOT see the 'agreement' within one, or with some, being 'with power', other than the 'power of agreement' itself has MADE the "justification", itself.

Maybe the power of CHOICE is what establishes and sustains justification? And, the power of CHOICE comes from the freedom to choose, maybe?

But anyway, to establish and sustain justification only agreement is needed. Even if that agreement is within "one's own self", as they say, or in agreement with ALL or any number up to ALL, the 'agreement' itself establishes AND sustains the 'justification'. If there is NO, apparent, conflict of views, then agreement is reached, within just one and/or up to ALL, and if NO conflict is being seen, then justifications are MADE.

'Justifying' comes from 'agreeing'. Whereas, 'agreement reached' is when justification is made. So, 'what justifies' is agreeing AND agreement (of views), maybe?

what if a more powerful in agreement eliminates the previous agreement and those in the previous agreement?

Then they are 'just' eliminated. Nothing more, and nothing less. The MORE that are in agreement, the less chances of the 'agreement' just being a subjective "justification", and more chances of the agreement being Truly JUST (or an objective Justification). Obviously, if ALL are in agreement, then there is NO one disagreeing. So, what is being justified by ALL, for all intention purposes, IS JUST, and thus, literally, Truly JUSTIFIED. What IS JUST is naturally just (and/or) justified.

But in saying this, OF COURSE, if another view comes along, and as long as EVERY one is OPEN to LOOKING AT that new view, and 'it' is MORE justified than the last one, and ALL are agreeing, then the last "justified" view gets eliminated and the so called "new" view becomes the JUST and RIGHT view, now.

The words 'justify', 'justifying', and 'justified, come from the word 'just', and obviously ONLY what IS Truly JUST can be Truly justified.

True JUSTIFICATION can ONLY come from agreement between and with ALL, and by and for ALL, ONLY. After all only what is JUST for ALL could and would be Truly Justified. All the other "justifications" are, literally, just "justifications" or attempts at "justifying" 'that' which can NOT be Truly 'justified' anyway. All adult human beings do this "justifying", of wrong actions, a LOT of the time and a LOT more than they realize. These "justifications" can be, and are only, "justified" by one or by some, as they are only for one or some. These "justifications" are NOT for nor by ALL. What is for and by ALL is just naturally JUST anyway. Andy by the way does NOT necessarily even need justification. It is just ALREADY internally KNOWN to be True and Just anyway.

What is in agreement with and by ALL is actually JUST True, Right, and Correct. By JUST, LOOKING AT what IS the actual and real Truth of things this can be SEEN. What IS JUST for, and by, ALL IS what IS also True JUSTICE.

In the days of when this is written, just about ALL of what is said to be "just", "justifying", "justified", "justification", and "justice" IS just ONLY for a relatively few and NOT for ALL, at all really.

In the coming days, however, what IS Truly Just will come about.

Now, to use the 'allowing children to die of starvation' example. There are NOT many adults who, in their own home, would allow a child to die from just not having enough food to eat. 'To allow that would be unjust', most adults would think, and AGREE. But how far away does a child have to be from you and/or your own home before you start allowing them to die just because they need SOME food? If a child is on your front porch or at your front door, then is all right/justified to allow them to die just because they need some food? or what about at the end of the driveway would you then let them die of starvation? or if they are on the corner at the end of your street would you drive past them everyday and let them die, or when they are in another neighborhood, or when they are in another city or country, is that when it is all right to ALLOW them to die?

When this is written, there ARE children dying of starvation EVERY day on this one and only home, called earth. This can be so easily prevented. Children do NOT need to die, but adult human beings ALLOW them to. So, what is the thinking within 'you', ALL adults, which ALLOWS you to ALLOW children to die, just because they are hungry and do NOT have enough food to eat? Are you having trouble to obtain enough food for yourself and so this is WHY children are dying?

What is it 'in agreement' individually with all of you ADULTS that ALLOWS you to ALLOW children to die? Obviously, 'you' the adult reader of this would NOT allow a child to die in your "own" (four walled) home but 'what is it' 'in agreement' within your views that ALLOWS you to ALLOW children to die, who are just "somewhat removed" from you? Why is one child more important to you than another child is?

What would be 'in agreement' collectively among ALL adult human beings, which would have MORE POWER which could and would completely ELIMINATE those previous "agreements" within yourselves individually, which ALLOWED you ALL to ALLOW such a thing to happen as LETTING children die before you?

What conflict is there, which is actually EXISTING, which is being IGNORED and what CHOICE could you ALL make that would PREVENT and STOP you ALL from ALLOWING children from dying, just because they NEED a little bit of food, in the future?

When, and IF, that more powerful in agreement eliminates the previous agreement and those in the previous agreement comes to the forefront, then you will SEE for yourselves what actually CAN, and DOES, occur, with an agreement that IS by, and for, EVERY one, as One.

the agreement justifies within the context and the agreed of the agreement. but without the power to enforce or establish the agreement its subject to the power to remove the agreement and those who are participants in the said agreement.

for example, war challenges the power of nations to remain, and nations are groups in their agreements.

but your discussion on starving children doesn't mean anything, reason being there not mine. therefore who brought them into the world without means to feed them? so unless its the law to feed them then there's no reason to prosecute someone for not feeding children they didn't bring into the world. now if its in your heart to do so God bless, but no man has (1) the right by law to require the other (2) to feed (1)'s child.

in the US there is law in place to see to it children don't starve therefore it is agreed in the US but its the Gov that given the responsibility to administer said law which is also part of the agreement (law).

[Walker]

What justifies?

Is 'that', which is just.

Only 'that', which is in agreement with and by ALL, IS JUST.

"Only 'that', which is in agreement with and by ALL, IS JUST."

By the logic of ALL, only everything can be JUST.

Is there even a 'logic' of ALL?

The word 'ALL' has a definition/meaning. I did NOT previously know that ALL had a 'logic'. To me the word 'ALL' means absolutely ALL, or EVERY, of a particular group.

The group I was referencing, by using the word ALL here, is the human being group (or EVERY thing if any one wanted to go down that line). I did NOT know that I had to point this out. Thank you for the help.

Now, for just one example, do you agree that I should be allowed to kill your close family members just because I want to?

If you do NOT agree, then you are one who is NOT agreeing, therefore NOT ALL are agreeing, so from what I have written, then 'that' action of 'killing your family members just because I wanted to' would NOT be just nor justified. It really is just that simple.

If, however, there are/is actions/an action that ALL agree with, then 'that' could be and would be, in my view, just AND justified.

I am NOT sure how this got confused, misinterpreted, et cetera but I would NEVER say that that is NOT my fault.

Now, if you still find this perplexing or not understood, then just ask clarifying questions, or just do what you did here and challenge me with some thing that was NOTHING that I had intended nor even thought could be taken that way.

I do NOT see how you arrived at; 'By the logic of ALL, ONLY 'everything' can be JUST'.

Can you clarify this for me here?

Did you read the word AGREEMENT in my sentence?

Did you think the word ALL was in reference to absolutely EVERYTHING, universal, including that which is NOT in agreement? Or, was something else going on?

‘That’ as distinguished by “Only” is a differentiation which cannot logically apply as a definition of ALL, seeing as how ALL allows for no differentiation.

I really do NOT know HOW my sentence could be so taken out of context, but anyway; 'Only 'that' means only 'that' (action/behavior/whatever/anything), which is in AGREEMENT with and by 'ALL', (human beings, or EVERY thing on much deeper level), IS JUST.

Does this make sense or more sense now?

It is ONLY 'that' which is in AGREEMENT by ALL. It is NOT EVERY thing, including which is NOT in agreement.

Only ALL can justify ALL. That, cannot justify ALL.

I really think you may have MISSED reading the 'AGREEMENT' word. (Maybe I should have capitalist that word?)

On the flip side of the same token and more applicable to life, which is the dualistic measure of ALL ... ALL cannot justify 'That,' no matter the form of 'That', e.g., dualistic form of voice, physical movement, and thought (moving mind).

I do NOT understand this. But I am also NOT really that interested.

Are you TRYING TO explain 'what justifies' here?

Justifying particular actions ('That'), on the basis of ALL, is merely arrogance.

Okay, then I must be arrogant, according to YOUR logic.

Now that you have TRIED TO "justify" your view on what IS NOT the case, and if you are NOT arrogant, yourself, and are able to explain what is the truth here, then please go ahead and explain 'what justifies' instead.

If you clarified what I was actually saying first before you just ASSUMED what I was saying and TRYING TO explain from that perspective, then we would NOT be where we are right now. That is; waiting for you to tell us 'what justifies'?

I must disagree with the approach of taking things personally when elevating to a discussion of principles.

No one owns logic, which is what makes logic, logical.

To use ALL as the justification for any particular doing of any particular That, includes the act of killing.

ALL can be equated to God.

Therefore, to use ALL as a justification for killing, is the same as using God as a justification for killing.

This is illogical, because justification can only apply to a particular, isolated fragement of ALL, or God. Justification is simply one particular of the ALL assessing another particular of the ALL. Justification does not pertain to ALL.

Therefore, using the ALL as justification for any particular doing such as killing, is not only arrogant, it’s fanatical.

Examples abound of killing in the name of ALL. The act is often accompanied by the voice hollering ALL, and then is followed by a short, clipped AH. The voice intent mirrored by the actions may or may not be repeated at intervals, according to survivors.

[Age]

nice thought
its true that the agreement justifies. it's justified to paint the car blue because the agreement states to paint the car blue. so could it be said the agreement is the reason an act is justified?

Yes this could be said.

'Agreement', by one individual or by ALL individuals is, 'what justifies'.

(Now before I continue I will apologize in advance. All of this can be explained in very few words, but i do have a tendency to TRY TO explain all-of-this in great detail so that it is much better understand where I am coming from and how these answers are arrived at. So, again apologies.)

Every thing that is "justified" is 'justified' only because some one or some people are "justifying" it (whatever the 'it' is). Those who have 'justified it' have agreed that 'it' could be and is 'justified'. However, if that 'justification', which is justified to and by one or a few ones, is actually 'just' and 'right' to ALL and EVERY one, then that is a completely other matter.

Only what IS JUST to and by EVERY one is what IS Truly Just. The rest is, appropriately or inappropriately termed, "a justification".

also does the agreement have to be with power to sustain and establish justification?

I do NOT see 'power' as necessarily having any part in this. Just 'agreement' does. For example just one person might agree on their own terms that some actions are justified, and to them those actions ARE justified, but to others those actions are NOT justified at all - like the actions of allowing children to die of starvation.

I do NOT see the 'agreement' within one, or with some, being 'with power', other than the 'power of agreement' itself has MADE the "justification", itself.

Maybe the power of CHOICE is what establishes and sustains justification? And, the power of CHOICE comes from the freedom to choose, maybe?

But anyway, to establish and sustain justification only agreement is needed. Even if that agreement is within "one's own self", as they say, or in agreement with ALL or any number up to ALL, the 'agreement' itself establishes AND sustains the 'justification'. If there is NO, apparent, conflict of views, then agreement is reached, within just one and/or up to ALL, and if NO conflict is being seen, then justifications are MADE.

'Justifying' comes from 'agreeing'. Whereas, 'agreement reached' is when justification is made. So, 'what justifies' is agreeing AND agreement (of views), maybe?

what if a more powerful in agreement eliminates the previous agreement and those in the previous agreement?

Then they are 'just' eliminated. Nothing more, and nothing less. The MORE that are in agreement, the less chances of the 'agreement' just being a subjective "justification", and more chances of the agreement being Truly JUST (or an objective Justification). Obviously, if ALL are in agreement, then there is NO one disagreeing. So, what is being justified by ALL, for all intention purposes, IS JUST, and thus, literally, Truly JUSTIFIED. What IS JUST is naturally just (and/or) justified.

But in saying this, OF COURSE, if another view comes along, and as long as EVERY one is OPEN to LOOKING AT that new view, and 'it' is MORE justified than the last one, and ALL are agreeing, then the last "justified" view gets eliminated and the so called "new" view becomes the JUST and RIGHT view, now.

The words 'justify', 'justifying', and 'justified, come from the word 'just', and obviously ONLY what IS Truly JUST can be Truly justified.

True JUSTIFICATION can ONLY come from agreement between and with ALL, and by and for ALL, ONLY. After all only what is JUST for ALL could and would be Truly Justified. All the other "justifications" are, literally, just "justifications" or attempts at "justifying" 'that' which can NOT be Truly 'justified' anyway. All adult human beings do this "justifying", of wrong actions, a LOT of the time and a LOT more than they realize. These "justifications" can be, and are only, "justified" by one or by some, as they are only for one or some. These "justifications" are NOT for nor by ALL. What is for and by ALL is just naturally JUST anyway. Andy by the way does NOT necessarily even need justification. It is just ALREADY internally KNOWN to be True and Just anyway.

What is in agreement with and by ALL is actually JUST True, Right, and Correct. By JUST, LOOKING AT what IS the actual and real Truth of things this can be SEEN. What IS JUST for, and by, ALL IS what IS also True JUSTICE.

In the days of when this is written, just about ALL of what is said to be "just", "justifying", "justified", "justification", and "justice" IS just ONLY for a relatively few and NOT for ALL, at all really.

In the coming days, however, what IS Truly Just will come about.

Now, to use the 'allowing children to die of starvation' example. There are NOT many adults who, in their own home, would allow a child to die from just not having enough food to eat. 'To allow that would be unjust', most adults would think, and AGREE. But how far away does a child have to be from you and/or your own home before you start allowing them to die just because they need SOME food? If a child is on your front porch or at your front door, then is all right/justified to allow them to die just because they need some food? or what about at the end of the driveway would you then let them die of starvation? or if they are on the corner at the end of your street would you drive past them everyday and let them die, or when they are in another neighborhood, or when they are in another city or country, is that when it is all right to ALLOW them to die?

When this is written, there ARE children dying of starvation EVERY day on this one and only home, called earth. This can be so easily prevented. Children do NOT need to die, but adult human beings ALLOW them to. So, what is the thinking within 'you', ALL adults, which ALLOWS you to ALLOW children to die, just because they are hungry and do NOT have enough food to eat? Are you having trouble to obtain enough food for yourself and so this is WHY children are dying?

What is it 'in agreement' individually with all of you ADULTS that ALLOWS you to ALLOW children to die? Obviously, 'you' the adult reader of this would NOT allow a child to die in your "own" (four walled) home but 'what is it' 'in agreement' within your views that ALLOWS you to ALLOW children to die, who are just "somewhat removed" from you? Why is one child more important to you than another child is?

What would be 'in agreement' collectively among ALL adult human beings, which would have MORE POWER which could and would completely ELIMINATE those previous "agreements" within yourselves individually, which ALLOWED you ALL to ALLOW such a thing to happen as LETTING children die before you?

What conflict is there, which is actually EXISTING, which is being IGNORED and what CHOICE could you ALL make that would PREVENT and STOP you ALL from ALLOWING children from dying, just because they NEED a little bit of food, in the future?

When, and IF, that more powerful in agreement eliminates the previous agreement and those in the previous agreement comes to the forefront, then you will SEE for yourselves what actually CAN, and DOES, occur, with an agreement that IS by, and for, EVERY one, as One.

the agreement justifies within the context and the agreed of the agreement. but without the power to enforce or establish the agreement its subject to the power to remove the agreement and those who are participants in the said agreement.

This may be so, but this is only in regards to 'power' being in the control of some. If 'power' is seen to be "NEEDED" to be 'enforced', then obviously what is being "justified", by some, really is NOT Just at all.

There is, obviously, NO need for any such "power" and "control" in a Truly Just and Right "world".

Only 'that' what is Truly Just could be justified by ALL anyway, and NOT just by some. If 'it' is JUSTIFIED by ALL, then 'it' would NOT need enforcing.

The "power" you speak of has nothing to do with what IS actually Just. This power only relates to "those" who TRY TO "justify" their overempowering and controlling, obviously wrong, behaviors.

for example, war challenges the power of nations to remain, and nations are groups in their agreements.

War also kills completely innocent children as well. But what is your point here with this?

When you asked, 'What justifies'? Were you asking just out if general curiosity, or, because you wanted to TRY TO justify some thing? Or, was there another reason for that question?

And, IF you are TRYING TO 'justify' WAR, then enjoy.

but your discussion on starving children doesn't mean anything, reason being there not mine.

What does not mean anything, TO 'YOU', does NOT mean that it does not mean 'anything'.

therefore who brought them into the world without means to feed them?

Human beings.

Also, there IS means to feed them. There is plentiful of food on Earth. It is just a pity that, unjustly, only SOME want, and do have, the power and the control of that food source.

so unless its the law to feed them then there's no reason to prosecute someone for not feeding children they didn't bring into the world. now if its in your heart to do so God bless, but no man has (1) the right by law to require the other (2) to feed (1)'s child.

And I hope adult human beings never become so greedy that it HAS TO become "law" that they then only have the "right" to require another to feed a child. I hope ALL adults would just WANT to help ALL other adults who NEED support to help feed "their" children.

in the US there is law in place to see to it children don't starve therefore it is agreed in the US but its the Gov that given the responsibility to administer said law which is also part of the agreement (law).

When I wrote regarding this I NEVER thought that any one would TRY TO "justify" their position on this. I was just TRYING TO illustrate just how human beings DO "justify" to themselves only, about things which are OBVIOUSLY WRONG, but never really give it much more than a very quick thought. I really NEVER thought any one would TRY TO "justify" themselves regarding an issue such as willingly ALLOWING children to die, from just the lack of a little bit of food.

[Age]

"Only 'that', which is in agreement with and by ALL, IS JUST."

By the logic of ALL, only everything can be JUST.

Is there even a 'logic' of ALL?

The word 'ALL' has a definition/meaning. I did NOT previously know that ALL had a 'logic'. To me the word 'ALL' means absolutely ALL, or EVERY, of a particular group.

The group I was referencing, by using the word ALL here, is the human being group (or EVERY thing if any one wanted to go down that line). I did NOT know that I had to point this out. Thank you for the help.

Now, for just one example, do you agree that I should be allowed to kill your close family members just because I want to?

If you do NOT agree, then you are one who is NOT agreeing, therefore NOT ALL are agreeing, so from what I have written, then 'that' action of 'killing your family members just because I wanted to' would NOT be just nor justified. It really is just that simple.

If, however, there are/is actions/an action that ALL agree with, then 'that' could be and would be, in my view, just AND justified.

I am NOT sure how this got confused, misinterpreted, et cetera but I would NEVER say that that is NOT my fault.

Now, if you still find this perplexing or not understood, then just ask clarifying questions, or just do what you did here and challenge me with some thing that was NOTHING that I had intended nor even thought could be taken that way.

I do NOT see how you arrived at; 'By the logic of ALL, ONLY 'everything' can be JUST'.

Can you clarify this for me here?

Did you read the word AGREEMENT in my sentence?

Did you think the word ALL was in reference to absolutely EVERYTHING, universal, including that which is NOT in agreement? Or, was something else going on?

‘That’ as distinguished by “Only” is a differentiation which cannot logically apply as a definition of ALL, seeing as how ALL allows for no differentiation.

I really do NOT know HOW my sentence could be so taken out of context, but anyway; 'Only 'that' means only 'that' (action/behavior/whatever/anything), which is in AGREEMENT with and by 'ALL', (human beings, or EVERY thing on much deeper level), IS JUST.

Does this make sense or more sense now?

It is ONLY 'that' which is in AGREEMENT by ALL. It is NOT EVERY thing, including which is NOT in agreement.

Only ALL can justify ALL. That, cannot justify ALL.

I really think you may have MISSED reading the 'AGREEMENT' word. (Maybe I should have capitalist that word?)

On the flip side of the same token and more applicable to life, which is the dualistic measure of ALL ... ALL cannot justify 'That,' no matter the form of 'That', e.g., dualistic form of voice, physical movement, and thought (moving mind).

I do NOT understand this. But I am also NOT really that interested.

Are you TRYING TO explain 'what justifies' here?

Justifying particular actions ('That'), on the basis of ALL, is merely arrogance.

Okay, then I must be arrogant, according to YOUR logic.

Now that you have TRIED TO "justify" your view on what IS NOT the case, and if you are NOT arrogant, yourself, and are able to explain what is the truth here, then please go ahead and explain 'what justifies' instead.

If you clarified what I was actually saying first before you just ASSUMED what I was saying and TRYING TO explain from that perspective, then we would NOT be where we are right now. That is; waiting for you to tell us 'what justifies'?

I must disagree with the approach of taking things personally when elevating to a discussion of principles.

Okay, you disagree, if you 'must'. Noted.

No one owns logic, which is what makes logic, logical

.

Okay, if that sounds "logical", to you, then also noted.

To use ALL as the justification for any particular doing of any particular That, includes the act of killing.

You, I think, are STILL taking my words completely out of context.

Did you understand what I meant when I used the word 'agreement' when in relation to the word 'ALL'?

If yes, then great. But it sure does NOT look like it.
If no, then are there any clarifying questions you would like answered?

ALL can be equated to God.

ALL can ALSO be equated to EVERY one in a group of things.

Also, just because a word CAN BE equated with another word that, in of itself means that it is.

Therefore, to use ALL as a justification for killing, is the same as using God as a justification for killing.

Lol that was a "jump and a half" to arrive at that conclusion. There are some distorted and WRONG ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS at work here.

1. The word 'ALL' was NEVER used, by me, as a justification for killing.

2. The word 'ALL' was NEVER used, by me, to equated to God

Therefore, what you wrote is completely and utterly moot.

This is illogical, because justification can only apply to a particular, isolated fragement of ALL, or God. Justification is simply one particular of the ALL assessing another particular of the ALL. Justification does not pertain to ALL

If you say so.

Therefore, using the ALL as justification for any particular doing such as killing, is not only arrogant, it’s fanatical.

But YOU are the only one who has used the word 'ALL' as a "justication" for killing, and you are the only one continually thinking like this and mentioning this also.

Depending on 'what' exactly you are using the 'killing' word in reference to, of course, obviously there would NOT be 'agreement' with and by ALL for 'killing'.

So, WHY can you NOT yet SEE this?

Examples abound of killing in the name of ALL.

Who cares? That has just about NOTHING to do with what I have actually been talking about.

The act is often accompanied by the voice hollering ALL, and then is followed by a short, clipped AH.

So what? Just another killing done in the name given to a thing, which is completely unknown to most human beings.

The voice intent mirrored by the actions may or may not be repeated at intervals, according to survivors.

Yes true. Christian soldiers killing human beings under the name GO, followed by a short D, some times kill in this fashion also. That is the nature of 'war'. Waring human beings have been INSTRUCTED TO KILL each other. And they, like most adult human beings, do what they have been INSTRUCTED TO DO, instead of doing what is the Right thing to do.