what justfies?

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Walker
Posts: 6884
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: what justfies?

Post by Walker » Sat Apr 27, 2019 9:18 am

:lol:

You're a funny fella.

Since you’ve indicated that your true objective is certainty, then this will take you closest to the sun.

The only thing you know for sure is: ‘here and now I am’..
- Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj

Age
Posts: 3600
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: what justfies?

Post by Age » Mon Apr 29, 2019 1:34 pm

Walker wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 9:18 am
:lol:

You're a funny fella.

Since you’ve indicated that your true objective is certainty, then this will take you closest to the sun.
IF this post was directed to me, my true objective is NOT certainty. So, your ASSUMPTION is WRONG, which is taking you further from thee Truth of things.
Walker wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 9:18 am
The only thing you know for sure is: ‘here and now I am’..
- Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
Just another human being TELLING another 'story' from their own definition of words.

The only thing I know, for sure, here and now, at this moment, are the thoughts within this body.

DPMartin
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re: what justfies?

Post by DPMartin » Mon Apr 29, 2019 2:26 pm

Age wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 3:22 am
DPMartin wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 2:46 pm
Age wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 6:01 am


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".



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?



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.
DPMartin wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 2:46 pm
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.
DPMartin wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 2:46 pm
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'.
DPMartin wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 2:46 pm
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.
DPMartin wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 2:46 pm
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.
DPMartin wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 2:46 pm
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.
thing is the OP asked what justifies, not what is justice.

Age
Posts: 3600
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: what justfies?

Post by Age » Mon Apr 29, 2019 4:26 pm

DPMartin wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 2:26 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 3:22 am
DPMartin wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 2:46 pm



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.
DPMartin wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 2:46 pm
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.
DPMartin wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 2:46 pm
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'.
DPMartin wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 2:46 pm
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.
DPMartin wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 2:46 pm
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.
DPMartin wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 2:46 pm
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.
thing is the OP asked what justifies, not what is justice.
Well I have ALREADY explained 'that' AND moved on, ALREADY ALSO.

DPMartin
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re: what justfies?

Post by DPMartin » Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:08 pm

Age wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 4:26 pm
DPMartin wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 2:26 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 3:22 am


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.



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.



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



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.



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.



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.
thing is the OP asked what justifies, not what is justice.
Well I have ALREADY explained 'that' AND moved on, ALREADY ALSO.
did you really? all that pops up here is "right" and "Just"


example of justify without right and just

a parent's child is justified to walk in his parent's home without permission because his parents justify his place in the home. no one else can do that for reason they are born of the parent. granted that can be denied by the parent but that would be an extra, because by default the child is permitted to presume place in the household without any justification other than be a child of.

Belinda
Posts: 2808
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: what justfies?

Post by Belinda » Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:34 pm

DPMartin wrote:
Thu Apr 11, 2019 2:40 pm
simply what justifies, and why is there disagreement on what justifies? is there nothing that all agree that justifies?
Children's moral development is gradual , so I presume that we are discussing adult criteria, given that some adults' moral maturation will be stuck at an early developmental level.
Any given adult has been socialised by significant others including parents, teachers, priests, and other caregivers and , at a later stage, by peers.

Culturally received beliefs differ and so moral criteria differ from time to time and from place to place. Present times are different from the past because of electronic communications which among free peoples are globally available. And these mass communications enable various beliefs about justice and criteria for justice.

Personalities are such that some people learn eccentric criteria such as recruits to terrorist organisations.

Apart from terrorists and common sociopaths the criteria for evaluating whether something is just or not fall into two main groups . One group's criteria are more or less ' fundamental' and they aim to conserve some institution and its ideology; the other group's criteria are 'liberal' and aim to develop individual consciences.

DPMartin
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re: what justfies?

Post by DPMartin » Tue Apr 30, 2019 2:48 pm

Belinda wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:34 pm
DPMartin wrote:
Thu Apr 11, 2019 2:40 pm
simply what justifies, and why is there disagreement on what justifies? is there nothing that all agree that justifies?
Children's moral development is gradual , so I presume that we are discussing adult criteria, given that some adults' moral maturation will be stuck at an early developmental level.
Any given adult has been socialised by significant others including parents, teachers, priests, and other caregivers and , at a later stage, by peers.

Culturally received beliefs differ and so moral criteria differ from time to time and from place to place. Present times are different from the past because of electronic communications which among free peoples are globally available. And these mass communications enable various beliefs about justice and criteria for justice.

Personalities are such that some people learn eccentric criteria such as recruits to terrorist organisations.

Apart from terrorists and common sociopaths the criteria for evaluating whether something is just or not fall into two main groups . One group's criteria are more or less ' fundamental' and they aim to conserve some institution and its ideology; the other group's criteria are 'liberal' and aim to develop individual consciences.

example of justify without right and just

a parent's child is justified to walk in his parent's home without permission because his parents justify his place in the home. no one else can do that for reason they are born of the parent. granted that can be denied by the parent but that would be an extra, because by default the child is permitted to presume place in the household without any justification other than be a child of.

no need for some precept of justice here is there?

Age
Posts: 3600
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: what justfies?

Post by Age » Wed May 01, 2019 12:45 am

DPMartin wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:08 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 4:26 pm
DPMartin wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 2:26 pm


thing is the OP asked what justifies, not what is justice.
Well I have ALREADY explained 'that' AND moved on, ALREADY ALSO.
did you really?
Yes, on page 2 when I wrote (underlined):

What justifies?

Is 'that', which is just.

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


THEN, you replied, which started with (underlined):

nice thought
its true that the agreement justifies.


AND THEN, I waffled on with what I have.
DPMartin wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:08 pm
all that pops up here is "right" and "Just"
Yes maybe, but that is just in that post.

I had earlier ALREADY explained 'What justifies', and then had just moved on to 'just' and 'justice'.

DPMartin wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:08 pm
example of justify without right and just

a parent's child is justified to walk in his parent's home without permission because his parents justify his place in the home. no one else can do that for reason they are born of the parent. granted that can be denied by the parent but that would be an extra, because by default the child is permitted to presume place in the household without any justification other than be a child of.
So, is that an example of 'justify without right and just' or is that an example of 'some thing without needing justification'?

If it is the former, then it goes without speaking that it IS 'right and just' anyway. Some things just naturally do NOT need to be stated and pointed out.

If it is the latter, then it is NOT an example of 'justify without right and just'. It just shows that some thing just naturally do NOT need to be stated and pointed out. That is; some things really do NOT need 'justification'.

Belinda
Posts: 2808
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: what justfies?

Post by Belinda » Wed May 01, 2019 11:50 am

DPMartin wrote an e.g.
a parent's child is justified to walk in his parent's home without permission because his parents justify his place in the home. no one else can do that for reason they are born of the parent. granted that can be denied by the parent but that would be an extra, because by default the child is permitted to presume place in the household without any justification other than be a child of.
In your example the parents' house rules permit their child to walk in their home without specific permission, and these house rules are widely accepted. The house rules are not sufficient to justify the child's behaviour. Also required is the prevailing theory of child psychology that deems that the young child respects his parents and other authority figures and obeys their rules.

For all I know there may be a society where the accepted morality is such that a young child may not walk in his parents' house without permission. In large and rich households it used to be common for young children to be confined to the nursery which was typically on the top floor of the house, and the children and their nanny had to have specific permission to descend to other parts of the house where the adults lived.

When the child attains moral maturity, typically when he is an adult , he may not justify walking in his parent's home without permission.

DPMartin
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re: what justfies?

Post by DPMartin » Wed May 01, 2019 2:32 pm

Age wrote:
Wed May 01, 2019 12:45 am
DPMartin wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:08 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 4:26 pm


Well I have ALREADY explained 'that' AND moved on, ALREADY ALSO.
did you really?
Yes, on page 2 when I wrote (underlined):

What justifies?

Is 'that', which is just.

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


THEN, you replied, which started with (underlined):

nice thought
its true that the agreement justifies.


AND THEN, I waffled on with what I have.
DPMartin wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:08 pm
all that pops up here is "right" and "Just"
Yes maybe, but that is just in that post.

I had earlier ALREADY explained 'What justifies', and then had just moved on to 'just' and 'justice'.

DPMartin wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:08 pm
example of justify without right and just

a parent's child is justified to walk in his parent's home without permission because his parents justify his place in the home. no one else can do that for reason they are born of the parent. granted that can be denied by the parent but that would be an extra, because by default the child is permitted to presume place in the household without any justification other than be a child of.
So, is that an example of 'justify without right and just' or is that an example of 'some thing without needing justification'?

If it is the former, then it goes without speaking that it IS 'right and just' anyway. Some things just naturally do NOT need to be stated and pointed out.

If it is the latter, then it is NOT an example of 'justify without right and just'. It just shows that some thing just naturally do NOT need to be stated and pointed out. That is; some things really do NOT need 'justification'.
it seems you don't realize that an agreement of what is just isn't needed in the child's place in the house. the child's place in the household doesn't need anyone's opinion of what is just to have place in the house hold but someone else that isn't a child of the parent isn't justified to be in the same place without a special agreement. whereas the child of the parent is justified by default by virtue of who and what the child is born into.


though agreements do justify in the context of the agreement and the agreed, its not always the case in what justifies.


to take it a step further what justifies someone living a life of a human being, other then the fact that one is born into the world as a human being? simply because other humans gave the life they had to that person.
Last edited by DPMartin on Wed May 01, 2019 2:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.

DPMartin
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re: what justfies?

Post by DPMartin » Wed May 01, 2019 2:35 pm

Belinda wrote:
Wed May 01, 2019 11:50 am
DPMartin wrote an e.g.
a parent's child is justified to walk in his parent's home without permission because his parents justify his place in the home. no one else can do that for reason they are born of the parent. granted that can be denied by the parent but that would be an extra, because by default the child is permitted to presume place in the household without any justification other than be a child of.
In your example the parents' house rules permit their child to walk in their home without specific permission, and these house rules are widely accepted. The house rules are not sufficient to justify the child's behaviour. Also required is the prevailing theory of child psychology that deems that the young child respects his parents and other authority figures and obeys their rules.

For all I know there may be a society where the accepted morality is such that a young child may not walk in his parents' house without permission. In large and rich households it used to be common for young children to be confined to the nursery which was typically on the top floor of the house, and the children and their nanny had to have specific permission to descend to other parts of the house where the adults lived.

When the child attains moral maturity, typically when he is an adult , he may not justify walking in his parent's home without permission.
what are you talking about here? the example is simply a example of the justification of the child's place in the house hold by virtue of being born into the household.

Age
Posts: 3600
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: what justfies?

Post by Age » Wed May 01, 2019 3:22 pm

DPMartin wrote:
Wed May 01, 2019 2:32 pm
Age wrote:
Wed May 01, 2019 12:45 am
DPMartin wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:08 pm


did you really?
Yes, on page 2 when I wrote (underlined):

What justifies?

Is 'that', which is just.

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


THEN, you replied, which started with (underlined):

nice thought
its true that the agreement justifies.


AND THEN, I waffled on with what I have.
DPMartin wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:08 pm
all that pops up here is "right" and "Just"
Yes maybe, but that is just in that post.

I had earlier ALREADY explained 'What justifies', and then had just moved on to 'just' and 'justice'.

DPMartin wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:08 pm
example of justify without right and just

a parent's child is justified to walk in his parent's home without permission because his parents justify his place in the home. no one else can do that for reason they are born of the parent. granted that can be denied by the parent but that would be an extra, because by default the child is permitted to presume place in the household without any justification other than be a child of.
So, is that an example of 'justify without right and just' or is that an example of 'some thing without needing justification'?

If it is the former, then it goes without speaking that it IS 'right and just' anyway. Some things just naturally do NOT need to be stated and pointed out.

If it is the latter, then it is NOT an example of 'justify without right and just'. It just shows that some thing just naturally do NOT need to be stated and pointed out. That is; some things really do NOT need 'justification'.
it seems you don't realize that an agreement of what is just isn't needed in the child's place in the house.
But that is EXACTLY what I had come to realize, even BEFORE you started this thread.

It seems you may have forgotten what I said about 'What justifies'.

Agreement, itself, justifies, so agreement OF 'any thing' is NOT needed, especially in your example here.
DPMartin wrote:
Wed May 01, 2019 2:32 pm
the child's place in the household doesn't need anyone's opinion of what is just to have place in the house hold but someone else that isn't a child of the parent isn't justified to be in the same place without a special agreement.
I KNOW. I AGREED with this in my reply.
DPMartin wrote:
Wed May 01, 2019 2:32 pm
whereas the child of the parent is justified by default by virtue of who and what the child is born into.
I KNOW. I AGREED with this in my reply also.

DPMartin wrote:
Wed May 01, 2019 2:32 pm
though agreements do justify in the context of the agreement and the agreed, its not always the case in what justifies.
'What justifies', in the example that you provided IS STILL AGREEMENT, it is just an 'internal' AGREEMENT, which does NOT even NEED to be specified, talked about, expressed, et cetera. It is a KNOWING, (or ALREADY KNOWN within US).

This AGREEMENT is an 'internal, instinctive' KNOWING (of what IS Right and Just), which is with(and)IN us ALL, and which I have mentioned a few times in other threads, here in this forum and in other forums.

This internal Agreement is a KNOWING, which links ALL human beings together, and it is through the coming together and DISCOVERING of 'what it is' that is in Agreement, with and by ALL, then that IS what IS Just.

It is near impossible for ALL human beings to come together and find agreement about 'what is Just'. But it is extremely simple and easy for human beings to come together and 'discover' 'what it IS' that ALL are IN AGREEMENT ON, and it is 'this' (what IS IN AGREEMENT) which is what is Just.

LOOKING FOR 'what is Just' does NOT work in finding answers. But LOOKING AT 'what is in agreement' is the answer to finding 'what IS Just'.

To put this in extremely simple and easy terms just for now, If we use your example about a child being 'justified' to be "housed", (besides very few) we ALL agree that if a child is born, then it gets "housed", looked after and cared for. This does NOT need to be questioned as it just goes, literally, without saying. It is 'justified'. This unspoken but known AGREEMENT is 'what justifies' So, 'that', which is in AGREEMENT by ALL IS what IS Just and Right, also. This IS what the True Self ALREADY KNOWS is True, Right, and Correct, anyway. This KNOWING, however, gets corrupted along the way with and by THINKING, which can all to easily DISTORT the Truth of things.

However, you did say here (underlined): though agreements do justify in the context of the agreement and the agreed, its not always the case in what justifies.

So what else is there that you are thinking 'that justifies?'

DPMartin
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re: what justfies?

Post by DPMartin » Thu May 02, 2019 2:39 pm

Age wrote:
Wed May 01, 2019 3:22 pm
DPMartin wrote:
Wed May 01, 2019 2:32 pm
Age wrote:
Wed May 01, 2019 12:45 am


Yes, on page 2 when I wrote (underlined):

What justifies?

Is 'that', which is just.

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


THEN, you replied, which started with (underlined):

nice thought
its true that the agreement justifies.


AND THEN, I waffled on with what I have.



Yes maybe, but that is just in that post.

I had earlier ALREADY explained 'What justifies', and then had just moved on to 'just' and 'justice'.




So, is that an example of 'justify without right and just' or is that an example of 'some thing without needing justification'?

If it is the former, then it goes without speaking that it IS 'right and just' anyway. Some things just naturally do NOT need to be stated and pointed out.

If it is the latter, then it is NOT an example of 'justify without right and just'. It just shows that some thing just naturally do NOT need to be stated and pointed out. That is; some things really do NOT need 'justification'.
it seems you don't realize that an agreement of what is just isn't needed in the child's place in the house.
But that is EXACTLY what I had come to realize, even BEFORE you started this thread.

It seems you may have forgotten what I said about 'What justifies'.

Agreement, itself, justifies, so agreement OF 'any thing' is NOT needed, especially in your example here.
DPMartin wrote:
Wed May 01, 2019 2:32 pm
the child's place in the household doesn't need anyone's opinion of what is just to have place in the house hold but someone else that isn't a child of the parent isn't justified to be in the same place without a special agreement.
I KNOW. I AGREED with this in my reply.
DPMartin wrote:
Wed May 01, 2019 2:32 pm
whereas the child of the parent is justified by default by virtue of who and what the child is born into.
I KNOW. I AGREED with this in my reply also.

DPMartin wrote:
Wed May 01, 2019 2:32 pm
though agreements do justify in the context of the agreement and the agreed, its not always the case in what justifies.
'What justifies', in the example that you provided IS STILL AGREEMENT, it is just an 'internal' AGREEMENT, which does NOT even NEED to be specified, talked about, expressed, et cetera. It is a KNOWING, (or ALREADY KNOWN within US).

This AGREEMENT is an 'internal, instinctive' KNOWING (of what IS Right and Just), which is with(and)IN us ALL, and which I have mentioned a few times in other threads, here in this forum and in other forums.

This internal Agreement is a KNOWING, which links ALL human beings together, and it is through the coming together and DISCOVERING of 'what it is' that is in Agreement, with and by ALL, then that IS what IS Just.

It is near impossible for ALL human beings to come together and find agreement about 'what is Just'. But it is extremely simple and easy for human beings to come together and 'discover' 'what it IS' that ALL are IN AGREEMENT ON, and it is 'this' (what IS IN AGREEMENT) which is what is Just.

LOOKING FOR 'what is Just' does NOT work in finding answers. But LOOKING AT 'what is in agreement' is the answer to finding 'what IS Just'.

To put this in extremely simple and easy terms just for now, If we use your example about a child being 'justified' to be "housed", (besides very few) we ALL agree that if a child is born, then it gets "housed", looked after and cared for. This does NOT need to be questioned as it just goes, literally, without saying. It is 'justified'. This unspoken but known AGREEMENT is 'what justifies' So, 'that', which is in AGREEMENT by ALL IS what IS Just and Right, also. This IS what the True Self ALREADY KNOWS is True, Right, and Correct, anyway. This KNOWING, however, gets corrupted along the way with and by THINKING, which can all to easily DISTORT the Truth of things.

However, you did say here (underlined): though agreements do justify in the context of the agreement and the agreed, its not always the case in what justifies.

So what else is there that you are thinking 'that justifies?'
sorry, the OP asked the question that asked you what justifies, doesn't it?

Age
Posts: 3600
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: what justfies?

Post by Age » Thu May 02, 2019 2:59 pm

DPMartin wrote:
Thu May 02, 2019 2:39 pm
Age wrote:
Wed May 01, 2019 3:22 pm
DPMartin wrote:
Wed May 01, 2019 2:32 pm


it seems you don't realize that an agreement of what is just isn't needed in the child's place in the house.
But that is EXACTLY what I had come to realize, even BEFORE you started this thread.

It seems you may have forgotten what I said about 'What justifies'.

Agreement, itself, justifies, so agreement OF 'any thing' is NOT needed, especially in your example here.
DPMartin wrote:
Wed May 01, 2019 2:32 pm
the child's place in the household doesn't need anyone's opinion of what is just to have place in the house hold but someone else that isn't a child of the parent isn't justified to be in the same place without a special agreement.
I KNOW. I AGREED with this in my reply.
DPMartin wrote:
Wed May 01, 2019 2:32 pm
whereas the child of the parent is justified by default by virtue of who and what the child is born into.
I KNOW. I AGREED with this in my reply also.

DPMartin wrote:
Wed May 01, 2019 2:32 pm
though agreements do justify in the context of the agreement and the agreed, its not always the case in what justifies.
'What justifies', in the example that you provided IS STILL AGREEMENT, it is just an 'internal' AGREEMENT, which does NOT even NEED to be specified, talked about, expressed, et cetera. It is a KNOWING, (or ALREADY KNOWN within US).

This AGREEMENT is an 'internal, instinctive' KNOWING (of what IS Right and Just), which is with(and)IN us ALL, and which I have mentioned a few times in other threads, here in this forum and in other forums.

This internal Agreement is a KNOWING, which links ALL human beings together, and it is through the coming together and DISCOVERING of 'what it is' that is in Agreement, with and by ALL, then that IS what IS Just.

It is near impossible for ALL human beings to come together and find agreement about 'what is Just'. But it is extremely simple and easy for human beings to come together and 'discover' 'what it IS' that ALL are IN AGREEMENT ON, and it is 'this' (what IS IN AGREEMENT) which is what is Just.

LOOKING FOR 'what is Just' does NOT work in finding answers. But LOOKING AT 'what is in agreement' is the answer to finding 'what IS Just'.

To put this in extremely simple and easy terms just for now, If we use your example about a child being 'justified' to be "housed", (besides very few) we ALL agree that if a child is born, then it gets "housed", looked after and cared for. This does NOT need to be questioned as it just goes, literally, without saying. It is 'justified'. This unspoken but known AGREEMENT is 'what justifies' So, 'that', which is in AGREEMENT by ALL IS what IS Just and Right, also. This IS what the True Self ALREADY KNOWS is True, Right, and Correct, anyway. This KNOWING, however, gets corrupted along the way with and by THINKING, which can all to easily DISTORT the Truth of things.

However, you did say here (underlined): though agreements do justify in the context of the agreement and the agreed, its not always the case in what justifies.

So what else is there that you are thinking 'that justifies?'
sorry, the OP asked the question that asked you what justifies, doesn't it?
One of the opening post questions did NOT ask me personally 'what justifies?' so 'no', no question asked 'me' 'what justifies?' But I did answer that question, ANYWAY.

Now, the last post to which YOU responded, you stated that 'agreement' is NOT always the case in 'what justifies'. So, considering YOU did say that, a question WAS asked to YOU to clarify: What else is there that YOU are thinking 'that justifies?'

Walker
Posts: 6884
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: what justfies?

Post by Walker » Thu May 02, 2019 3:12 pm

Age wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 1:34 pm

The only thing I know, for sure, here and now, at this moment, are the thoughts within this body.
Before thought, Am.

During thought, Am.

Afterthought, I Am, i.e., You Was.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest