| Welcome to Fire Emblem Fusion. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Conceptions of Justice | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Aug 5 2009, 11:01 PM (108 Views) | |
| Askio | Aug 5 2009, 11:01 PM Post #1 |
Crit McGee on Speed
|
What is Justice? This is a matter of great debate even today. As far back nearly as mankind had rational thought, even if the word wasn't used to describe it, Justice has been an attempted achievement for man. And often is failed at miserably. this is an essay on justice I've been working on for the past half hour. what do you think so far? (I apologize for the odd copy scheme btw) Essay Beings Morals in of themselves define cultures. Or perhaps it is the reverse; or both. They are not inflexible, despite what some people believe. Though it should not be so, morals are generally subjective, not objective, which is in due to the nature of morals being on an individual level, even if they can attempt to exist in general, they are distorted down to the very lowest level to each person. The conception of ideas such as Deontology try to ignore this common idea. However, it fails miserably, and with little grace. This is due to a few reasons, which are outline in the following pages. Moral are defined by the circumstance and individual, and often vary as such. This creates inconsistencies within each person, society, nation, religion, and humanity as a whole. This is due to the conflicting natures of two forces; subjectivity and objectivity. Which is right? When should each be used, if at all? These basic questions determine the worth of these ideas on their own and together. And through these ideas morals and therefore the foundations of human lives are created… Justice Moral Foundations Relation of Subjectivity and Objectivity Alex Hernicz “When man seeks justice, he seeks to obtain an impossibility; an illusion. When man achieves justice, then it will no longer be proper to be called human. For then, at that time, we would have evolved into a greater being. Not of gods, but still…greater.” ~Askio OBJECTIVITY A look must be taken at conceptions of each idea of subjectivity and objectivity. The first will be objectivity. The most commonly misinterpreted ideology that embodies objectivity is Deontology. While some claim it is the idealism of valuing individuals, it is in fact the very opposite; if anything, it should embody the stance of utilitarianism, or taking an objective, unemotional stance of a group or government acting in the best interest of its people, though whether that is determined by saving life is a different matter that is up to debate in the future. Yet because of this unemotional state of goals pure objectivity sets, it sets itself up to failure. Humans are very emotional, often irrational, and are predictably unpredictable in many circumstances that strong emotions are abound. Furthermore, the external and internal influences that exist that can change an objective decision into a subjective one are more numerous than the stars in the sky, and more. These can range from religious, racial, sex, age, upbringing, family, peers, current societal values, job, self pressure, ill confidence, pre existing biases, and more. These human flaws make objective decisions virtually impossible on a total scale, since people will always be swayed by some influence. But the greatest flaw lies in the concept of objectivity itself. Each circumstance is unique, and requires and equally unique response. If a pure objective stance were used, then ignoring the said numerous variables of each circumstance, then the result is an inflexible, immoral, and disfunctioning society; at least the final latter being so if the society is supposedly supposed to be a free or in some way or form ‘just’, though the idealism of justice varies, and is virtually impossible to discern its true meaning, it none the less serves as an effective illusion to people in order for them to gain security, even if it is only enforced by perception of the common masses, not in reality being just at all, since it varies with the times and the place, along with moral standards. With objectivity, at least two negatives will occur; First, while the sense of justice may exist, it in truth does not, resulting in a double negative of people feeling secure, while at the same time being brainwashed by the manipulator. This is a very Orwell state of society, particularly that of 1984, in which people thought justice was being done, that their society was often threatened, yet in truth they were simply suppressed, with no justice existing; on the preservation of power in the government. North Korea, the Soviet Union, and Nazi Germany are also tied into this in various degrees, yet all share an illusion of the illusion that is justice, albeit a twisted one. The second negative is the result of some of the named societies; in other words, extreme totalitarian states. This does not have to be involved in the twisting conception of justice; it in fact is very independent of that. Objectivity is falsely presumed to be the goal of justice. Yet to the subjective nature of criminals, crimes, and circumstance pertaining to each prevents objectivity from working. If such a system was established, then the result would be a totalitarian state. Regardless of intentions, the total state of mind of the people of that society would be to have no free thought. No individuality. Not free will. This is impossible for people to accept willingly on a grand scale. Often in history it can be seen that when people have had free will threatened, even if their lives were protected, they would die for their pride and state of mind over security. Thus the only results could be either a total collapse of society, either simply from decay or means such as rebellion or revolution, or a switch to the means of subjectivity. SUBJECTIVITY Sub-jec-tiv-i-ty: To base off of circumstance; to make decisions while influenced by internal or external factors. Subjectivity, excuse the pun, is subjective in its nature to each person. Perhaps in this ironic state is what leads to subjective thinking on its own to be both amusing and destructive at the same time, or different. In its essence, subjectivity is too flexible to be of any benefit to anyone on its own. If the concept of justice was purely subjective, utter chaos would be the only resulting outcome. It is due to the nature this would occur, because if each decision was subjective, then each decision would be based off of personal gain. In other words, the ideal of “people are self serving” is basically a purist form of subjectivity. This topic is rather short in its description; the definition in of itself nearly perfectly defines it. An example is in order perhaps then. Imagine the child of a family commits a crime. This child is normally good natured and therefore the concept of this crime, perhaps anything within possibility. If left up to the family and its members, which is subjective, they would go on their feelings instead of the actual proof and acts of the crime, lessening or preventing a punishment. This is why many Justice Systems when dealing with criminal courts prevent attorneys from associating with known clients; because this would lead to a more subjective belief and actions rather than objective, impartial ones. The purest form of this state results in anarchy, as does objectivity, and leads to a question. What is the limit in how subjective a decision should be? If subjectivity is allowed to influence all decisions, then it is simply pure idealism. The fantasy and illusion of a single individual could outweigh the simple reality. In the end, all decisions would result in desire of an outcome instead of the actual needed outcome. When idealisms outweigh realism in such a severe degree, then the only possible state is anarchy, as the desired means overcome the actual holdings of a society. Crimes become forms of expression, and a return to a state of nature is inevitable; a pitiful state for man to be in indeed. Justice There are few topics that are debated on as much as justice, what it means, its applications, and the basis for it, how it extends to life, etc. There is also no more of a dry topic in our lives and society than justice. In fact, the debate over what is just, when it is just, why it is just, and so on, is so much so, that is borders on annoyance and stupidity, as do the arguments offered on the sides of each debate on each time. Looking at history the most commonly accepted definition is, “giving each his or her own due.” What is interesting are the roots this idea has in objectivity and subjectivity. ‘His or her own due’ implies being subjective. In other words, based off each situation, give a due punishment. This is a standpoint of attempting to give a balance of subjectivity and objectivity. Unfortunately, the concept is far from perfect. While Aristotle is given the most credit for this concept, it was the Greek philosopher Plato who actually coined it; though not necessarily word for word in that manner, it was the implied meaning that each man is deserving of a certain due pertaining to Justice. Plato presented this idea to other great thinkers, and some agreed. Yet it was Socrates who brought forth the argument that was blunt to the point; it is virtually impossible to ever meet that ideal. While the argument is outline partly in Plato’s Republic, it is quite long, seeing how roughly twenty men were debating it at the same time. So I will summarize the argument of Socrates in a simple example. There is a drug addict who has his drugs stolen from him by another. What is the just due? By Plato, the one who stole the drugs should be punished and the drugs should be returned to the addict. But if that is the case, then the addict is harmed by the very drugs being returned to him. If, however, the person who stole is not punished then justice is not done by Plato’s idea. And if the person is punished, but the government does not return the drugs, then the government would become the new guilty actor, creating an even spiraling cycle of injustice by the concept of “give every man his due” and the government would have to be reformed in some particular instance to insure it gave out appropriate justice. The obvious flaw remained in that Justice could never be given out in this manner. At best, it could work out roughly one-third of the time; a failure rate being over sixty percent; a major flaw for so called “Justice.” In the end even Plato agreed the extreme difficulty to ever achieve such a standard. Yet this is the standard many systems try to adhere to. “It is impossible to define. It varies too much, and it’s actually just a means to an ends; or the means and the ends. It defies and exceeds human’s ability to comprehend and to give out fairly. Morals create justice; Justice only exists because of morals, not the other way around. Justice is subjective with objective means, but is based off of human error, and is therefore erred itself. Good is a matter of perspective and varies with the time and place, Therefore achieving justice is virtually...impossible…for humanity.” |
 Fire Emblem Online Askio: 9-1-1 | |
 |
 
|
| +Ema Skye | Aug 5 2009, 11:38 PM Post #2 |
Snackoos = <3. It's science!
|
I know what JUSTICE is... 
|
 MUNCH MUNCH MUNCH MUNCH MUNCH MUNCH MUNCH 
| |
|
|
|
| Conan O'Brien | Aug 6 2009, 10:57 AM Post #3 |
|
SKILLNADEN ÄR DRINKABILITY
|
Very well thought out. Some little things:
I think the answer to this one is fairly clear. Confiscate the drugs, and put the thief in jail. Justice isn't necessarily about reimbursing the victims. If that were the case, how would we deal with murders? My definition of justice is identical to yours, giving someone their due. The way I see it, that's either by righting the wrong or punishing the wrong. In this case, you cannot in moral conscience right the wrong, so you are left with punishment.
Methinks you are misusing the traditional concepts of 'objective' and 'subjective' morality, or perhaps I am. From my understanding, objective morality is the idea that each act has a defined moral truth independent of human interpretation. Subjective morality is the idea that the morality of an action is relative and dependent on social, cultural or personal context, and that no action is definitively good or bad. Using those definitions, it isn't impossible for a objectivist to adjust moral judgement based on circumstances. Instead of making an absolutist's claim, like "Murder is always wrong", most justice systems make claims like, "Murder is always wrong, except in self-defense, saving another life, etc." That said, I agree with your assessment that a morality or justice system based on subjective morality is pretty much doomed to fail or devolve into chaos. If Nuremberg was a subjective court, the accused parties would have gotten a Not Guilty. Hell, EVERYONE would get a Not Guilty for ANY action.
Bolded statement I disagree with. I've never been big on the idea of moral relativity. Specifically, it relies on the preconceived notion that morality is contrived, but more importantly, it means that denouncing another culture for slavery, misogyny, genocide, ANYTHING is wrong and unwarranted. The Declaration of Independence and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights both operate on the idea that certain rights are inalienable. To then believe that previous cultures or neighboring ones are okay in denying those rights is absurd.
Interesting last name. What is it? Great essay, I can't wait to see other responses to it. |
~~Wind Sword
Touching. Scientology
Smartest post ever made. | |
|
|
|
| Askio | Aug 6 2009, 02:13 PM Post #4 |
|
Crit McGee on Speed
|
I appreciate the comment. Answer to your questions Hernicz is the American version(I believe it is supposed to have umlaut in there) of my family's German/Hungarian name. My Native American name of my family didn't live past my great-great grandmother. 2nd, to the difference of objective and subjective ideals. Primarily, what you said about objectivity isn't false, but at the same time, it isn't a whole. Objective thinking is, in a sense from a philosophical idea, an absolute and universal idea or standard, at least from what I have read. That much is true. The problem is, that a pure objective ideal means that there would be no "murder is bad except...". The purest form of objective thinking would result in "murder is bad". What you pointed out is actually a subjective form of objectivity. Compromise if you will. That is what many societies attempt to do, because the obvious flaws of saying something is bad in every circumstance would obviously mean that any attempt of giving due would have to fail at some point, dooming it either to a totalitarian state, or a glorious state of anarchy and return to the state of nature (for all none philosophy people, that means no society, no government, just us living by survival of the fittest.) So really, I agree with you, and we're saying similar things, I'm just pointing out what pure objective justice is, and why it fails is all. To the idea of good is a matter of perspective and changes with the time It isn't necessarily my view entirely, but morals in of themselves is subjective. They have evolved as humanity has, or perhaps a more accurate way to put it is that we have discovered true morals as humanity has come to know its own self better over the years. So its not to say it is relative, but rather, is based off circumstance and matter of perspective. Also, even though the declaration of independence and declaration of human rights line out certain rights that are "negative" they still have punishments that violate this rights. Meaning that they themselves are relative in a sense, even if extreme circumstances must occur for them to reach such a state. I don't like it either, but being objectively subjective is the form of justice that is most common, and could work more often than not, but human error causes it to fail a great deal. I would also like to point out this essay is only roughly...60% done. Maybe. I stopped on Justice by a long shot. I appreciate the input, and will be improving the essay and the wording quite a bit, and would enjoy any other comments people have. Feel free to let loose. I would like to point out on the Plato example is simply being used to explain the difficulty of achieving this form of justice that was presented to him. Also, the drug addict is just a single example. I will embellish it with more to explain the obligations of the government. Edited by Askio, Aug 6 2009, 03:16 PM.
|
|
Fire Emblem Online Askio: 9-1-1 | |
|
|
|
| +Reaver | Aug 6 2009, 06:33 PM Post #5 |
Troll
|
I have some concerns: First and foremost, strict deontological or teleological thinking both are strictly objective systems. If you're going to try and skew means-based ethics as the "objective" ethics, you might be unpleasantly surprised, most notably because once you leave the two extremes (those being Bentham's Utilitarianism and Kant's Categorical Imperative), you lose an element of absolutism necessary for the overall thesis of your paper. Perhaps, rather, you should change your thesis to (easily) prove that any system of morals which only provides absolute judgments on a specific action in its lowest form - killing, stealing, etcetera - you'd have a stronger point that the circumstances do matter. I don't understand why the subjectivity of people ruins an objective system of ethics (morality, if you prefer): the warrant is unclear, if at all existent. To demonstrate the logical error: consider a math problem on a multiple choice test. Let's assume that only 21% of test takers get the said problem right. Although an objective answer exists and students should objectively arrive at the same answer, your logic would assert that it would be impossible for anyone to objectively answer the question because of the lack of objectivity showed by the students, who may have used incorrect objective reason to derive the wrong answer or subjectively chosen one of the available options in the hope that it was correct. One can institute an objective system; human error does not invalidate the system. A non-sequitur paired with a slippery slope fallacy. You've made the assumption that the objective party is blind to the circumstances, to provide a logical model to demonstrate my point, consider the act of killing another human being. Without any knowledge of the circumstances, a resounding objective "no" would most likely be the answer. However, apply such a such a situation to self-defense from an attacker who plans to use lethal-force on her victim. Should you blind the objective "judging party" from this situation, they will say killing is wrong. Should you lift the blindfold, the objective decision would change because the circumstances have changed. An objective party is assumed to have full knowledge of a situation before making a decision. This, again, relies on the notion that the objective party is blind to certain facets of the situation. 1984 is a perfect counter-example to your point because information was not only limited to the civilian population, but was also edited at will by the government. If people don't hold all the facts about a situation, then you're right that a logically just verdict cannot truly exist. However, since we can objectively analyze a particular situation by modeling it in our minds, we can come up with a fairly objective sense of justice. This statement makes no sense. Objectivity is most certainly the goal of justice; I think you meant to say that that "objectivity is not always achieved through justice". Furthermore in this paragraph: circumstances are NOT subjective: the circumstances will not change from person to person if put into the same situation. I am almost positive this is not the definition of subjectivity. This is not a pun. A pun is a play on words for humorous purposes or to draw some sort of connection to another idea/object. Furthermore, subjectivity is objective. Want proof? Ask people what subjectivity means. You should get a resoundingly similar idea - albeit in different wordings - because subjectivity is a singular idea regarding an internal or intuitive decision more so than a logical decision. I'm going to stop commenting on what you've written and go to the main ideas. I highly suggest that you either change the argument to condemn moral absolutism as a way of determining justice because of the importance of circumstances or that a singular justice cannot exist because no singular objectivity exists. For the second idea, you would need to demonstrate that although a just decision can be objectively derived within established boundaries of an ethical decision, the subjective weight placed on values causes multiple ethical systems to exist and therefore multiple objective answers. Your current thesis that "justice" cannot truly exist is poorly worded, confusing, relies on false definitions, and in many places is flat out wrong. If you're trying to define justice or some sense of justice with your essay, you can't define justice by disproving all other notions of justice. Also, Wind Sword, where are you headed to college? It's been a bit negro. Edited by Reaver, Aug 6 2009, 06:34 PM.
|
Favorite Staffer Summer 2008 -- Send me a Personal Message | |
|
|
|
| Askio | Aug 6 2009, 09:51 PM Post #6 |
|
Crit McGee on Speed
|
Wording then....perhaps that's all that is needed to explain my position on justice. Like I said I still haven't finished this, and this was done in about 30-50 minutes on a spur of the moment, but is none the less something I want to do. I'll be sure to clean it up, and fix some issues, as well as the information, though once I do finish, some of the issues you had would be cleaned up regardless. Appreciate the pointing out on those things, that's why I wanted to get some good opinions. |
|
Fire Emblem Online Askio: 9-1-1 | |
|
|
|
| Conan O'Brien | Aug 6 2009, 10:09 PM Post #7 |
|
SKILLNADEN ÄR DRINKABILITY
|
"It's been a bit negro"? In any case, I'm a rising sophomore at Notre Dame. |
~~Wind Sword
Touching. Scientology
Smartest post ever made. | |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Debate Forum · Next Topic » |
6:11 PM Nov 27
