Active Users:356 Time:11/07/2025 11:03:52 PM
I do agree with you, (sort of) Napoleon62 Send a noteboard - 14/06/2010 04:22:00 PM
Legal justice and the process of law and moral justice and a basis of morals are tied together wholly unseparably. A just legal system or system of prosecution and punishment can only be just if they are enforcing just laws and offering just judgement. In order for just laws and just judgements a standard of rightness must be present by which we can measure the justness of any law/judgement. Without a standard of rightness, a set of principles of moral justice, legal systems of justice and systems of retribution and punishment are inherently unjust. If anything is in defense of a social, political or economic system that cannot be proven just, it must be assumed unjust for lack of a standard of rightness.

It is possible to argue that since every individual case is separate and contains such a variety of factors that it is impossible to impose upon it a standard of rightness; the only true justice can be achieved by human intuition from case to case. However, this is, in fact, a standard of rightness, that we leave the decisions to be up to human intuition in all cases. There is a school of moral justice that agrees with you, saying that since individual cases are so different and varying, only human intuition can possibly handle the variances and no iron law can hold up. It is also possible to interpret this evidence in a different way. Every human with the possible exception of psycopaths, has an inborn ability to tell right from wrong in most cases. This is a commonly accepted fact and is, in essence, a major contributing principle to the development of a jury system in the United States. If there is a human standard of rightness and wrongness, it is clear that there is something called "right" and "wrong." It is evident that a general standard can arise from an accordance of human intuition to create perfect justice, an ideal discrimination of right and wrong.

I view that fact that good can cause bad and bad good to be irrelevent, at least in a broad sense. There are those that view that the motives of any action determine rightness or wrongness, others that say the ends justify the means, that the the consequences of an action determine that actions inherent rightness or wrongness. I personally believe that it is a combination of both, a man that would nuke a city because he thought that there was a bad guy in it, a good motive but a surely evil outcome, is evil; a man that would kill thousands of people because he didn't like them and it turned out that they were all planning to kill millions more is surely not good. In judgement, in a moral theory, it would be integral to associate motive and consequences together in a dark stew of good and evil. I agree with you that good and evil are not mutally exclusive, and that in this world, in any world, there is no true good nor true evil. However, I don't believe that these facts act as a barrier to the development of a theory of morals.
*MySmiley*
"Men of true genius are like meteors, they consume themselves and illuminate their centuries."

-Napoleon Bonaparte
www.empire-iamhuman.webs.com
Reply to message
What is justice? - 13/06/2010 03:39:12 PM 631 Views
"Justice is the constant and perpetual desire to give everyone his due." - 13/06/2010 04:08:26 PM 367 Views
Do you think there is something called justice? - 13/06/2010 10:54:18 PM 438 Views
Well, obviously not with an existence independent of the human mind. - 13/06/2010 11:07:38 PM 307 Views
Cool, I'll look at these... - 13/06/2010 11:12:23 PM 398 Views
Actually, that is being "just" not justice *NM* - 14/06/2010 05:46:06 AM 123 Views
The original reads, "Iustitia est constans et perpetua voluntas ius suum cuique tribuens". - 14/06/2010 01:37:10 PM 345 Views
Obviously it's a present active participle. - 15/06/2010 12:09:54 AM 305 Views
Precisely. As in the well-known Latin phrase iustitio pauperem puerum; nullum corpus me amat. - 15/06/2010 08:54:59 AM 305 Views
Of course! *NM* - 16/06/2010 12:10:25 AM 117 Views
Justice is what the law attempts to achieve - 13/06/2010 04:18:29 PM 297 Views
To me? "Giving to each what is reasonably owed when it's reasonably possible" - 13/06/2010 04:22:41 PM 329 Views
What standard of debt are we to use? - 13/06/2010 10:53:25 PM 456 Views
Any which are fair and reasonable - 14/06/2010 12:27:18 PM 311 Views
Marvel Comics character Vance Astrovik, formerly Marvel Boy. - 13/06/2010 06:26:35 PM 312 Views
A French electronic music duo. - 13/06/2010 08:20:28 PM 295 Views
They aren't that bad. I like "Stress" a lot. *NM* - 14/06/2010 04:42:49 AM 127 Views
An attempt to answer - 13/06/2010 09:54:03 PM 326 Views
You say that the basis of all justice is the law... - 13/06/2010 10:51:13 PM 367 Views
Good question - 13/06/2010 11:05:26 PM 308 Views
I'm an atheist, but stay with me here - 13/06/2010 11:17:10 PM 411 Views
I'm a christian, but stay with me here - 13/06/2010 11:40:48 PM 348 Views
That was moderatly obnoxious - 14/06/2010 12:52:48 AM 421 Views
I understand - 14/06/2010 09:14:24 AM 326 Views
Re: I understand - 14/06/2010 04:32:30 PM 364 Views
Re: I understand - 14/06/2010 05:20:25 PM 326 Views
Just us. *NM* - 14/06/2010 12:17:28 AM 122 Views
Except you. *NM* - 14/06/2010 02:04:09 AM 118 Views
A restoration of the natural order inasmuch as is possible. *NM* - 14/06/2010 04:42:35 AM 122 Views
About $100,000 or the equivalent in local currency *NM* - 14/06/2010 04:50:28 AM 129 Views
Great Question - 14/06/2010 06:16:23 AM 311 Views
I do agree with you, (sort of) - 14/06/2010 04:22:00 PM 380 Views
Re: I do agree with you, (sort of) - 15/06/2010 04:50:04 AM 292 Views
An attempt to create fairness *NM* - 14/06/2010 10:30:40 AM 141 Views
If you are interested in this type of philosophical musing - 14/06/2010 07:03:07 PM 472 Views

Reply to Message