From a pragmatic standpoint and living in a society in which various people from various cultural and religious backgrounds live I believe that many of the -ism you mentioned, along with several others, will help society a lot to allow us to live in peace with one another and are perfectly usefull as guidelines.
Ok, so here you say that pramatical justice allows us to live in peace with one another. Is this not the purpose of justice? What makes your religious justice more valid than pragmatism if they equally allow us to live in peace with one another? What do you believe is the fundamental purpose of justice?
It may, I don't know, all I know is that in this world it doesn't seem to work in the end because no matter how usefull (I say usefull, not "good"
all those guidlines are, they can never be truely tested due to ambibuity in how to work them out in every situation. Like utilism, how does one calculate the maximum happyness? And if one chooses not to act in accordance with that principle all the time (as we all do almost 24/7) what should be the punishment? Wouldn't the judge have to be a hypocrite as well?
all those guidlines are, they can never be truely tested due to ambibuity in how to work them out in every situation. Like utilism, how does one calculate the maximum happyness? And if one chooses not to act in accordance with that principle all the time (as we all do almost 24/7) what should be the punishment? Wouldn't the judge have to be a hypocrite as well?If justice's only goal is to allows us to live in peace, than Apartheid, slavery and the like can theoretically be justice too, but I tend to doubt that those kinds of systems resemble justice. Justice also has an aesthetic side and I prefer not to let that part go. Though that may depend on your definition of "peace". If peace is the lack of violence than it may be the lease evil kind of justice, if peace means perfect harmony, than I simply believe that mankind cannot achieve that on it's own and history backs me up on that.
When I said peace, I did mean perfect harmony and happiness, not simply a noted lack of conflict and discord. Utilitarian philosophers argue that each person has the inborn ability to discriminate which of the possiblities will create the maximum overall happiness of those given. Their arguments are not how, but rather why it is better to create an overall maximum of happiness. I'm not really sure how I feel about utilitarianism, but right now I tend to agree more with the Rawlsian justice as fairness over other options.
I believe that mankind can achieve a perfect harmony, and I think the fact that we haven't is irrelevent. If your only argument against it is that we haven't, the same argument conservatives have used throughout history, then slavery would still be going on, fuedalism would still be the political order and aristocracy our social system. If conflict is a natural state of humanity then so it slavery, so is fuedalism, so is aristocracy.
Do you believe that christianty is the religion about which you speak here?
If you would define "christianity" as "that what Jesus believed and thought" (and the people who failingly try to live it out), than I would say yes.
I had a followup question... but I sort of forgot it...
*MySmiley*
"Men of true genius are like meteors, they consume themselves and illuminate their centuries."
-Napoleon Bonaparte
www.empire-iamhuman.webs.com
"Men of true genius are like meteors, they consume themselves and illuminate their centuries."
-Napoleon Bonaparte
www.empire-iamhuman.webs.com
What is justice?
- 13/06/2010 03:39:12 PM
521 Views
"Justice is the constant and perpetual desire to give everyone his due."
- 13/06/2010 04:08:26 PM
290 Views
Do you think there is something called justice?
- 13/06/2010 10:54:18 PM
331 Views
Well, obviously not with an existence independent of the human mind.
- 13/06/2010 11:07:38 PM
224 Views
Actually, that is being "just" not justice *NM*
- 14/06/2010 05:46:06 AM
92 Views
The original reads, "Iustitia est constans et perpetua voluntas ius suum cuique tribuens".
- 14/06/2010 01:37:10 PM
250 Views
Obviously it's a present active participle. 
- 15/06/2010 12:09:54 AM
225 Views
- 15/06/2010 12:09:54 AM
225 Views
Precisely. As in the well-known Latin phrase iustitio pauperem puerum; nullum corpus me amat.
- 15/06/2010 08:54:59 AM
219 Views
*NM*
To me? "Giving to each what is reasonably owed when it's reasonably possible"
- 13/06/2010 04:22:41 PM
240 Views
An attempt to answer
- 13/06/2010 09:54:03 PM
244 Views
You say that the basis of all justice is the law...
- 13/06/2010 10:51:13 PM
286 Views
Good question
- 13/06/2010 11:05:26 PM
235 Views
I'm an atheist, but stay with me here
- 13/06/2010 11:17:10 PM
326 Views
I'm a christian, but stay with me here
- 13/06/2010 11:40:48 PM
259 Views
That was moderatly obnoxious
- 14/06/2010 12:52:48 AM
319 Views
Great Question
- 14/06/2010 06:16:23 AM
227 Views