1. Justice either has a basis or it doesn't.
2. If it has a basis, then justice itself is the basis of all instances and application.
3. If doesn't have a basis, it's arbitrary.
4. If it's arbitrary it's contradictory and delusional.
5.If it has a basis, it must have a real existence and not be a mere relative conceptual framework that we sort of agree upon.
6. There exists a non-arbitrary justice potential.
8. Therefore a basis of justice exists.
9. Therefore justice exists.
10. Therefore justice has a real existence.
11. We haven't seen justice in this world as of yet, which means it's basis must be eternal.
12. If justice exists, then humanity will eventually experience justice.
13. Therefore humanity will eventually experience justice.
14. Justice by definition gives everything it's due.
15. The only being that can give everything it's due, is the perfect judge and the one who sees things as they are.
16. If justice, exist, then the perfect judge exists.
17. Therefore, the perfect judge exists.

1...2....3....let's see everyone deny justice.............

What definition of "justice" are you using?

(March 30, 2017 at 8:08 pm)Jesster Wrote: What definition of "justice" are you using?

It's usually defined as giving everything it's due.

(March 30, 2017 at 8:09 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:

(March 30, 2017 at 8:08 pm)Jesster Wrote: What definition of "justice" are you using?

It's usually defined as giving everything it's due.

No, it's not. I'm really confused about where to start with your argument. This doesn't make any sense to me.

(March 30, 2017 at 8:11 pm)Jesster Wrote:

(March 30, 2017 at 8:09 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: It's usually defined as giving everything it's due.

No, it's not. I'm really confused about where to start with your argument. This doesn't make any sense to me.

This is how classical philosophers defined it such as Plato and Aristotle. 

This is how it's defined in university.  Sometimes justice has an application of giving society it's due by protecting it from criminals. Or sometimes it even has an application of avenging a wronged person, for example, a murdered person, and hence punishing the murderer.  But all these definitions is about giving everything it's due and that is the simplest way to define it without all its details.

I guess your university doesn't have any dictionaries, then. If I can't even make sense of your definitions, I'm not going to be able to follow your argument past step one. This is hardly even in a language I can identify. I can recognize the individual words, but they make no sense when placed in that order.

(March 30, 2017 at 8:19 pm)Jesster Wrote: I guess your university doesn't have any dictionaries, then. If I can't even make sense of your definitions, I'm not going to be able to follow your argument past step one. This is hardly even in a language I can identify. I can recognize the individual words, but they make no sense when placed in that order.

Ok you explain how you understand justice. I looked up the definition on online and it was rather bad compared to what I learn in a first year political philosophy class. The reason is they simply define it circularly or are just trying to express its uses and convention.


I mean the underlying principle that things can be given their due and ought to be given their due.

(March 30, 2017 at 8:23 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:

(March 30, 2017 at 8:19 pm)Jesster Wrote: I guess your university doesn't have any dictionaries, then. If I can't even make sense of your definitions, I'm not going to be able to follow your argument past step one. This is hardly even in a language I can identify. I can recognize the individual words, but they make no sense when placed in that order.

Ok you explain how you understand justice. I looked up the definition on online and it was rather bad compared to what I learn in a first year political philosophy class. The reason is they simply define it circularly or are just trying to express its uses and convention.


I mean the underlying principle that things can be given their due and ought to be given their due.

If you aren't using a definition found in a dictionary, then you probably aren't talking about the same thing everyone else is. It's not my job to provide a definition for you, either. Dictionaries have branching definitions that describe the multiple common uses of the word. Either pick a definition that we can recognize or use a different word.

Here's a hint for you about the word "justice". The root of the word is "just". That may get you to a definition I can actually make sense of.

(March 30, 2017 at 8:11 pm)Jesster Wrote:

(March 30, 2017 at 8:09 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: It's usually defined as giving everything it's due.

No, it's not. I'm really confused about where to start with your argument. This doesn't make any sense to me.

At least MK is consistent.  None of his arguments make sense.

Here this might help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice