Argument from justice.

[Mystic]

Take a course on political philosophy, I will be surprised if you don't come across this definition.

I've taken philosophy classes. Your definition is gibberish. If you understand something, you should be able to explain it to others easily enough. You are having trouble with this, so it seems like you don't quite understand what you are trying to explain yet.

I will give an example when it comes to social justice, often, it's about giving everyone in society their financial due.

All concept of justice are never about giving people privileges or favors, it's about giving people their due. Due means that is their right, and fair share from you.

We may differ on it's application, whether it can only have definition in human construct or needs divine construct, but essentially, it's the underlying belief we ought to give things their due right.

[Jesster]

I've taken philosophy classes. Your definition is gibberish. If you understand something, you should be able to explain it to others easily enough. You are having trouble with this, so it seems like you don't quite understand what you are trying to explain yet.

I will give an example when it comes to social justice, often, it's about giving everyone in society their financial due.

All concept of justice are never about giving people privileges or favors, it's about giving people their due. Due means that is their right, and fair share from you.

We may differ on it's application, whether it can only have definition in human construct or needs divine construct, but essentially, it's the underlying belief we ought to give things their due right.

"Their due"

You keep using this terminology. Explain what you mean by this.

[Mystic]

Take a course on political philosophy, I will be surprised if you don't come across this definition.

I've taken philosophy classes. Your definition is gibberish. If you understand something, you should be able to explain it to others easily enough. You are having trouble with this, so it seems like you don't quite understand what you are trying to explain yet.

---

The point is your opinion would be baseless if all it was your construct over another construct.

Open up a dictionary. Look up "subjective".

This is the one word you keep having trouble with in every single one of your threads.

The definition in the dictionary is silent about the origin and basis of the subject's perception of the issue, which is what we are discussing.

I am saying if it was only a human construct, then subjective senses of justice would not be justified but arbitrary and delusional.

If we just make it up, then it has no basis. If we seek to understand it given our limited perceptions which is subjective, then it may or may not have a basis, but it being solely human construct would make it baseless.

---

I will give an example when it comes to social justice, often, it's about giving everyone in society their financial due.

All concept of justice are never about giving people privileges or favors, it's about giving people their due. Due means that is their right, and fair share from you.

We may differ on it's application, whether it can only have definition in human construct or needs divine construct, but essentially, it's the underlying belief we ought to give things their due right.

"Their due"

You keep using this terminology. Explain what you mean by this.

How they should be treated.

[Jesster]

The definition in the dictionary is silent about the origin and basis of the subject's perception of the issue, which is what we are discussing.

Then learn to apply definitions. I thought you said you were a college boy. Don't they teach these things there?

I am saying if it was only a human construct, then subjective senses of justice would not be justified but arbitrary and delusional.

Subjectivity does not mean delusional. Look up the definition again.

Subjective opinions can be arbitrary though, sure. Subjective opinions come from the individual and nothing else.

If we just make it up, then it has no basis. If we seek to understand it given our limited perceptions which is subjective, then it may or may not have a basis, but it being solely human construct would make it baseless.

The basis is your own personal view of the world you live in. What's wrong with a human construct being limited by our perceptions? That doesn't make things baseless.

---

"Their due"

You keep using this terminology. Explain what you mean by this.

How they should be treated.

Should? According to who?

[Mystic]

The definition in the dictionary is silent about the origin and basis of the subject's perception of the issue, which is what we are discussing.

Then learn to apply definitions. I thought you said you were a college boy. Don't they teach these things there?

I am saying if it was only a human construct, then subjective senses of justice would not be justified but arbitrary and delusional.

Subjectivity does not mean delusional. Look up the definition again.

Subjective opinions can be arbitrary though, sure. Subjective opinions come from the individual and nothing else.

If we just make it up, then it has no basis. If we seek to understand it given our limited perceptions which is subjective, then it may or may not have a basis, but it being solely human construct would make it baseless.

The basis is your own personal view of the world you live in. What's wrong with a human construct being limited by our perceptions? That doesn't make things baseless.

---

How they should be treated.

Should? According to who?

I never said subjectivity makes it baseless, I said if it was ONLY a human construct. 

That is a good question, according to who? 

You are saying you decide how I should be treated...I am saying none of us do, rather, God knows and sees that, and reveals justice to us.

[Jesster]

I never said subjectivity makes it baseless, I said if it was ONLY a human construct. 

That is a good question, according to who? 

You are saying you decide how I should be treated...I am saying none of us do, rather, God knows and sees that, and reveals justice to us.

Human constructs are subjective views of humans. So yes, you did call subjectivity baseless.

That is a good question, according to who? 

You are saying you decide how I should be treated...I am saying none of us do, rather, God knows and sees that, and reveals justice to us.

If it's according to anyone at all, it's subjective. If you are trying to claim that this is God's subjective view, then why isn't his social construct just as baseless as our own? You are contradicting yourself here.

You can't just toss in an assertion for something here in the middle of the argument when it's the exact thing you are trying to prove. This fell apart real hard here, MK.

[Mystic]

I never said subjectivity makes it baseless, I said if it was ONLY a human construct. 

That is a good question, according to who? 

You are saying you decide how I should be treated...I am saying none of us do, rather, God knows and sees that, and reveals justice to us.

Human constructs are subjective views of humans.

But are all subjective views of humans have solely human constructs?

[Jesster]

Human constructs are subjective views of humans.

But are all subjective views of humans have solely human constructs?

Yes

[Mystic]

I never said subjectivity makes it baseless, I said if it was ONLY a human construct. 

That is a good question, according to who? 

You are saying you decide how I should be treated...I am saying none of us do, rather, God knows and sees that, and reveals justice to us.

Human constructs are subjective views of humans. So yes, you did call subjectivity baseless.

That is a good question, according to who? 

You are saying you decide how I should be treated...I am saying none of us do, rather, God knows and sees that, and reveals justice to us.

If it's according to anyone at all, it's subjective. If you are trying to claim that this is God's subjective view, then why isn't his social construct just as baseless as our own? You are contradicting yourself here.

You can't just toss in an assertion for something here in the middle of the argument when it's the exact thing you are trying to prove. This fell apart real hard here, MK.

You should read what philosophers have said about this subject. From Kant to others, it's been proven beyond doubt morality, justice, etc, prove God and God proves them, and this is a biconditional statement, if one is false, the other is false, and if one is true, the other is true. I'm not saying it's true because they said so, all I'm suggesting is you read their literature.

There is a lot of literature on this.  I am just bringing different angles and perceptions of my own that have a similar flavor.

The reality is we didn't come to believe in morality due to God nor God due to morality, but we believed in these things together, and they go together, no matter how much people try to separate the two.

The same is true of mysterious language of love and worth.

Justice also shows we naturally believe in God.

---

But are all subjective views of humans have solely human constructs?

Yes

Do you believe love is a human construct?

[Jesster]

You should read what philosophers have said about this subject. From Kant to others, it's been proven beyond doubt morality, justice, etc, prove God and God proves them, and this is a biconditional statement, if one is false, the other is false, and if one is true, the other is true.

There is a lot of literature on this.  I am just bringing different angles and perceptions of my own that have a similar flavor.\

Don't start with the argument from authority again. You said you understood this, so you explain it yourself.

The reality is we didn't come to believe in morality due to God nor God due to morality, but we believed in these things together, and they go together, no matter how much people try to separate the two.

The same is true of mysterious language of love and worth.

And now we're back to bald assertions again. Thanks for wasting my time.