Best Living Spokesman for Atheism

[Esquilax]

Where did I say the idea that you should strive to do so is wrong? Can you point it out in my post?

Your entire post was about how Dawkins' idea of taking responsibility for your own wrongdoings is, and I quote, "impossible," on the basis that we cannot perfectly pull it off. I'm not going to play semantic games with you there: if you think a thing is impossible, why would you attempt it?

Rather, I think justice is one of those concepts that are all-or-nothing. Just like the relation of "being identical to" is all or nothing, or "being equal to" is all or nothing.

And you're wrong. The entire justice system that we have is predicated on you being wrong. When we lock up a criminal for murder, justice isn't perfectly done, the wrongdoing is not repaired on a one-to-one basis because the victim is still gone, and the family does not have them returned. But we do it anyway because we recognize that some justice has merit, even if it's not all the justice that is required.

You can do something. The fact that you might not be able to do everything is not an argument against Dawkins' point, even though you presented it as though it were.

99 just isn't equal to 100. That's not a fallacy. That's a fact. 

Set aside all the atheist apologetics here and ask yourself this: If someone took $100 from you, and you need to be restituted, what do you deserve? Do you deserve only $99? Or do you deserve the full $100? If someone only gives you $99, do you get what you deserve?

The very idea of justice itself has this self-evident all-or-nothing quality to it.

If someone took $100 from me I would still take the $99 back. Hell, I'd take no money back, if it turned out the thief had spent it all and had no means to pay it back. I'd still expect him to face the law for it, though. Life's not perfect; how is that an argument against Dawkins' point? You think it is: how is that?