RE: Argument from justice.
March 30, 2017 at 9:09 pm
(This post was last modified: March 30, 2017 at 9:10 pm by Mystic.)
(March 30, 2017 at 9:01 pm)Jesster Wrote:(March 30, 2017 at 8:56 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: 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.
(March 30, 2017 at 9:00 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: 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.
(March 30, 2017 at 9:06 pm)Jesster Wrote:(March 30, 2017 at 9:04 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: 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.