I didn't just repeat them gen. I put them in my own words, and then did that afresh a few times just to try to help you guys understand it. You're still trying to misrepresent my original statement. Let me try one more time.
Reality one: unfair
Reality two: fair
Person living reality one: his decisions/ moral values are based upon the scope of reality as he knows and experiences it. If he knows a murderer will never get punished, justice to him could only come from equal suffering dealt to the perpetrator.
Person in reality two, has no concern about exacting revenge, because he knows justice to be enacted. He feels no need to punish over and above what might be fair to compensate for any lack of justice.
Therefore moral standards from the two perfective are different. The moral standard of the person in reality one is inferior to the standard of the person in reality two. Because person one acts given injustice.
Morality restricted by injustice is a limited morality.
Morality unrestricted is not limited.
Therefore morality based upon a fair reality is superior to morality based upon an unfair reality.
Reality one: unfair
Reality two: fair
Person living reality one: his decisions/ moral values are based upon the scope of reality as he knows and experiences it. If he knows a murderer will never get punished, justice to him could only come from equal suffering dealt to the perpetrator.
Person in reality two, has no concern about exacting revenge, because he knows justice to be enacted. He feels no need to punish over and above what might be fair to compensate for any lack of justice.
Therefore moral standards from the two perfective are different. The moral standard of the person in reality one is inferior to the standard of the person in reality two. Because person one acts given injustice.
Morality restricted by injustice is a limited morality.
Morality unrestricted is not limited.
Therefore morality based upon a fair reality is superior to morality based upon an unfair reality.
