I cut up my response into a few pieces so I can address what you wrote despite character limits. As for this...I think we may have to simply agree that you can't really describe whatever it is that you think is creating moral judgements. You've been rather adamant about what it isn't, in your view, but that doesn't really get us any closer to what you believe it is.
I think this is a common problem even for adults to explain. Hume explained this with the is–ought problem. Morality is abstract so its hard to explain. But we know there are certain things that are wrong by the way we treat them and live them out. Most philosophers desribe our moral sense or intuition as moral realism.
I guess its a bit like Metaphysical Realism only instead of there being real matter outside ourself in the world there are real moral truths in the world. Neither can be proven but we take them to be real. So we sense or intuit these moral principles to be real because they have substance of a different kind which seem just as real as solid objects do to us.
Correct me if I'm wrong but so far...it's not...
1. Emotional reactions to stimuli.
Yes but I think our moral sense is accompanied by our emotions. But I don't think they are emotions alone as this is not enough to explain how we can make judgements about what is right or wrong.
2. Complex reasoned rational judgements.
No because a sense cannot be rationalised. That comes later. But I think our moral sense or intuition can develop as we experience moral situations. So in that sense intuition is not blind. I think subconsciously we are filing away information and having access to it through our intuition.
But it seems our moral sense is not something that we create in the first place. Babies and infants seem to have a strong and spontaneous sense of when people are being mistreated. So maybe there is something in us, in our DNA or maybe some connections with all humans where we naturally know others suffering. But its important to understand that this moral sense is not morality itself. It sort of leads us to be moral. Mainly because how we treat others is morality.
3. Intuitive judgements based on experience.
Yes and no. As mentioned I think our intuition develops through experience. But the strange thing we havn't worked out is why infants can have such a strong intuition as well. Though I think kids get it wrong more often when it comes to complex situations. But according to the research they don't really understand why they choose good over bad.
This implies that this moral sense is more about a 'knowing' without being taught or having to experience the moral situation. I guess that is something we will have to research more. But as intuition cannot really be rationalised or tested in the traditional sense I am not sure how this can be done.
Yes, they did. The Nazis passed laws...the people followed them.
Actually Rule of Law is defined as
The rule of law is a political ideal that all citizens and institutions within a country, state, or community are accountable to the same laws, including lawmakers and leaders.[2][3] It refers to a political situation, not to any specific legal rule.[4][5][6] The rule of law is defined in the Encyclopedia Britannica as "the mechanism, process, institution, practice, or norm that supports the equality of all citizens before the law, secures a nonarbitrary form of government, and more generally prevents the arbitrary use of power."[7]
So I don't think the Nazi's had Rule of Law as described above because they didn't treat their citizens equally before the law, were not a nonarbitrary State and abused their power.
The incremental steps used by the Nazis to gain control of the German legal system—beginning as early as 1920 when the Nazi Party adopted a party platform that included a plan for a new legal system—turned the legal system on its head and destroyed the Rule of Law.
Equality under the law wasn't a feature of their laws. In fact, in most places throughout history, equality under the law wasn't a concept anyone followed. It's a fairly recent concept, mostly in western civilizations, from a historical perspective.
But equality before the law is integral to Rule of law. Yes Rule of Law has been developed in recent times like Humans Rights. But they come from certain principles that have been around for a long time.
Ok...in many instances, nazi POWs were executed after surrendering, without so much as a trial. We know this happened....so no, they were not treated as we treated allies accused of crimes.
Yes but I am sure that was not an official treatment. The point is even when the Allies treated POW's that way they were breaching their own Rule of Law. We seen this with the POWs from the Iraqi war where they were tortured and there was public outcry and fallout within the military where heads were rolled.
Ok. Then you still haven't described Justice as a principle. It's still just an abstraction that can mean any number of different things to different people.
OK heres a pretty good definition.
Justice means giving each person what he or she deserves or, in more traditional terms, giving each person his or her due.
The most fundamental principle of justice—one that has been widely accepted since it was first defined by Aristotle more than two thousand years ago—is the principle that "equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally." "Individuals should be treated the same, unless they differ in ways that are relevant to the situation in which they are involved."
An introduction to the justice approach to ethics including a discussion of desert, distributive justice, retributive justice, and compensatory justice.
www.scu.edu
So for example if two people do the same work and all things being equal they should get the same pay. If one gets more because of their race, gender or is treated more favourably because the boss likes them or they are a friend or related then this is unjust. BUt Justice also allows that those who do wrong are punished because just as people deserve what they are due for their deeds so are those who do wrong. Its all about responsibility and accountability.
See above. You seem to think Justice was done at the Nuremberg trials, where the defeated Germans were found guilty of obeying the laws of their land....and while I could continue pointing out the contradiction here, there's no need....because apparently following the rule of law isn't the principle of justice. Justice is still a mere abstraction.
But the Germans did not follow the Rule of law as mentioned above and therefore were not following the moral principles including justice, equality and kindness. How can one claim justice when being just is treating equals as equals. Humans are equals and yet the Nazi's treated them as unequal.
Independent of what? According to whom?
Independent of personal or cultural beliefs and opinions. Something that can be applied universially. A principle rather than a personality. A truth or law that stands indeependent of human preferences and feelings. Similar to laws of nature like gravity. The law stands even if a person or cultures preference or opinion claims an apple doesn't fall from the tree but floats upwards.
It's nice of you to give your opinion.
Its not an opinion. If its not impartial then its not justice. This will be evidenced when we apply injustice where we treat people unequally, deny them their dues and don't hold people accountable for their bad behaviour.
I'm asking how you would know....not your opinion. The nazis clearly thought they were engaging in justice. You think they weren't. How would you go about proving your view of justice is correct and theirs was wrong?
The same way the Neurenberg Court did, Crimes against Humanity. Just means treating people equally and not unequally or unfairly because of their race or beliefs. The Nazi's clearly treated the Jews unequally and unfairly compared to their own citizens because of their race and beliefs.
No it's not. This is the fallacy of difference.
A distinction without a difference is a type of logical fallacy where an author or speaker attempts to describe a distinction between two things where no discernible difference exists.
Ok so whatever the fallacy is for claiming that because there are moral differences then it must follow that there is no objective morals. It doesn't follow.
Per Wikipedia. We're talking about real differences and they are discernable.
How do you mean real differences. How are they real if the differences are subjective/relative. They may be real to the culture but unreal to the neigbouring culture or even the culture within the same culture.
Human Rights
That's no different from saying that you believe people have the same moral principles as you. This is provably untrue.
No it means that the principle stands regardless of me or a person who agrees with me or because many agree or because others disagree. Like 2 + 2=4 because its correct within itself and not because of agreement or disagreement.
Of course they are. For example, in N Korea, you don't have any right to freedom of speech. In Eritrea, there is no freedom of the press.
So they are breaching the natural human Rights owed to all people regardless of race or culture.
I think it's an example of Justice being served as much as the nazis believed in their justice and whomever they served it upon.
Thats silly I think because then things degrade into nilhilism where there is no way to tell what is just but rather any act can be classed as just simply because someone or a culture says so. Justice as a principle is not arbitrary as though we can deny people their rights say to equality and then claim justice when justice demands equality (being treated the same regardless of race or status).
I think usually when a nation denies freedom of the press they are guilty of denying peoples Rights and not treating people equally. We can easily find many examples of how they are treating people unfairly and unequally. Therefore denying justice. Where theres smoke theres fire.
A single French fry stolen isn't likely to be noticed...let alone cause pain and suffering.
But if we take this logic that a small theft is hardly worth noticing and applied this universially it would then become a problem. It would be something we noticed and mattered.
If they notice they're ripped off.
Yes like when someone comes home to a robbery and sees all their possessions taken, broken and messed up. That pain is like touching a hot plate metaphorically of course. The pain is in the heart, the devastation, sadness, anger, loss, grief ect.
Or not. I know plenty of people who were ripped off when buying a car. These people weren't merely happy at getting a new car,
Not sure what you mean. They were ripped off and yet happy. Do you man they got a new car as a result of being ripped off. If so then of course they were happy in the end because justice was served. But how did they feel when they first discovered they were ripped off. before they were compensated.
but I'm certain that the salesman was happy as well. In those cases, both parties were happy about the transaction even though it was deeply unfair.
So if the salesman originally ripped off the customer the saleman was at the advantage so that is what makes them happy. They have gained the advantaged by taking advantage. If they were founed out and then had to give the customer a new car then I cannot see how the saleman is happy with the whole experience. they just got busted, not good for business and their reputation. I guess thats why car salesman are regarded as untrustworthy.
An unbiased world court? They were tried by the people who conquered them. Who is unbiased in that situation?
Applying the Rule of Law and the Justice principle that all are equal before the law regardless of what nation or culture you belong to. If you do a crime then theres no favouritism (impartiality). The law is applied regardless. Its not any specific nation applying the law but rather the principles of the law and justice. Not applying it differently because they are Germans or because the prosecutors were American.
Sure people can pervert the course of justice but that doesn't negate the principles of applying the law and justice itself. That just shows that some people breach those principles which is more or less being unjust. You can't find them unjust unless there is such a thing as justice that stands apart from those applying the law.
I'm sure they think your idea of justice is abhorrent. People weren't flying airplanes into towers because they thought we had a great system of justice.
Of course but you seem to think because someone has a different moral that does something we think is abhorrent that we cannot say they are just wrong and that because of this their claim that we the West are abhorrent is just as valid. In these situations someone is right and someone is wrong.
In the case of the WTC the terrorist were wrong. Even if they believed the West was abhorrent killing innocent people contradicts any claim they make at being moral. We know that there is such a truth as treating humans with respect and dignity, being fair which means not being killed for something they did not do.
can you explain.
