Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I don't think my thoughts are particularly modern in all this. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth and all.
Okay. My question is still unanswered.Maybe your thoughts on this aren't modern, but simply being that you've referred to concepts of Lex talionis doesn't make them specifically biblically centered either ...
Again, stealing money from someone doesn't harm them, especially stealing from God!!! The ONE HARMED is the thief.No. But if someone steals $50 from you, that is a crime against you, not a crime against me. If someone steals $50 from me, that is a crime against me, not a crime against you. Even in your analogies, crimes are "against" who they're harmed, not someone who isn't harmed.
Yes it does. Financial harm is a real thing. So is mental harm, emotional harm, etc.Again, stealing money from someone doesn't harm them
In order for something to be just, fair, or equitable, you have to weigh it against something else.
It's just to offer a fair wage because you're weighing the wage against the work performed.
It's just to fulfill one's contractual obligations after the other party has,
...but you can't conflate that with keeping a promise. Fulfilling your end of a contract is fulfilling a promise, but fulfilling a promise isn't necessarily fulfilling your end of a contract.
If I make an unsolicited promise to you that I'm going to wash your car, it isn't "just" to keep that promise because it isn't compared with anything.
It feels like you're trying to conflate "just" with anything "good". But lots of things are good that are unjust. Being generous, for one.
It's good to give people more than you owe them, like tipping well, right? But that isn't just. How can being just be intrinsically good when it's good to be unjust? If I offer you more than a fair wage, am I being bad because I am acting unjustly?
Now like you said, we're talking about retributive justice, so why is your example the opposite of that?
It seems like you're conflating justice with recompense. Compensation is fair, but fairness isn't compensation. Compensation is just, but justice isn't compensation.
Just because I owe you something doesn't mean you deserve it.An old definition of justice is "Rendering to each one his due," or "Rendering to each one his right." If you injure or employ, then it is just to repay or pay (respectively)
Until a threat presents itself, the man is only waiting, he isn't doing justice. When someone attacks him, his family, or his country, he attacks them back, and then justice has happened.justice isn't merely transactional. For example, the just man will defend himself, his family, and his country against harm. In this case justice is a matter of duty, not recompense.
That doesn't sound like two things that can be compared. And later you're going to tell me that you want a non-controversial ground to work from, but you're arguing for something that doesn't relate to retribution. Bad analogy, try again.(Note, though, that promise-keeping is a form of justice-as-recompense. The fulfillment of a promise is weighed against the promise itself (or the "man's word"). A promise is the creation of an obligation which must in turn be fulfilled.)
People have reasons to do things other than justice. I already gave a reason for this after the first mock conversation where you made up things for me to say.According to such a notion no contractual obligation would ever be fulfilled.
How so? We agree that paying a fair wage is just. So paying a wage that is not fair should be unjust, right? (less than a fair wage) < (a fair wage) < (more than a fair wage). You aren't owed that extra money, so how is it fair to pay it to you? It's good, no doubt. But it doesn't equal a fair wage.Supererogation is certainly not unjust.
We started at the topic of justice, what are you talking about?The reason we moved to the topic of justice is because you asserted that justice itself has no intrinsic value.
I gave an example of non-retributive justice in order to establish a non-controversial ground/genus by which we could then determine whether retributive justice is, in fact, just. (I said this in different words a long time ago.)
- Zip: Meting out a just punishment is contrary to neither goodness or love.
- Orel: What's good about justice for justice's sake?
- Zip: Justice is good in itself, is it not?
- Orel: That's what I'm questioning.
- Zip: First, what is your understanding or definition of justice?
- Orel: Justice is equity, fairness.
- Zip: And you don't think equity and fairness have intrinsic value?
- Orel: ...no. Not intrinsic value, anyways.
Sounds boring.I believe Tinker's response was much better. Rather than questioning justice itself, he questioned the justice of an act. His standing argument is that the act of eternal punishment is unjust because it is non-rehabilitative.
Just because I owe you something doesn't mean you deserve it.
Until a threat presents itself, the man is only waiting, he isn't doing justice. When someone attacks him, his family, or his country, he attacks them back, and then justice has happened.
How so? We agree that paying a fair wage is just. So paying a wage that is not fair should be unjust, right? (less than a fair wage) < (a fair wage) < (more than a fair wage). You aren't owed that extra money, so how is it fair to pay it to you? It's good, no doubt. But it doesn't equal a fair wage.
Sounds like obfuscation to work from an example that isn't retribution.
You've got us arguing over whether a promise is justice instead of whether retributive justice is good after saying that our conversation is about retributive justice.
Nope.That's pretty much just what owing means.
So, you'll give another example, but you won't let it be an example of retributive justice... Why are you so resistant to do so?I will concede this point. Consider another example: it is just for the state to recognize a right to free speech.
I don't see any reasoning here.Rendering more than what is due is not injustice. Gratuity is not a crime.
Nah, it's pretty clearly obfuscation. You decided to add another example, but you won't go near retribution. I bet if you ever did it's going to look an awful lot like mine that you made up problems to have with.It's actually called rationality. If you don't know what justice is, you will never be able to determine whether retribution is just.
I already answered this. Give us an example of retributive justice and we'll talk about it. Better yet, let's start with just the first half of mine. I sock you in the nose. Now you can tell me what the most just thing that can be done in response.You're the one who decided to argue about the nature of justice itself rather than give an argument against the example of the OP.
Do you deny the legitimacy of retributive justice altogether?
It would be kinder to let everyone die in your opinion ?That barbaric. How could a god be so cruel?
Would it be kinder to have Noachian ‘life boats’ accessible for every one? That way being accidentally born on the wrong continent would not be a God mandated death sentence.It would be kinder to let everyone die in your opinion ?
EVERYONE COULD HAVE BEEN SAVED. They chose NOT TO. Instead, they CONTINUED IN GROWING IN WICKEDNESSES AND SIN. They (probably) mocked NOAH and laughed in derision and hilarity at NOAH and his sons working on the ARK and WARNING EVERYONE of the destruction coming.Would it be kinder to have Noachian ‘life boats’ accessible for every one? That way being accidentally born on the wrong continent would not be a God mandated death sentence.
Even the ones on the other side of the planet who had never heard of God or Noah and simply did not want to drown?EVERYONE COULD HAVE BEEN SAVED. They chose NOT TO. Instead, they CONTINUED IN GROWING IN WICKEDNESSES AND SIN. They (probably) mocked NOAH and laughed in derision and hilarity at NOAH and his sons working on the ARK and WARNING EVERYONE of the destruction coming.
Yes, even from all parts of, even from the other side of the planet.Even the ones on the other side of the planet who had never heard of God or Noah and simply did not want to drown?
Those poor people. God really must have had it in for them to not give them a fighting chance.Yes, even from all parts of, even from the other side of the planet.
Did you skip everything?Those poor people. God really must have had it in for them to not give them a fighting chance.
EVERYONE COULD HAVE BEEN SAVED. They chose NOT TO. Instead, they CONTINUED IN GROWING IN WICKEDNESSES AND SIN. They (probably) mocked NOAH and laughed in derision and hilarity at NOAH and his sons working on the ARK and WARNING EVERYONE of the destruction coming.
Even the ones on the other side of the planet who had never heard of God or Noah and simply did not want to drown?
Yes, even from all parts of, even from the other side of the planet.
How could they be saved if they had never heard of God or Noah because they were in (say) the Americas or Australia?Did you skip everything?
They all had wonderful opportunity to be saved from the flood.
You’re going to have to explain what you mean by that.Remember King Solomon ?
or, more recently, Columbus ?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?