You know, I like you and you strike me as a fairly genuine inquirer, but you have this tendency to slip into sophism when it suits you, and that really impedes discourse. Let me take two swipes at the problem, one serious and one in jest:
lol, okay. You're getting pretty snippy pretty quickly Zippy. That tells me I'm on to something.
It is simple, but it is also particularly bad. Here's a few reasons:
Okay...
There is no significant consensus that such an act would be just.
Is a consensus how we determine what is just? An argument from popularity?
It involves a kind of vigilante justice, which is commonly perceived to be problematic.
Where did I say
who would do the second socking?
It badly conflates retribution with revenge.
I didn't mention either of those things in the example.
It intentionally conflates three distinct things: retribution, rehabilitation, and deterrence.
I didn't mention any of those things in the example either. When I talked about rehabilitation and deference in a different post, I was analyzing the potential goals and outcomes of the example. My analysis isn't part of the example.
Opinions on the example are (therefore) highly unlikely to yield any progress or common ground regarding the idea of justice.
If you don't read things that aren't there, then it's a perfectly fine example. Do you have any reasons that it's a bad example that have something to do with what is actually in the example?
Why isn't keeping a promise just?
If I lie to you all the time, it would be just to lie to me right back. Keeping a promise isn't just anymore than giving you money is just. It isn't weighed against something else to consider any fairness or equity.
Imagine this:
Orel: My boss only paid me half of my paycheck!
Zip: Is that a problem?
Orel: Yes!
Zip: Because it's unjust (or unfair)?
Orel: No... Because you're supposed to be remunerated for labor.
Zip: Why are you supposed to be remunerated for labor? Because it's just, right, fair?
Orel: No...
Orel: Maybe it's a problem because we both agreed, contractually, to a certain wage.
Zip: Why do we have to honor contracts and promises? Because it's just, right, fair?
Orel: No...
If he doesn't pay me, I'm not going to work. People will hear that he doesn't pay and then they won't work for him either. There are consequences of actions that motivate behavior beyond accepting axiomatically that "justice is good".
Trying to run away from the intrinsic value of justice is a very strange position, indeed. Justice is a very difficult, broad, simple, and complicated idea.
I'm not running away. I'm asking you head on to show me why justice is good. Justice isn't all that complicated. How to
attain justice is, but that's a different question.
Paying a fair wage is just. That doesn't mean keeping a promise isn't. Granted, this is vacuous given your definition, for you are saying that paying a fair wage is fair. Indubitably.
So the fact that unjust promises are possible means that it isn't just to keep promises? Are you able to differentiate between an exception and a rule?
Again, this simply isn't an argument against the justice of promise-keeping. If I tell you that lakes are good for swimming, and you point to a frozen lake in Canada as a counterargument, you haven't contradicted my claim in any real way, you've just engaged in a bit of sophism.
It is also unfair and unjust to lie, but breaking a promise does not necessitate a lie.
I didn't say that was an argument for why keeping a promise is just. I simply declared that keeping a promise isn't just and moved on to show you what aspect of your hypothetical could be used as an example of just behavior. You're reading things that aren't there again. Maybe that's why you're seeing sophistry where it isn't too.
I'll just ignore the post you made in an attempt at comedy.
