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.
That's weird. Pretty much every responder has said that He does both, but you say He doesn't do either of these things. How does that work?Ok. Here we go. Tell Moral Orel which of the two concepts that he's inserted into an epistemic and metaphysical framework not his own...are things God does.
God does neither of your concepts.
I agree, in a way. I think what people mean when they use the word "unjust" is to say "that isn't deserved" but they only use it in places where they don't like that the thing happened, and they don't use it in places where they do like the thing that happened. The common definition is always the same, but where it is used differs. I think it's a massive case of special pleading.
I don't think you actually agree with that definition. You've already said that things like mercy are outside and "above" justice. Giving gifts is a good thing to do, and we ought to do good things, but you've said that gifts are neither just nor unjust, ergo not justice.
You are allowed to be unjust in that manner. It is good for a person to be unjust by donating money to charity. I do not agree that things cease to be unjust simply because they are good.
If you track all the goings on of a restaurant in real-time then yes, taking the food is when the harm occurs. They lost food, equipment suffered degradation, employee wages were spent, etc. It's just to bring back balance by paying, and it's unjust to allow that imbalance to continue to exist by not paying.
If the victim is harmed by a lack of justice, then the scales are tipped further. Harm moves the scales. The victim isn't owed more because the judge was unjust, the victim continues to be owed the same amount.
Say we have Jim and Bob. If Jim steals $5 from Bob, the scales are tilted against Bob. If Jim gifts $5 to Bob the scales are tilted against Jim. You aren't a victim if you volunteer, but if there is imbalance in the scales you don't have justice.
If you believe that retributive justice is intrinsically good, then yeah. It's an injustice to not punish people that deserve punishment. If forgiveness tilts the scales, I don't see how it really could, but if it did, then it wouldn't be an injustice.
So here's a theological question I don't know the answer to. When God forgives, do you cease to be deserving of death?
I don't think I'm "imposing" symmetricity on justice. I think it's inherent. I just think it's good to be unjust sometimes. Why do we need to redefine justice instead of just acknowledging that it isn't best to have perfectly balanced scales?
A long time ago you and I had a discussion on retributive justice that went nowhere. But here when you say justice isn't "a procedural balancing for the sake of balancing" that's exactly what retributive justice is. Justice for the sake of justice. Delivering suffering in response to suffering is intrinsically good, no? I dunno, maybe you've changed your stance on retributive justice in that time, maybe my point from back then will be clearer now in light of exploring what it means to balance scales for the sake of balance.
I dunno what word I'd like to use to describe "promoting good" but it ain't "justice". It's better to do more good than it is to blindly balance scales and you can't have justice without that balance.
That's weird. Pretty much every responder has said that He does both, but you say He doesn't do either of these things. How does that work?
I think it's weird that God doesn't ensure that deserving people are punished or spare people from punishment they deserve. So how does that work?I'm sure it is weird to anyone who wants to completely ignore all of the previous posts I've already made in this thread ...
First of all, thank you for accurately paraphrasing my argument. You know how hard that sort of thing is to come by around here. And you're much better about that than most.I am going to try to recapitulate the discussion in a way that refocuses it. Hopefully this long post will help avoid endlessly growing posts. Nevertheless, I will respond to the entirety of #215 and #218 in a “spoiler.”
First, let me restate your initial argument in a way that highlights our disagreement:
1. An act of justice ensures that someone gets what they deserve.
2. An act of mercy results in someone not getting what they deserve.
3. Therefore acts of mercy are unjust.
So now we get into my teaser question. Can a law be unjust? If justice is only concerned with unlawful acts, then it seems the law informs us of what is just, and justice doesn't inform us of what should be a law.Our disagreement revolves around the concept of desert in premises (1) and (2). The disagreement allows at least a possible distinction between the case of gifts and the case of forgiving a debt, and you have claimed that both are unjust.
The case of a gift is a bit simpler, so perhaps we can start with that. The common opinion is that taking from someone without their prior consent (stealing) is unjust, yet giving to someone without their prior consent (gifting) is not unjust. Or as I said in #214, “To be incredibly straightforward, stealing a dollar from a man is unjust and giving a dollar to a man is not, yet both imply an unbalanced exchange.” I went on to give the reason for this in the concept of private property. The axiom of private property says that if we own goods then we are able to use and dispose of them in ways that others are not.
Now when someone says that theft is unjust and gifting is not, they are not resorting to special pleading. Their working definition of justice in this case is not “unbalanced exchange,” but rather, “unlawful action regarding private property.” It is lawful for a man to give his own goods and it is lawful for a man to receive freely given goods from another, but it is unlawful for a man to take another’s goods without his consent. “Balanced exchange” is not the definition of justice, but of course it does enter into the nature of justice. Yet justice is not interested in balanced exchange tout court (and as I tried to illustrate with the pelts and the coins, there simply is no such thing as unbalanced exchange apart from intents, perspectives, contracts, etc.).
Justice is interested in balanced exchange only in relation to the law, whether that law be natural or civil. Thus when someone commits an unlawful act they have unbalanced the scales in a way that involves justice. When someone commits an act that is not unlawful, they have done nothing against justice.
It's funny, sometimes you make argumentum absurdums and I'm all like, "Yeah, totally!". Every action does lead to an imbalance.Indeed, it is probably the case that every single act we carry out results in various “imbalances.” Maybe we could even define rational acts in just that way: an attempt to alter the balance of reality in one’s own favor. Every interaction you have with another human being creates "imbalances." Every interaction alters the prior balance that obtained between the two of you. That doesn't mean that every interaction is either just or unjust. Justice only cares about those acts that impinge upon the law. Justice is only concerned with unlawful imbalances.
And again, you would call that act unjust because it is aiding evil doing, not because of what is deserved.Sometimes people make unjust accusations of injustice, but they are not being inconsistent when they see someone giving a gift and do not find it to be unjust. For example, suppose I see someone giving a large donation to Planned Parenthood. Despite the fact that I don’t like it, I would never say that it is unjust qua gift or qua imbalanced exchange. If I said the act was unjust it would be because I believe it is unjust to aid evil actors, not because I believe it is unjust to give gifts.
But giving gifts is a good thing to do; they're a thing you ought to do. Does the (natural) law not say, frinstance, that you should give some money to a starving beggar. That would "fulfill" the law making it just. The law isn't only a bunch of "don't" to you, is it?No, I am happy with the definition. Justice governs what is lawful. Just acts fulfill the law; unjust acts break the law. Yet justice is not comprehensive (and this is a very important truth for political philosophy). There are acts which don’t fulfill the law and don’t break the law. There are lots of them. Being merciful is one. Giving a gift is one. Gift-giving isn’t “governed by a set of rules,” in the relevant way. You can go your whole life never giving or receiving a gift and you will not thereby have acted justly or unjustly. By definition the law doesn’t care whether we give gifts.
This gets to the equivocation present in premise (2), and is perhaps related to the distinction you made in the second sentence of #204. If I gift you $100 it is undeserved, and if I give you an award for being the first man on the moon it is undeserved, but in two different ways. In the first case you don’t deserve to have it. In the second case you deserve to not-have it. Only the second case is against the law and therefore unjust. The (natural) law does not say that a man cannot receive a free gift of $100 from another, but it does say that a man who did not do something cannot receive a reward for doing it.
Sorry, you lost me. All just acts are good, not all good acts are just? But you've defined "just" as "lawful" now, so aren't all good acts lawful and therefore all good acts are just? Look at this again: "the set of rules that ought to guide the actions and exchanges that take place between humans". How is this not the complete set of what acts are good?We could define justice as goodness insofar as it enters into law. If paint is basically color insofar as it can be applied to material objects, you cannot say that some paint is not-colored. Paint isn’t just color. Paint and color aren’t the same thing. Nevertheless, all paint is colored, just as all just acts are good. We could call justice a subset of goodness, but I would rather call it a species of goodness.
Sure the restaurant is harmed. It cost them something, that's harm. They don't just want you to eat there, they are willing to sacrifice their capital and time in exchange for your money. Sacrifice is harm. Sometimes harm is for a good end. Sometimes I want to be harmed even if I don't enjoy that harm. I want to be harmed by the pin-prick of receiving the Covid vaccine, for example.I think this kind of analysis is incorrect. No one does a restaurant an injustice or a harm when they eat the restaurant’s food. The whole point of the restaurant is for people to eat food. The restaurant wants you to eat their food. The injustice and the harm occurs when someone eats the food without paying.
Again, justice has to do with the law, not with mere imbalance. When I sit down and eat my steak I am not committing a crime or breaking the law, and when I pay for my steak I am not making restitution for a crime. Restitution and remuneration are not the same thing. For various reasons there is often a temporal gap between receiving a good or service and paying for it. This doesn’t mean that receiving the good is an act of injustice and paying for the good is an act of just restitution.
Okay, ya got me. I was only thinking of what the bloke who broke my windshield owes me, but yes, the interactions with the court can bring their own imbalances such that the court and/or judge now owes me something else.They are tipped further, but justice is not a univocal concept. It is complex and involves many different aspects because law is predicated on many different axioms. If the judge renders you an unjust decision then you are now further owed any of several things, including an apology and an appeal. You may not receive recompense for your windshield, an apology, or an appeal, but that does not mean that further injustices were not added when the judge rendered an unjust decision.
Yeah, you really want to drive that one home. I think it's just putting a label on the special pleading and defining "justice" out of it's inherent usage of balance.The only imbalances justice is concerned with are imbalances which are the result of unlawful behavior.
But you said that they're the same thing. Forgiving a debt is giving a gift. The only reason we're talking about gifts is because I brought up forgiveness, and you said that forgiveness is just a gift, and we wouldn't say a gift is unjust.I realize the quote from Aquinas that I gave involved forgiving debts and thus retribution, but let’s hash the issue of a simple gift before we move to forgiving debts. This post is long enough as it is.
So when you good Christian folk die you deserve to go to Heaven? God lays out the rules for what He expects you to do in order for Him to forgive your sins, you do them, so He forgives you, and now you deserve to go to Heaven. Funny, in my other thread "Are you doing enough?" everyone told me that you can't "earn salvation" but I think what you've just described is you agreeing to work for payment. I'll give you credit for being one of the only people to not try and completely dodge the responsibility I implied in that thread, though. Some folks literally insisted I didn't have to do anything. So I said, "Okay. I'm doing nothing now, and I'll keep doing nothing so that I go to Heaven."According to Catholicism the forgiveness of a mortal sin frees one from the debt of spiritual death. The relation to bodily death is an entrenched question.
Actually, I think that even though there are a few things that everyone else agrees is fine and not unjust, there's enough disagreement on what we should deem to be "just" that we have to define it so broadly. I'm pointing out that the necessarily broad definition creates a problem of it's own.I would say that the fact that your arguments lead to conclusions so contrary to popular opinion indicates that you are the one who is redefining justice. Balance is an incomplete concept until we specify what is being balanced. On a physical scale we are balancing weight, and if the weight of one thing is thought to be unequal to the weight of another, then we will have to incorporate a rate or ratio. Justice does not balance things according to weight, it balances them according to law. Acts which have no relation to the law have no relation to justice.
Okie-dokie.Good questions, but let’s hold them until we finish gifts.
Of course. Because I don't think civil law should be driven by a concept of justice. Sometimes giving people what they deserve produces something good, and that's a good law. Sometimes giving people what they deserve does not produce something good, and that's a bad law.Do you think that civil law ought to punish theft but not gift-giving?
I think it's weird that God doesn't ensure that deserving people are punished or spare people from punishment they deserve. So how does that work?
So you know that he doesn't ensure people get what they deserve, and you know that he doesn't spare people from what they deserve... You just don't know how that works. How do you know God does neither of those things?... I think you've mistaken me for someone who believes that systematic theology is really a thing, Orel.
If I had all the answers, it'd be because I wouldn't need to read anything other than the Bible. But I do need to read much more than the Bible in order to attempt to understand the Bible, so... I don't have all of the answers.
Toodles !!!
First of all, thank you for accurately paraphrasing my argument. You know how hard that sort of thing is to come by around here. And you're much better about that than most.
Of course. Because I don't think civil law should be driven by a concept of justice. Sometimes giving people what they deserve produces something good, and that's a good law. Sometimes giving people what they deserve does not produce something good, and that's a bad law.Do you think that civil law ought to punish theft but not gift-giving?
So now we get into my teaser question. Can a law be unjust? If justice is only concerned with unlawful acts, then it seems the law informs us of what is just, and justice doesn't inform us of what should be a law.
So now we get into my teaser question. Can a law be unjust? If justice is only concerned with unlawful acts, then it seems the law informs us of what is just, and justice doesn't inform us of what should be a law.
But most importantly, if you're defining justice as being decided by what is lawful, and not the other way around, I think you've redefined desert right out of the definition of justice. "Unlawful action regarding private property" as you say doesn't involve an imbalance. And earlier, "The set of rules that ought to guide the actions and exchanges that take place between humans" doesn't mention balance either. So justice isn't about what is deserved, or fairness, or balance anymore and these things aren't intrinsically good.
But aside from that, justice balances things according to weight. We don't give the death penalty for shoplifting. Too severe a punishment is unjust even when some punishment is deserved. The weight of your action should be weighed against the weight of the punishment, even if it's only considered when it's law.
It's funny, sometimes you make argumentum absurdums and I'm all like, "Yeah, totally!". Every action does lead to an imbalance.
Consider the following statement, "A person should only receive X if they deserve X". If folks getting what they deserve is intrinsically good, then it's true.
But because you're saying that it's only sometimes true depending on what X is, then what is good is determined by the nature of X and not by what is deserved.
And again, you would call that act unjust because it is aiding evil doing, not because of what is deserved.
But giving gifts is a good thing to do; they're a thing you ought to do.
Does the (natural) law not say, frinstance, that you should give some money to a starving beggar. That would "fulfill" the law making it just.
The law isn't only a bunch of "don't" to you, is it?
But this also goes back to "A person should only receive X if they deserve X". If this is only sometimes true depending on X, then the nature of X determines whether it's good or not, not what is deserved.
Sorry, you lost me. All just acts are good, not all good acts are just?
But you've defined "just" as "lawful" now, so aren't all good acts lawful and therefore all good acts are just?
Look at this again: "the set of rules that ought to guide the actions and exchanges that take place between humans". How is this not the complete set of what acts are good?
Sure the restaurant is harmed. It cost them something, that's harm. They don't just want you to eat there, they are willing to sacrifice their capital and time in exchange for your money. Sacrifice is harm. Sometimes harm is for a good end. Sometimes I want to be harmed even if I don't enjoy that harm. I want to be harmed by the pin-prick of receiving the Covid vaccine, for example.
Okay, ya got me. I was only thinking of what the bloke who broke my windshield owes me, but yes, the interactions with the court can bring their own imbalances such that the court and/or judge now owes me something else.
But you said that they're the same thing. Forgiving a debt is giving a gift. The only reason we're talking about gifts is because I brought up forgiveness, and you said that forgiveness is just a gift, and we wouldn't say a gift is unjust.
So when you good Christian folk die you deserve to go to Heaven?
I'll give you credit for being one of the only people to not try and completely dodge the responsibility I implied in that thread, though. Some folks literally insisted I didn't have to do anything. So I said, "Okay. I'm doing nothing now, and I'll keep doing nothing so that I go to Heaven."
Actually, I think that even though there are a few things that everyone else agrees is fine and not unjust, there's enough disagreement on what we should deem to be "just" that we have to define it so broadly. I'm pointing out that the necessarily broad definition creates a problem of it's own.
Of course. Because I don't think civil law should be driven by a concept of justice. Sometimes giving people what they deserve produces something good, and that's a good law. Sometimes giving people what they deserve does not produce something good, and that's a bad law.
True. Then I have to alter it to "Christians don't deserve Hell". Better yet, to use some of your phrasing, "Christians deserve to not go to Hell". How's that?No, I merely said that a debt was forgiven, not that something else was deserved.
I don't think it's goofy at all. I don't think most people would even see it as goofy, especially not business folk. There's a cost benefit ratio in every decision, and we would all prefer to do without the cost if we can. That's why cost is harm, we don't like cost. As a general rule, consensual transactions have a net benefit to us, I'll agree to that.I think you're talking goofy. Not all cost is harm. I buy a watch at a cost but I am not harmed in the transaction. As a general rule consensual transactions benefit us, they do not harm us.
You mean the difference between "Bill does not deserve this" and "Bill deserves to not have this", right?See my distinction between the two senses of "deserve" in my last post.
Haha - yes, that is a tricky question for Protestants. I did see some of those exchanges.
True. Then I have to alter it to "Christians don't deserve Hell". Better yet, to use some of your phrasing, "Christians deserve to not go to Hell". How's that?
I don't think it's goofy at all. I don't think most people would even see it as goofy, especially not business folk. There's a cost benefit ratio in every decision, and we would all prefer to do without the cost if we can. That's why cost is harm, we don't like cost. As a general rule, consensual transactions have a net benefit to us, I'll agree to that.
And one question just for clarity:
You mean the difference between "Bill does not deserve this" and "Bill deserves to not have this", right?
Sorry, which one? I just want to check myself here. I'm not trying to get into a denominational debate or anything. I'm looking to side with Thomism whenever I can.
Yeah, especially if you ask me questions like this:Haha - apparently my attempt to shorten the length of posts is going to fail miserably.
And this:My semantic question about your definition of Justice 2.0 is still at play at a certain level. Do you have any way to justify your claim that civil law ought to punish theft rather than gift-giving? Do you have a rational basis for that claim? If so, what is it? Is there something to your judgment beyond whim? (Employing evaluations of "good" and "bad" without any further explanation certainly would be an instance of special pleading, so presumably you need to do more than that)
What should it be driven by?
Yeah, especially if you ask me questions like this:
And this:
I'm usually happy to tell you what I like and what sorts of things lead to what I like and why, but is that really pertinent? Maybe you just want to put me more on the defensive, or maybe you just want to point out that I don't have anything better. I'm open about being a subjectivist, so that sort of thing isn't really going to phase me. I mean, if you want to avoid rabbit trails to keep our posts from turning into novels, are you sure you want to ask me how I feel folks ought to act and how we ought to get them to act that way? I guarantee our responses are going to double in length if we follow this route.
I'm usually happy to tell you what I like and what sorts of things lead to what I like and why, but is that really pertinent? Maybe you just want to put me more on the defensive, or maybe you just want to point out that I don't have anything better. I'm open about being a subjectivist, so that sort of thing isn't really going to phase me. I mean, if you want to avoid rabbit trails to keep our posts from turning into novels, are you sure you want to ask me how I feel folks ought to act and how we ought to get them to act that way? I guarantee our responses are going to double in length if we follow this route.
Gee whiz! Relax, bro! I asked if you wanted to double our post lengths. I didn't say I wouldn't. You already not so chill anymore? You seem pretty touchy to be turning a question into a refusal. And then to call my position a strawman...Oh heavens, you think you can give top-to-bottom critiques of the entire concept of justice, but no one is allowed to ask you what the alternative basis of a fair society would be? That's odd to say the least, especially when you claim that society should prohibit theft but not gift-giving.
Moral Orel: It's silly that people think theft is unjust but gift-giving is not.
Zippy: Do you think civil law should prohibit theft but not gift-giving?
Moral Orel: Of course, but not because of justice.
Zippy: Then why?
Moral Orel: That question is off-topic.
Zippy: ???
If you are engaged in strawmen and semantic games then avoiding that question ensures that you will not be caught out. That's what I've claimed all along. The strawman is that justice is merely balancing. The semantic game is that we can erect rationally ordered law without recourse to justice.
In a logical sense I have given a reductio: if you reject justice then you must also reject civil law. It is absurd to reject civil law, therefore it is absurd to reject justice. My hope is that once you begin to consider the problem of civil law you will begin to understand what the word "justice" actually means.
Gee whiz! Relax, bro! I asked if you wanted to double our post lengths. I didn't say I wouldn't. You already not so chill anymore? You seem pretty touchy to be turning a question into a refusal. And then to call my position a strawman...
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?