"Human Rights" --European Court

[worm]

But to arrive at the fairest ideal of justice, the best way to arrive at that answer is NOT to consider what you think would be right for others, but to instead view what would be right for yourself - because a large part of the problem with people's individual ideas of justice is that they tend to place themselves in a place that they won't afford others.

[eFestivals]

It's filled by the morality of whomever uses it. Whether a justice system or an individual, it has exactly the same functional meaning, which is to right wrong.

but the fact remains that any "functional meaning" is meaningless without those specifics.

If I tell you "I'm wanting justice", you know that I'm wanting to "right a wrong" but you have absolutely no idea what I'm meaning by that, you are only able to know what you yourself would mean if you said those same words.

As a method of communication - the very purpose of words - it's completely meaningless, just a noise that you cannot decipher into something meaningful, unless specifics are given.

[worm]

There is no justice in double standards, that much is certainly true.

[worm]

If I tell you "I'm wanting justice", you know that I'm wanting to "right a wrong".

Edited February 21, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

Voila Neil - consequences lead us to moralise, not the other way around.

Exactly - what I said that you said was wrong!!!

The consequences of a method of administering justice leads us to have a concept of what is justice, not the other way around.

Justice is meaningless without the specifics of what it means.

[eFestivals]

So that's a universal definition of justice is it Neil?

What I said is what I said.

Someone who is as REALLY well read, or someone who has a half-decent grasp of words and their meanings, would not have asked such a moronic question.

[eFestivals]

Bingo. You can't begin to talk about righting wrong without the notion of justice because that's precisely what it is. If instead you speak about consequences to actions then you're no longer speaking about justice.

You can't begin to talk about justice without the notion of what is right and wrong.

And you can't begin to understand what someone else means by justice without the notion of what is THEIR right and wrong.

And so you cannot understand what someone means by justice without reference to those specifics.

[worm]

The consequences of a method of administering justice leads us to have a concept of what is justice, not the other way around.

[eFestivals]

You're seeing justice as a matter of consequence here. You're also assuming that people are generally inconsiderate. I think you're under-estimating a lot of people.

I am, but not you.

The problem is that you over-estimate yourself.

[eFestivals]

You were just disagreeing with it a moment ago.

Nope. The problem with your understanding here is your own deep rooted problem.

[worm]

What I said is what I said.

Someone who is as REALLY well read, or someone who has a half-decent grasp of words and their meanings, would not have asked such a moronic question.

[eFestivals]

So you were wrong then. Double standards can be just if that's what someone believes because it's all subjective.

Only for the idiots, who don't have consistent ideas.

If someone has an idea of justice it's a fixed idea. If it alters depending who it applies to then it's not an idea which has a basis in right and wrong only, it's an idea that might have a basis in what is right and wrong, but it's something which has it's fixed basis primarily in who those ideas are being applied against (which makes them not 'right and wrong').

After all, it can't be 'wrong' to kill people if it's 'right' when it's you that is doing the killing.

A person can only arrive at your conclusion if no words have a definition, and all language is meaningless.

So you might have read more than anyone here (tho I say you're a worthless arrogant c**t to think such a thing), but you got nothing of worth from that reading. Your words above prove that so.

[worm]

If someone has an idea of justice it's a fixed idea. If it alters depending who it applies to then it's not an idea which has a basis in right and wrong only, it's an idea that might have a basis in what is right and wrong, but it's something which has it's fixed basis primarily in who those ideas are being applied against (which makes them not 'right and wrong').

Edited February 21, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

So now you're saying that justice is not subjective at all, as the individual must have fixed notions of right and wrong.

An individual always has a subjective view. But if that individual isn't a moron, then their own view is a fixed view at any moment in time within any particular set of circumstances.

So there's a subjective-across-the-0world view of what is right and wrong, but it's fixed (at any moment in time) for any individual.

How does any of that stop what I've said being subjective? Only if you're confused about what subjective means.

So double standards would be a universal injustice, wouldn't it Neil.

Correct.

Regardless of your morality, it would be an injustice because it defies the universal definition of justice.

Correct.

But completely at odds with your earlier witterings. Are you female? I've never met a female as contrary as you.

Of course, this depends upon the moral stance of equality for it to be the case. Without the moral notion of equality to guide it, one could say that one person deserves better treatment than another person because they are better. Double standards are only unjust according to equality.

See above.

One of us has got this, and the other currently has their finger up their own arse and is spinning on it as fast as they can.

[worm]

An individual always has a subjective view. But if that individual isn't a moron, then their own view is a fixed view at any moment in time within any particular set of circumstances.

So there's a subjective-across-the-0world view of what is right and wrong, but it's fixed (at any moment in time) for any individual.

[eFestivals]

Because you're saying what justice is (consistent) and is not (double standards) without any moral distinction.

No I'm not. That's merely what you want to try and present me as having said, because either:-

1. you really are very very stupid, or

2. you're a troll.

So it's free of a moral distinction then.

do I care if it is or isn't?

The above contradicts your notion that justice is subjective as you're clearly outlining what is and is not just without any distinction of what is right and wrong.

Oh, so now you're saying it requires specifics of what is right and wrong, are you?

I could use your own argument against you by saying that your notion of universal justice depends entirely upon equality. In fact, I just did.

And I said it first.

If you could actually read, you'd have known that. But as you're a brainless troll, you like to think that no one can ever be as 'clever' as you. Just as you like to pretend that you're an ace researcher, but somehow can't research the easiest things.

[worm]

No I'm not.

Edited February 21, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

You've said that justice is subjective because its meaning depends entirely on a person's definition of what is right and wrong.

correct.

You've then stated quite clearly that in order to be just, their notion of justice has to be consistent regardless of the individuals' definition of what is right and wrong.

"the individuals'"? Which individual are you meaning?

For someone who thinks so highly of their education in areas of communication, your communication is very shit.

You're telling them what is and is not just regardless of their own moral inclination

No I'm not. Any error is yours alone.

[worm]

"the individuals'"? Which individual are you meaning?

[eFestivals]

The same individuals from the first example.

You've said that justice is subjective because it depends upon THE INDIVIDUAL'S definition of right and wrong. You've then said that injustice occurs if their sense of right and wrong is applied inconsistently/unfairly. You've even said that fairness is subjective, yet here you are giving an example of universal fairness.

It's not "universal" tho is it?

It's an idea which is universal, but its application is to single individuals and it can only ever be applied in that way.

I am saying that any individual's own idea of justice is only a working/sane/rational/reasonable/"pick a similar word and put it here" idea of justice if they apply the same idea they have of justice for others back onto themselves in the same manner as they apply it to others.

Otherwise it's not justice - a balance of right against wrong - it is an irrationally applied punishment/revenge/"pick a similar word and put it here".

Yes you are. You've said that something is not just if it is applied inconsistently, regardless of the subjective notion of right and wrong.

No I'm not.

Do you actually know what "subjective" means, or are you using the moron's dictionary again?

[worm]

It's not "universal" tho is it?

Edited February 21, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

You said correct to these definitions.......

did I really?

So now you're saying that they aren't correct because justice is subjective, not universal.

you're not very sharp, are you?

Justice is subjective, the application of justice - and so justice itself - is universal within that subjectivism.

So any idea of justice is subjective, but how that person might then apply their subjective idea of justice is universal. So they can't have a different idea of justice which might be applied to themselves than the version they apply to others.

This is because it's based on their subjective ideas of what is right and wrong - and these ideas are fixed (at any moment in time, at least). So if they think "it's wrong to kill someone, and the consequences for doing so should be life in prison", then that idea of applied justice would be applied to them if they murdered no differently to how it would be applied to someone else who murdered in the exact same circumstances.

It logically and rationally has to be like this, from the very definitions of the concepts and words.

So justice is not subjective.

yes it is.

The reason it is unjust is because it has been applied inconsistently.

that is not "justice".

The very fact that it's not is given in your own words.

Therefore, justice means the consistent and fair application of right and wrong (regardless of what definition of right and wrong is being used).

correct.

It isn't subjective according to this example Neil.

it absolutely is. If you think different, it's because you're using the moron's dictionarey again.

Is justice subject to someonme's notion of right and wrong or is it universal regardless of someone's right and wrong?

Justice is subject to someone's notion of right and wrong. For it to be justice that person's notion of right and wrong must be universally applied by that person.

Got it? It's very simple, and both the subjective and universal, both at once.

Edited February 21, 2011 by eFestivals

[llcoolphil]

An individual applying their subjectivity universally doesnt make it universal.

[worm]

Justice is subject to someone's notion of right and wrong. For it to be justice, that person's notion of right and wrong must be universally applied by that person.

[worm]

correct.