justice

Neopesdom

@maxx

Justice is evil and bad. The judge is egotistical, indifferent, and proud, and so on. Look at all the people he mercilessly throws into prison or worse calls for the killing of some offenders, that's right killing, I repeat the word killing for some added flair and drama... killing. Some people he gives a light sentences to, others a hard one, talk about a personality disorder. He doesn't allow people to talk out of turn and throws contempt charges at anyone who questions his authority, talk about an ego. Why has this evil been allowed in a civilized society for so long?

The judge probably has some form of a bipolar/multipolar disorder, and is essentially a mix of very different characters, from the most benevolent to extremely violent and tyrannical ones. His character would be that of an evil Judge but that would not stop people respecting him as legal indoctrination makes idiots of otherwise intelligent people.

The justice system isn't even voluntary, law breakers are forced to go through the system if they are captured. 

Who in their right mind thinks people should be accountable for their actions? Oh the inhumanity of it all.

maxx

@Neopesdom I said aside from humans there is no justice; it does not exist except in humans' it does not exist in nature

John_C_87

In order to find whole truth in a basic principle the goal cannot be to prove there is a justice in nature as not all justice happens by the same specification, same way. Human justice is at its simplest legal or illegally, found and/or sought.

In nature justice does take place but is explained as a poetic justice, while also being often created by lethal force. This is why people most often look at survival of the fittest as a "law of nature" which it is not. A law of nature in relationship to use of lethal force is dump luck can prevails. The biggest, the strongest, the fasts can be caught in a flood, get stuck in the mud, fall out of a tree, or get hit by a falling rock, etc. 

The biggest example of poetic justice is the construction of homes on barrier islands. Though not illegal, when people had been warned those specific islands move, construction took place as no justice was to be seen as a threat to disobedience or defiance. The poetic justice takes place every storm as the islands still try to keep move and justice takes place in land nourishment and taxation.

Plaffelvohfen

@maxx

I agree, Justice is a human concept that has no real existence outside of our collective psyche...

There is no such thing like "karmic justice" / "Karma" either, it's comforting to think it does exists but it's wishful thinking... 

maxx

@John_C_87 I believe what you call poetic justice lays in the realm of the literary world. It also is a human concept. For nature to have any kind of justice it would have to be aware.

AlexOland

 Well, to be fair, everything is a human concept because you are human. How we view the world might not really be how it is. 

 There are different ways to view the world: The first is how you are doing it right now: You are separating yourself from your human aspects (emotions, beliefs, personality...) and putting only your logical abilities and your knowledge inside an imaginary third-eye viewer. This is the method science uses.

 The second way is to have something like a phenomenalistic view of the world. You view everything considering your every part.

 To explain it better, there is no actual reason to pull your finger away from fire if you view yourself as a third eye observer, but you do it everytime. That is because you have a second view of the world. 

 In a philosophical sense you might doubt if you ever feel pain or happiness but when those feelings actually come, there is never any doubt behind them. You live as they are true. And somehow you know that they are true. They define your entire existence. 

 So when you straight out reject an idea by saying: "Oh, it's a human concept. It is not real." you are getting into dangerous and muddy waters that no one really knows how to swim in. 

maxx

@AlexOland yes I am aware that there may be be or is more to the universe than we are aware of; anyone with a fundamental knowledge of quantum mechanics knows this. as well, a human concept is an idea that we create among us which has little to do with reality. I do not consider gravity or the speed of light a human concept for the effects of these can me shown. Justice however can not be shown aside from what we create in our society. Take away the courts and laws and such and you will not find justice anywhere; just coincidences. We only think there is justice because of simple cause and effect. For example, a coyote kills a rabbit  and before he can eat it, a lion chases him away from it and while they coyote watches, the lion eats his lunch. Yet suddenly a bolt of lightning kills the lion and now the coyote has a bigger lunch. We may be attempted to say that the lion got poetic justice. Not so, it was just coincidence. The lightning would probably struck regardless if the lion was there, yet humans sees patterns in everything which can give rise to false notions and lead to superstitions. Aside from using a creator, and aside from using our social justice systems, then show me where in nature or the universe there is a justice built in.

AlexOland

@maxx I understand what you are trying to say but you have to realize that the view that you can separate your logic from your human nature is just false. 

 "a human concept is an idea that we create among us which has little to do with reality"  well the thing is, everything is a human concept because we are human. The concept of "concepts" is too a human concept. So, the question is not whether a thing is a human concept or not. The question is whether or not that human concept manages to represent reality in a good enough way. 

 You made a stronger argument now that you have explained that justice is just humans trying to find a pattern, but you need to remember that "justice" can also be an idea to suggest that bad people deserve bad futures (it is not obligatory for them to have that bad future, they just deserve it). When trying to debunk an idea, you need to go to the core of the idea and show the contradictions in there. I agree with you on this topic but I am just trying to say that you did not make an actual argument against the idea of "justice".

maxx

@AlexOland I am not sure if you are missing my original idea or what so I flat out ask  in a different way. In the absence of human made justice, does nature or the universe mete out its own justice system. if so how? I am stating that in the absence of a creator and the absence of a human made justice system then there is no longer any justice, simply cause and effect. you have yet shown me any evidence to the contrary. my argument stands based that their simply can not be any justice or the idea of justice unless humans or other intelligent beings create a system of justice that they believe in. nature nor the universe simply does not have one for we would see it somewhere in nature and or among animals if there were.

AlexOland

@maxx Again, you are just saying that "justice is a creation of humans and so it cannot be true.". Mathematics is a creation of humans but it is true. Therefore you cannot disprove something just by stating that it does not exist in the natural universe. 

 "my argument stands based that their simply can not be any justice or the idea of justice unless humans or other intelligent beings create a system of justice that they believe in." this can be said to disprove anything. There cannot be any idea unless humans exist. You are observing the universe that you believe to be real from your own human perception. Therefore, not even the universe might exist if you throw away humans. What you are saying does not only try to disprove the idea of justice. If we follow the logic where it leads, your argument tries to disprove everything. I am saying that this argument is paradoxical and should be avoided.

 "you have yet shown me any evidence to the contrary." if this was a normal debate, I would indeed have to show proof for justice. But you claimed that you are able to disprove the idea of justice. Therefore, I am only asking for that and I do not need to show proof. 

LogicVault

@Neopesdom wow, you screwed up in the first sentence. Never seen anyone mess up that fast before.

LogicVault

Omg. People, justice is based on morals and morals are subjective. There are no morals in the animal kingdom. Morals and standards are a human creation.

maxx

@AlexOland according to most physicists, the universe is built from mathematics and one can easily look that up, so we did not create math we just discovered it just like we did not invent fire. I began this debate showing my proof that there are no moral standards within the universe, you can see the absence of it once our system of justice is removed. I do not need to prove ghosts do not exist, you need to show me proof that they do.

AlexOland

@maxx Show me a square or a line in the universe. Show me the number 2 , -15 or e in the universe. Show me functions or graphs in the universe. You cannot. Because mathematics is a separate world that is a construct of humans. But it is able to represent some things in the universe succesfully. Because reality was our basis when coming up with mathematics.

 "according to most physicists, the universe is built from mathematics and one can easily look that up" Firstly, this is an attempt at argument to popularity. Secondly, it is wrong. This is still a debated topic and opinions of various scientists varies. Thirdly, this has more to do with philosophy and pure math than physics. Physicists did not literally find the fabric of mathematics in the universe. They are just stating an opinion that they have. This debate has been going on for quite a long time. See: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/is-mathematics-invented-o_b_3895622

 But you are missing the point here. The mathematics example is in no way crucial to my argument. Plus you seem to be misunderstanding my position here. I already explained to you that I agree with you. I agree that the idea of "justice" is not logical. I am just telling you that you are not showing any explanation for why it is wrong. "It is a human concept, therefore it is wrong." this logic can be used to debunk literally anything. Because we - as you would probably agree - are human. And every concept we have is therefore - logically - a human concept. For example, "pain" is a human concept. In the physical world, "pain" is just some atoms interacting with each other. But for humans it means something else entirely. "history" is a concept. "hope" is a concept. But these things are not false because they actually represent some aspect of human nature in a succesful way. If we were to listen to you, they would be wrong because they are human concepts. 

 Long story short: You are human. You believe in human concepts. Therefore you cannot call something wrong and try to justify that action by saying "it is a human concept.". There are human concepts that are representative of reality. There are human concepts that are logical. If you are willing to defend the position that "All human concepts are wrong." then you are welcome to try. But I do not think this is your position, am I wrong? 

maxx

@AlexOland aside from the link in which I can just as easily give one in return, but then we would simply have links debating each other, one only has to have a decent fundamental grasp of physics to see the math in the universe; I still believe it was a discovery not an invention. as well I am not saying that justice is wrong as you pointed out, I am saying it does exist except in human terms. "all" human concepts are wrong? again I never stated that justice is wrong. Concepts are something built into human society, I am just saying that most if not all simply do not exist outside of human existence. 

AlexOland

@maxx

 "aside from the link in which I can just as easily give one in return" I gave that link to prove that there is a debate going on and there is not agreement about what you have stated like you claim. The stance of the poster was irrelevant. 

  "I am just saying that most if not all simply do not exist outside of human existence. " okay... you do realize that this raises the same problem, yes? According to this stance nothing exists outside of human existence. So you saying that justice does not exist outside of human existence still does not prove anything. Again, when you just say that "justice is a human concept, therefore it has no place in nature." you are implying that no human concepts (or just "concepts" in short because we are human) can exist in nature. If no human concepts exist in nature, logically, nature should contain nothing. And this could be a valid stance, it is not that I am objecting to the stance here. I am just objecting to the fact that what you say is not enough to prove that justice does not exist. 

 And again, the burden is actually not on you. But you have gone into this debate trying to make an argument against the existence of justice. I am only trying to say that that argument was not valid... 

maxx

@AlexOland actually I said human concepts do not exist; do not say I stated nothing exists outside the realm of human existence; I d id not say that.  I said human concepts; which are ideals humans build into society such as freedom. freedom does not exist outside of the human realm; it is a fallacy. There are many things that exist that are not human concepts such as the world itself. or perhaps some human concepts do exist in nature in certain systems such as war, for many ants actually go full scale on war. you are attempting to say that because we are humans, then everything we see is a human concept. what of time? does it truly exist; is it really a concept of humans or did it exist before us? take away humans and the reasoning of humans, then what is left? nature! space! Time! so what concepts would still exist among the animals if humans were not around? You tell me.

Neopesdom

@maxx ; I said aside from humans there is no justice; it does not exist except in humans' it does not exist in nature

I know what you said, I was being facetious. In any case, in a godless paradigm humans are natural, anything a human comes up with is also natural. You can say nature manifested justice indirectly by humans. In the dichotomy of terminology you might divide things humans do as unnatural and anything that humans don't do as natural, but that's just a division created for certain clarification purposes and does not express the true aspect of the natural world. Nature cannot beget what is unnatural, directly or indirectly. 

Justice is a natural concept that only becomes apparent when there is someone to practice it, without practice there would be no avenue to realize justice. Before humans it would be an unknown concept and would exist as an unknown concept until the future advent of human practice. The question is; do unknown concepts exist apart from those that can realize them as known? Depends on your view of ontology and what conclusions you have drawn from analytic philosophy. Justice is an idea, ideas are information, and information can exit outside of people's minds.

There would be no practice of justice aside from humans(practitioners), but it would exist as an unknown concept before practitioners. If it did not exist as a potential then we could never know it. Justice aside from humans would exist as an unknown unknown, with humans before practice, a known unknown, and then with practice, a known known. If in the totality of space and time no sentient life with a capacity of understanding ever existed, only then can you say(really no one around could say it) that there is no concept of justice outside practitioners, but if at any point in the totality of space and time there was a means to practice justice in any form or system, then you can say that it does exist aside from practitioners as a yet unrealized potential or previously practiced concept.

MayCaesar

Justice, karma, etc. are all horrible concepts. They assume that something that has happened in the past has to be "redeemed" with something done in the future, and if the individual is not willing to do so, others must force them to.
For example, according to the principle of justice, if I get beaten down by someone, then later I get to beat them down for equality. "Blood revenge" is an extreme example of that.
Even worse, "justice" is often applied not to the individual, but to groups of people, often encompassing large periods of time. For example, hundreds years ago someone was killing my ancestors - and now I get to enjoy reparations for those actions, ones I have absolutely no relation to.

I do not care what is "just", I care what is pragmatic. Justice is an emotional concept, and I prefer to operate on logic instead.

maxx

@Neopesdom justice is an idea and ideas are information, therefore justice existed outside humans as an unknown concept? I am not sure if you read this on-line or simply made it up, yet it is the worse false logic I have seen in a long time. yes concepts are ideas which contain information and information can exist without humans . Yet until people created concepts, they did not exist as something unknown.  unknown by whom?  justice simply did not exist until humans created it.  unknown concept.  that is like saying an unknown thought; that there were thoughts before humans but they were unknown until humans came along

AlexOland

@maxx Again, you are missing the point. How do you know things like "time" or "space" exist? Through your own human perception. Can you understand anything while outside of your human perspective? You cannot as you cannot escape your human perspective. Therefore, eveything is technically a human concept. I cannot fathom how you are still missing the main point of my argument after 3-4 comments or so. 

 "or perhaps some human concepts do exist in nature in certain systems such as war, for many ants actually go full scale on war." so, you agree that some human concepts can exist? Therefore you agree with my objection? Because you logic was: "Justice is a human concept. Therefore it does not exist.". But you have just admitted that you think that war exists even though it is a human concept. 

 I am having a hard time understanding how you decide if something is a human concept or not. It is true that "war" as we defined it happens in the universe if we were to observe it as humans... but that does not mean (if we were to make the assumption that we can separate our logic from our human existence) "war" exists. What is "war" exactly? What positions do the particles of the universe have to be in to describe "war"? If you are going to look at the universe from this extreme scientific perspective, you need to do it right. "War" is an extremely abstract concept. Firstly, it requires for you to recognize living beings which is already a huge abstraction, talking in a physical sense. Then it requires you to understand what "conflicting objectives" are. And then it requires you to understand "combat". These may look normal to you from a human perspective, but in a physical sense, these things have no meaning. And trying to describe them is extremely challenging, if not impossible.

 The view you hold carries with it a lot more things that you just do not realize. This is what I am trying to explain to you. If we were to view the universe only from this scientific perspective, everything would lose its meaning. There is meaning to both perspectives; the scientific perspective and the personal perspective. One can't choose either perspective and claim that every answer can be found in that single perspective. Neither perspective defines "existence" by itself.

 Here is a nice question to ponder about: Does "pain" exist? According to your logic of "let's remove living beings and look at the universe." it should not. 

Neopesdom

@maxx

>> I am not sure if you read this on-line or simply made it up, yet it is the worse false logic I have seen in a long time

I am not sure why you would only read half of what I wrote. Did you miss the part where I further qualified my point by calling it a potential?

po·ten·tial

/pəˈten(t)SHəl/

adjective

1. 1. having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future

This is the worst case of incomprehension I've seen in a long time.

maxx

@AlexOland first, the mistake I made was claiming that war was a human concept; it is fighting in which all animals do except humans do it on a much larger scale. It is the reasons behind war that are the human concepts, mainly greed. second, my post is that justice does not exist outside of humans, it does not exist in nature. you have failed to prove I am wrong/ All you have done is gone off into tangents and abstracts, claiming I do not know, and stating there are unknown concepts, (yet not saying how) and even going as far as to say that I do not even know if space and time even exist. Get your head out of the clouds, we are not discussing quantum mechanics. If you want to start up a debate to discuss those points, feel free to do so, yet you have not shown me where justice exists out of the human realm. Show me without telling me about unknown concepts and saying if a tree falls and no one is around does it make a sound type of logic.  just show me.

AlexOland

@maxx ;

"it is fighting in which all animals do except humans do it on a much larger scale."

 It seems that you have missed my point entirely. I was not saying that war does not happen if we observe nature. I was saying that from a physical perspective, the idea of "war" is meaningless and impossible to describe. Therefore, without humans, there would not be "war". Because humans are the things that define certain phenomenon as "war". 

 "second, my post is that justice does not exist outside of humans, it does not exist in nature. you have failed to prove I am wrong/ All you have done is gone off into tangents and abstracts, "

 It seems that you have forgotten what you were arguing for: 'nature does not have a justice system, therefore there is no true justice.' You did not only claim that justice does not exist in nature. You claimed that because justice does not exist in nature there cannot be "true justice". And I am arguing that even if we accept that justice does not exist in nature, this does not prove that there is no true justice. You have failed to understand my position even though I stated it countless times. You have failed to remember even your own position. 

 "just show me"

 This proves that you have not understood a single thing I have said. Neither my position, neither any of my arguments. 


 Maybe Richard Feynman will do a better job at explaining the concept to you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6Qa93JQxg4

 As he says, there are hierarchies of ideas. And limiting yourself to only one part of this hierarchy and calling that part "the ultimate truth" is a mistake. This is what you are doing. 

maxx

I am not going to argue with links. I understand that you simply cannot show me where justice exists in nature. @AlexOland

AlexOland

@maxx I am not asking you to argue with links. I am sending you a link to a video explaining the idea I am trying to get across. Listening to someone talk and watching their gestures is a better way to make you understand concepts than reading text. 

 I have heard this excuse so many times... people just do not understand an idea and when you send links to them to help them understand that idea, they refuse to do so because they "will not argue with links".

 You are not arguing with links. The video does not point out the link between that idea and your arguments. It is just an explanation of a concept. 

maxx

@AlexOland first I am and have not lost site of my stance. Yet you keep straying from reality into the micro world. I know enough of quantum mechanics to understand how different reality is with it; and there is a very small possibility that every thing is built into the universe waiting for those in the macro world to discover. Yet ( not quantum mechanics) what you are explaining about justice and other yet unknown concepts being built into the fabric of reality is nothing more than a theory. I do want a theory , you can debate that with your own post. Now, with out delving into the realm of metaphysics and theories that lay undiscovered among the land of quantum mechanics, can you show me concrete evidence that justice exists in nature?

AlexOland

@maxx

"what you are explaining about justice and other yet unknown concepts being built into the fabric of reality" 

 What I am explaining to you has absolutely nothing to do with either quantum mechanics or the fabric of reality... Just watch the video at the link I had sent you or re-read my earlier arguments and actually make an attempt at understanding them instead of trying to object to everything.