Opinions Welcome - Order or Justice

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: FyreByrd

then we run into the chaos of untempered subjectivity.

Precisely. And that is why I used the word ''chaos''. And it IS a risk, but that risk is, I think, forced upon us by environmental evolution. I have found reason to believe that adaptation has been the key to humanities survival. We have shown an ability to adapt to various extremes of climatic environments as well as resource allotments. We have managed to merge cultures and deeply held religious training as well as forced social conditions in response to developing technologies in the past.

All of those have not been easy but our tribes and civilizations have continued on. And though those past adaptations were much more ''locally'' accomplished as compared to our current state of global adaptive needs I have reason to hope that we can do so on this level as well. It will not be easy.

Well said. And never has it been more important that the collective 'we' find a way to adapt. I don't think I'm as optimistic as you. I find inflexibility and close mindedness two character traits that require constant personal vigilance to keep at bay.

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: incoserv

The progressive left hates the president and are convinced that he is a danger to their own philosophy and agenda, so any action to remove him becomes "fair,"

The regressive right worships the President and views any attempt to criticize him as an attack on them personally and their entire way of life. So they will defend everything, no matter the magnitude of criminality he's involved in. So every action in his defense becomes "fair".

Because to them, no matter how bad Donald Trump is, Democrats are worse. I'm confident in saying he could literally start killing people and the posters here on ATS would defend him as long as those he killed were Democrats. ...

While I acknowledge that there are people on the right with that attitude, I think that it is an over-generalization to say that all people on the right think that way (and I acknowledge that you did not say that).

However, where that phenomenon exists, I believe it to be largely as a result of Newton's third law is: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Most people on the right still hold, at least in principle, to the idea of a transcendent moral standard by which to judge the actions of men. Even though moral relativism has saturated the culture, they mostly at least give lip ascent to the idea. Most people on the progressive left, however, have long abandoned the idea of a transcendent and immutable standard in favor of doing whatever is right in their own eyes (moral relativism).

Herein lies the problem: If I, as a person who see an immutable and transcendent code of morality attempt to dialog with a person who has none, we effectively have no common ground from which to achieve meaningful intercourse. I being with a set of rules, a set of immutable principles, a code by which to conduct myself; the other person has no such rule, code or set of principles. As my attempt to dialog advances, I become increasingly frustrated because every attempt at reason on my part is me by what is for me an incomprehensible parry that does not fit into what I understand to be established codes of engagement.

At some point, the actions of the progressive left precipitate equal and opposite reactions on the right. This does not justify those reactions, but it gives them context.
:

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: incoserv

This is a full minded representation of the issue presented by our OP. I like your response because I agree with it to a degree. So for the sake of this thread I will try to add, or subtract from what you have offered.

Justice requires measurement against a transcendent, established, immutable standard of what is right or wrong. For that standard to exist, there must be a transcendent, immutable point of reference.

I recognize this as a valid understanding, that human societies that prosper have had an established standard by which wrong and right are followed. However, these ''established standards are not transcendent or immutable but rather only held as being so. Cross referencing societies through history demonstrate that while established standards are necessary, the transcendent and immutable vary greatly from culture to culture across the breath of space and time in our history.

So right there we already have an grand example of ''relativism'' at work. The established standards based on the transcendent in India was based on a vastly different ''transcendent'' in ancient Mayan culture.

Once a society abandons the idea of any transcendent, immutable point of reference (i.e, descends into the dark pit of moral relativism), there is nothing to measure justice against, so it becomes a matter of fairness.

Again I agree but in my thinking take it further. That, or rather ''those'' immutable points of reference while working well for cultures that are isolated from one another do not fair so well when those cultures begin to come into contact with one another and start intermingling. The immutables of each can be seen by those who have the eyes begin to be seen as not so immutable and the relativism of them becomes more evident and the established standards begin to break down.

In this light, I don't see the ''moral relativism as a '' dark pit'' but rather as a step for individuals away from old and false immutables in order to take into account a wider and possibly truer sense of immutable truth. While this ''dark pit'' as you call it would always seem to bring forth chaos, it is in that that the moral relativism can shine and help establish a more encompassing sense of the transcendent. Because for me at least this is what it is all about anyway, moving towards a fuller sense of our being within this whole picture.

Forgive my 'quoting' your entire post - but it does point out the difficulties with this issue in this time.

If there can be no truly objective definition of fairness, with a commonly acknowledged source, as you say, then we run into the chaos of untempered subjectivity.

Thanks for the thinking.

Exactly what I was getting at in my original reply.

I acknowledge that there are many cultural "standards" and none of those cultural standards can be defined as immutable, there remains the fact that there must be some immutable standard that stands behind what is really good. If not, then what makes anything "good" or "right" beside having the biggest stick, gun or bomb?

Because for me at least this is what it is all about anyway, moving towards a fuller sense of our being within this whole picture.

Terry McGuire said:

Because for me at least this is what it is all about anyway, moving towards a fuller sense of our being within this whole picture.

Therein lies the issue. What is this "big picture," and how do we fit into it.

Until we can comprehend that "big picture,", it's all pretty much up for grabs.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Well said. And never has it been more important that the collective 'we' find a way to adapt. I don't think I'm as optimistic as you. I find inflexibility and close mindedness two character traits that require constant personal vigilance to keep at bay.

This collective ''we'' has appearances of being a major distinction. While some seem to have developed the ability to relate to humanity as ''we'', all to many still seem to be stuck in that ''us and them'' mind frame leaving those who think in the 'we'' mind frame the struggle of trying to remain as part of the ''us'' and not being relegated to the ''them'' catagory. Does that make any sense to you?

a reply to: FyreByrd

justice is the most valuable thing we have lost here in US, we have a corrupt system ruling the White House that promotes injustice and suffocates people. we live in a country that is being ruled by the most unjust man in its history, Trump, our president, obstructs justice, what can we do? only guns can defend our rights. I am sorry but I have to use my gun for our constitution and against TRUMP.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Justice in the sense of how you run a country means simply that there is a law, and it applies the way it applies to everyone much like when you play a game, the rules apply the same way to everyone. It's the only way to be fair, truly fair.

If the speed limit is 55mph, then everyone driving over is subject to traffic stop.

Now certain people in society are upset because they say that certain groups are more likely to be pulled over for driving faster than 55mph. They claim this is only because certain people have a certain skin color which is unfair to those of that skin color.

They feel that society will only be fair when every outcome is a perfect proportional split of the makeup of society in terms of group representation in every facet of society -- equal outcomes across the board, signalling a sort of perfect fairness having been achieved without taking into account individual preference, group cultural preference, etc., which necessary will dictate difference in individual and group outcomes.

So they set out to use the law to enforce their preferred vision of a "fair" society on the rest of us which is, of course, unfair to groups and individuals in favor of their overall preferred outcome because it uses the law to lift up some at the expense of others without regard to individual merit or preference or effort on either side.

Allowing individuals to make their own way under the umbrella of a uniform legal system creates a messy society because some will thrive some will crash and burn, but many will settle comfortably somewhere in between and be happy enough with that. But that's where most games are too.

Going the other way in pursuit of a Utupian vision of fairness forcibly sacrifices many trying to create a vision with a few that does not ever happen and cannot be sustained.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: FyreByrd

Well said. And never has it been more important that the collective 'we' find a way to adapt. I don't think I'm as optimistic as you. I find inflexibility and close mindedness two character traits that require constant personal vigilance to keep at bay.

This collective ''we'' has appearances of being a major distinction. While some seem to have developed the ability to relate to humanity as ''we'', all to many still seem to be stuck in that ''us and them'' mind frame leaving those who think in the 'we'' mind frame the struggle of trying to remain as part of the ''us'' and not being relegated to the ''them'' catagory. Does that make any sense to you?

Yes, but many of us who recall the "joys" of group work from school understand why sometimes "we" isn't good enough.

Don't you recall the pain of being in a group, knowing what the project could be, and being saddled with a bunch of kids who didn't care and only wanted to do enough to scrape a C or maybe a low B even though you wanted/needed to achieve more, and if that project was going to get there, they were going to make you do it all?

And then, after you did all the work needed to achieve that A over barely passing, everyone in the group got *your* grade?

How is that either just or fair?

And why should all of society work that way?

a reply to: ketsuko

Thanks Ket, that was a thoughtful reply.
I recall from those school days the situations you suggest. I was a musician. I was the best, no fooling, for a couple of years running. We would go to state competitions and win and all of us would get the same award pins and certificates.
I knew that it was often my solos that carried the day but I also knew that with out the rest of the band or the orchestra, I would never have had the chance to present that I was that good.

And while there were other kids in all those groups there were also others who chased me and strove to be as good as me. They played other instruments but still, though not as good as me, strove for those solo performances and to rise to the standards that established. We worked hard and even those members who were nowhere near as proficient still had the sense of ''group'' enough to at least hold up their second or third parts in which ever group it was. It was we, not just us, the better players and them, the lesser. It was us.

But you're right in a way I think. That school lesson for me was not the real world as we see it. This ''real' world is a dog eat dog world where those who excel continue to eat the dogs beneath them. So my choice in life was simple when I came to realize that simple truth. Become a big dog who ate smaller dogs or do my best to extend that ''we'' that I had experienced in school.

And key to being able to do that always seemed to me to be summed up by that line in the Sermon on the Mount. Do not judge. And unlike my earlier musical escapades which for the most part came easily, that judge not has been a life long struggle to uphold. And that for me is as simple as it gets. That after this life, have I been one who at least attempted to hold to that belief or not. It may make a difference and it may not. If it doesn't then so what, but if it does I want to be able to at least say I tried. So to me Ket, you cannot be ''them'', you are us.

Justice has to come before order because when someone feels they are being treated unjustly they have a tenancy to create disorder to bring attention to the injustice. The problem is that different people have different views of what is just.

Lets look at smoking. The smoker says that they should be free to smoke. The nonsmoker says they have the right to clean air. The smoker feels that their rights are being impinged upon when they are not allowed to smoke. The nonsmoker feels that their rights are being impinged when they are stuck smelling the smoke or worse breathing in a higher concentration of smoke. This example could go on and on.
How can you have justice without infringing upon someone's rights. To many people's chagrin rights overlap. When person gets most of their rights; then others fail to get theirs.

Thus, justice and fairness is in the eyes of the beholder.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Ah, but you are talking about an entirely different sort of situation. You are talking about a more or less self-selecting group when you talk about musical competitions. As an athlete, I was in that kind of group too. I was track and field, so I know darn good and well that is absolutely a time to dog eat dog and a time to pull together and let it go.

For three years, I was part of the top trio of hurdlers in the state, and I was top of that trio, no BS on that, but for two of those years, one of my teammates would turn in her PR time in the 300s and beat me in the finals at state. I would take 2nd, but that never upset me. Between us, we were still taking the top two spots at state, still raking in 18 pts for the team effort, and she had to run her best race ever to beat me, and I was beating her all year.

Athletes, even athletes on different teams, will help each other between games because we all want to be the best, and if you aren't competing against the toughest competition you can, you won't be pushed to be at your best yourself. It helps you to help them. But also, in the end, only one can win, and we all know that.

But at the same, time we all also know those people who come on a team because they want the prestige without putting in the effort. They'll do what they can to ride the coattails of a successful team without working hard themselves.

And in your typical class project, half the class doesn't want to be at school to begin with. They don't care and are perfectly happy to let the nerd carry the group because the nerd is the only one who cares enough to work for the A. You know that.

Society is not group of self-selecting individuals who are all working toward the same goal, and you cannot force society to be that. Typical society is more like your classroom where a good portion will be perfectly happy to let the rest of us carry them because they don't care.

a reply to: ketsuko

Society is not group of self-selecting individuals who are all working toward the same goal, and you cannot force society to be that. Typical society is more like your classroom where a good portion will be perfectly happy to let the rest of us carry them because they don't care.

I don't disagree with this.But is this caused by human nature or is it brought about by the society that allows it. I think we both can agree that this society is messed up. Myself, can see no course that is going to change it without total collapse. This leaves us with our own individuality to continue to develop as we decide how we want to be as those individuals.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I think it is human nature. You see examples of it in every society.

a reply to: FyreByrd

I'm not altogether convinced that justice and fairness are the same thing. What do you think.

Theoretically and philosophically, justice *should* be fair, but it oftentimes is not. Justice has, in reality and in many ways, been confused with retribution.

That said. Order or (true) justice?

Justice, undoubtedly, since it's a higher ethical standard, versus order.

Order is simply that, and can oftentimes involve very strict injustice to keep the order.