How can justice be achieved?

Wrong. You are talking about something completely different. You are on a completely different page about injustice.
I am talking about apples and you are talking about oranges.
When did I ever give the impression that injustice is whenver somebody is hurt.
I have defined it above, and you have ignored the definition to pursue a completely different topic.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So I repeat myself.

How can justice be achieved?

Without going into detail, justice is where people's rights are bieng upheld.
No nitpicking about the term justice.
Simple straight forward justice. Nothing elusive.

Furthermore, answering the question about how to fulfil the objective. How can it be achieved? Why must it be achieved. Practical questions.


Some websites about human rights, freedom, and justice:
http://www.justice.org.uk/
http://www.unitedforpeace.org/

For those of you still in kindergarten, these websites are just examples of the over all feel of what I mean is justice. Justice leaning towards meliorism. They are not the complete definition of justice. So don't come with some garbage like: "Oh so this justice you are pursuing is this and only this." No there is alot of aspects of justice as an objective. Freedom, ability to pursue happiness, enjoyment of life, etc. There are many more aspects to justice, but that is basically the frame of reference the question is pointing at. If you are only here to nitpick and attack definitions, then there is no point in replying to this thread.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What I don't understand is why after I clearly stated what I mean when I say pursuing justice, you would talk about something completely different.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

'Pursuing justice' is like a dog chasing his tail. The same circular reasoning I mentioned earlier.

Most dogs would have stopped by now. The question is.. how long will you continue to chase?

 

Perhaps because you are a mumble mouthed poser with the writing skills of a someone in elementary school. You ask without saying anything in return other than 'you don't understand'.

 

"Perhaps because you are a mumble mouthed poser with the writing skills of a someone in elementary school."
****************************************
Go flame somebody else.

 

Sorry. Its hard not to return an insult to someone who has called the whole damn forum stupid throughout this entire thread.

 

I'm sure I would know when I called somebody something.

 

you have stated that justice is 'people's right being upheld'. My story is an example of two people, and their rights being upheld. And how those rights then run afoul of each other.

The water/fence scenario is a bit better than mine - an example of how the freedoms of one will often directly impact the freedoms of others. In fact, the water example occurs today, around the world. Who gets to "own" the water? How should water travelling over or under private land be handled, for the sake of others living downstream? What about air?
You say that justice is the upholding of rights, and I say "which rights"? "Whose Rights"?

you had said that shouting "fire" in a theater should be legal, because it is free speech. However, by not limiting a person's rights to shout 'fire', you cause other people's rights to feel safe (again, your example) to be impaired.
The two rights cannot co-exist, so one must to volentarily limited by society.
The US society has decided that limiting the free speech of one person is better than limiting the safety of many.

your freedoms, the ones that you listed. The conflict is when the rights of one can only exist by taking away the rights from another.
This world has limited resources. Not everyone can have everything that they want. You can either limit everybody, so that everyone has at least enough to survive (communism), or simply let everyone duke it out (capitolism). Communism has thusfar failed, due to its innate conflict with the human drive to want *more*, and capitolism has to be watched carefully by the populace to avoid the few from taking over completely (think monopoly and ogolopoly laws).

I asked you how the situations could have been prevented. I can think of thousands of possible ways to prevent this theoretical situation, but each one of them requires that the rights of SOMEONE be limited. From forced medication of the mentally ill, to the removal of all dangerous objects from planes, to compartmentalising the passenger cabin...we as a society can either have safety or freedom - often, they conflict with each other.
I cannot think of a way to prevent the situation without limiting anyones rights. And based on your supposition and conclusion, there has to be a non-limiting solution. If there is no non-limiting solution to this conflict, then your goal of "justice" cannot be reached as stated.

The first step is useless if it cannot be implimented toward change. We do not understand your first step, and we have shown problems with the conclusions you reach.
Step A: think positively, not negatively.
Step B: ????
Step C: ????
...
..
.
..
...
Step ZZZXAZ: pure freedom and happiness.

If all you have as a first step is "don't think about the possible problems", then you will never create anything other than a faith. No change in the world will occur, and your final goal will never be realized.

 

What rights being upheld? Your story was about somebody shouting on an airplane, and being attacked for it. It is a completely hypothetical subjective situational that has little to do with the pursuit of justice.

The individual’s rights. All individuals at the same time. You claim that it is impossible. I never claimed that these situational are easily solved. I would not dismiss them as impossible either.

The example I gave was about a person’s rights to free speech. You have the freedom to say what you want, and shout what you want if you wish.
A person may shout fire. Nobody’s rights are being violated. They are in a zone where you can make as much noise as you want.
You have not stated what rights are being violated. Not nitpicky disputable rights, but actual rights that we are discussing.
Your example of rights to feel safe have no relevance in this situation.

Both have completely failed. They are not systems the uphold justice.

They do not necessarily have to.

Show me where and when did I ever provide any indication that "don't think about the possible problems" is the first step.

 

Everything is hypothetical until it occurs. The power we hold as human beings is our ability to imagine.
This is an example of imagining a situation, and then determining the consequences should that event ever happen.

This sort of method is very helpfull in doing anything beyond living on a moment to moment basis.

You are right. I have spent much time trying to find a way for all individuals rights to be upheld at the same time, and have thusfar failed. I look at the cumulative knowledge of thousands in today's societies, and I see where they have failed to do that as well.
I encourage you to not dismiss them as impossible - simply help us to find HOW it can be done. Don't just state "it can be done, now you figure it out, I've provided the first step."

My example of the right to feel safe came directly from your definition of Justice.
If you want to create your version of justice, including the ability to feel safe, then this particular conflict of freedom and safety must be dealt with.

I cannot disagree with this.

please provide and example.

When you repeatedly stated that the bringing up any of the real world problems that your definition of Justice holds are examples of everyone else thinking negatively - that our thought processes are doomed to failure because of this common problem with our society. That we must all think positively in order to find solutions to the creation of your Jusitce.
That is how I read your definition of the First Step. If I am wong, please use clear and direct English words to define what the first step is, so that I may no longer be confused.

 

I never disputed that. Research and probable outcomes based on research. Hypothesis in the method.
Not completely unrelated situationals based on nothing.

That’s what I’ve been trying to do all day from the very beginning of the thread. All everybody seemed interested in is how it cannot be done rather than how can it be done. If you ask the wrong questions you will get the wrong answers.

I never stated that. wtf.

It has nothing to do with my definition, you are nitpicking it out of context.
There is no way screaming fire is putting anybody in harm or danger. The person is just screaming.

Cool Skill: “Show me where and when did I ever provide any indication that "don't think about the possible problems" is the first step.”
River Wind: “When you repeatedly stated that the bringing up any of the real world problems that your definition of Justice holds are examples of everyone else thinking negatively - that our thought processes are doomed to failure because of this common problem with our society. That we must all think positively in order to find solutions to the creation of your Jusitce.”

I asked you to show me where. That is not showing me. I never claimed any of the above, and I made sure not to imply any of the above. Furthermore, nobody ever mentioned anything about anybody providing real world problems with my definition of justice.

I stated clearly what the first step was. I asked you to show me where I ever indicated that the first step was to not think about the possible problems. Please show me what I said, and how you interpreted it to mean: “The first step is to not think about the possible problems.”
I can clarify for you what I mean as soon as you show me how you came about that interpretation of something I was attempting to make specifically clear.

Safety/security and freedom do not conflict like you claim. They go hand in hand. They are pretty much one and the same. I’m not sure why you find it necessary for me to provide an example for this. To be free to walk down the street without worrying about the danger of being shot, robbed or kidnapped. You have the right to be safe and secure. Therefore, you are not threatened to freely do what you want. You are safe from persecution, safe from road hazards, safe from war, and safe from any other type of danger. Therefore, you have freedom to live your life that you would never have under such conditions. To complicate the matter is to avoid the objective. Safety and freedom.
The question is up to us to ask ourselves:
A. Why will this never work?
Or
B. How can we make this work?
Take your pick.

If you ask the wrong question, you will get the wrong answers.

 

The Supreme Court of the US, and myself, disagree with you.

Most of the people in this thread, myself included, seem to disagree with you.
It may be that we are the ones failing to understand. But again, you are the teacher here - if your students fail to understand, you must figure out how to teach better. You cannot just tell the students that they are wrong.

What, in clear and direct English, is your 'first step'?

I cannot do anything until I understand that, and I have yet to see it.

Ok, then what about the examples provided? They appear to disprove this assertion. There are times where the exercising of one's freedom directly impacts the ability of another to exercise their same freedoms.

If there is one glass of water, and two people dying of thirst, whose freedom to live takes precedence? Or do both people voluntarily limit their access to the water so that both may survive?
Often, these limitations of natural resources place the freedom to life and security of multiple individuals in direct conflict with each other. And unless you can solve the limitation of needed resources, that conflict will continue.

Because you have been provided counter-examples, and no one other than you seems to agree with the idea that freedom and physical safety can easily co-exist.

Great. This works on a primary level. People need safety.
How do you create that safety?
Why would, and why does, the fear of those actions currently exist? Why would a person want to shoot you, rob you, or kidnap you?

Because of illness, poverty, anger, jealousy, etc.

How can we eliminate those causes of violence in others so that your right to safety can be implimented in the real world?

edit: wording

 

kill 'em all!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

lol

 

Alas, it has a certain ring of truth in it, no?

For example, I heard that people in Palestine have a lot of problems because Israel won't allow them to make a seperate state. So what if we help them out a bit and kill all jews in Israel (and everywhere else in the world)?
Jew problem solved for the palestini people, no? They can feel safe and build anything they want and the evil jews won't try to sabotage their just cause.

This is just a demonstration for coolskill. Please keep your "nazi" whistles at bay.

 

Sounds like dumb nazi insanity to me. Why not just go kill the Palestinians that are being oppressed by Israel instead? It would be easier for the nazi sumbags to do that than go all over the world killing jews.

 

So why not kill them all, both jews and palestinians (oh, and Americans too)?
There will be more peace in the world. More justice for those remaining.
Oh, and then Russians and Arabs and Chinese and Balts, kill them all for the perfect harmony on Earth.

 

Killing is not harmony.

OK. It doesn’t change the fact.

This is the third time I am saying this, and you continue to go in circles. I stated what the first step was.
You concluded that I asserted: “Don't think about the possible problems is the first step.”
I told you that this is not what I meant. I asked you how you arrived at that conclusion.
I asked you on more than one occasion how you made that interpretation. Yet you have provided no explanation.
You simply repeat the same thing which makes it impossible to move forward.

Now you ask me again to clearly state something that I already stated.
Yet you have not explained how you incorrectly interpreted it.
The burden is not on me to clarify a statement unless it is unclear.
If you did not interpret it correctly, perhaps I did not state it clearly.
Unless you show me how you made the interpretation, I cannot know why it was not clear
You cannot expect me to answer: “What, in clear and direct English, is your 'first step'?” when as far as I am concerned, I already stated in clear English what the first step is.

For some reason you are going in circles. Answer what lead you to the incorrect interpretation, and I can correct myself to clarify what I am talking about.

If you want to keep going in circles, we can keep repeating ourselves.

Your making a problem out of something that doesn’t exist.
Depending on what it is you are trying to solve when you say limited resources.
Sounds more like weak excuses and cop outs other than any real pursuit of anything.

I have not been provided with counter examples. Safety goes and in hand with freedom. The less safe you are, the more limited your freedom is. To claim that the less safe you are, the more freedom you have is far fetched. Give me a decent example of how exposing a person to danger would give them more freedom before you run around claiming you have provided examples of how less safety goes hand in hand with more freedom.

Not by running around yammering that less safety goes hand in hand with more freedom that’s for sure.

Right. Therefore, it would be far fetched to claim that danger = freedom. The object is safety for all which equals freedom for all without conflict. They 100% go hand in hand. The less safe you are, the less free you are. By very definition, claiming that danger goes hand in hand with freedom is contradictory.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

All this bollox without copying the fucking anwer