How can justice be achieved?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What is the point of posting your mother's picture with cliche statemetns: dont feed the troll.
You brobably don't even know what a troll is, and that some of your posts are meant to troll. I guess you must be talking about yourself then.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Justice is an arbitrary value, and everyone's own sense of justice would have to be satisfied for universal justice to be achieved.

I read somewhere a quote along the lines of ' I ain't never seen a happy man with reason to raise his hand against another'.

First step is to stop assuming you know wether or not people 'choose' to live in poverty, or anything else, for that matter.

Justice starts with listening, not esp. It never fails to amaze me how people justify inequality and their own selfishness.

So, what do we mean by 'justice' here? Just to put it in context for discussion. Good thread, IMHO

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

oops, sorry xeliusOO, you kind of mentioned definition right off the bat!

 

not in that question; it is free of any presumptions. If you can provide me with an answer to the question as asked, then you will have shown it to be possible, and I will be tickled pink to be wrong.

By reading your posts and gathering what the premise of them all seemed to be.
That was apparently a poor method, so I am now attempting to restart my analysis. Going back to post 1 does not provide me with your first step, nor does reading any of the posts after that.
From what I can tell, you have never posted your first step; it was never made clear to me, at least. Instead of wasting bits by repeating your assertion that there is no need to re-state the first step, please post it now.

Why is the first one realistically impossible? Please give less abstract explanations of your theories, and provide more real-world methodologies.
Why is the second one a contradiction?

To be clear, I'm not supporting either claim. I'm currently asking why you think those claims cannot be true, as you seem to be 100% sure in your reasoning.



Proof of what I see so far:

Assumption: Let’s assume that an All-pervasive Justice is possible.
1) By definition, for this all-pervasive individual justice to exist, no person's rights or freedoms can be limited in any way.
2) Therefore, everyone must be allowed to do whatever they want, including taking destructive actions, for example: burning their village's food supply.


Contradiction: If the freedom to destroy the village food supply must be protected, then a food supply must be available at all times for the person to burn. If, though the exercising of this freedom, all available food supply is destroyed, then the freedom to burn it is lost.
The exercising of this particular freedom can destroy its own availability, and as such, prevents the existence of an all-pervasive justice.

Also, because the execution of this freedom endangers the lives of those living in said village, it directly conflicts with the freedoms and rights of the villagers RE: life, safety, and accessibility to food.


Conclusion: Because there is a single example of a freedom causing injustice, an *all-pervasive* justice is not possible; some freedoms must be limited for the preservation of others, as proven by the above.


avatar: awwww, but I'm having fun!
BTW: I'm out of the area for the next 2 weeks. see you guys later!

 

If you would assume that, you obviously have no idea how justice has been defined.
You are talking about something that is completely different from what I am talking about.
What is the point of discussing apples with somebody that is focused on oranges.
I am discussing attributes of an apple, and you are saying they are wrong by giving me attributes of an orange.

Even after I stated what I meant by justice when I asked the question “How can justice be achieved?”, people still discussed it as if it was something completely different.
I simply restated a million times that is not what I am talking about, and I stated over and over what I was talking about.

Finally, somebody requested me to restate it clearly as seen here:

Therefore, I made 2 posts stating exactly what I meant as clear as possible.
Then others still ignored the fact I was talking about apples, and started arguing about oranges.
After I already defined clearly what justice meant.

I have no intention of reposting what justice I am talking about. If you only intend to discuss something totally different, there is no point.
Is there a point why you refuse to read anything?
If you do not understand what it meant the first million times I posted it, and after that request to restate it all, you probably will never understand.