I agree. Through logical analysis, I can come to such a conclusion. If "justice" is defined as "the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness", we first have to investigate who defines "justice" as such. In a real world scenario, justice is unfortunately determined by whoever has the most power, America being a good example. However, if we were to pursue an idealist investigation, Justice would date back to the sixth century BC when the poet, philosopher, soldier, merchant, practical economist and social critic Solon came to power in revolutionary times, with a mission to end the cycles of "retaliatory violence", a la "tit-for-tat". He laid the foundations of justice and democracy through a series of constitutions. However, what if he hadn't existed in the first place? What if someone with a different perception of "justice" had risen to power instead of him? Thus, there is no "true" justice, as the very original definition of justice was determined by a human.
Justice
- Thread starter FeltLyner AshGrave
- Start date
1) Uhm yes, thats why the Netherlands is cutting millions in 3rd country aid. Before you can cut a budget you first need to have one. 2) No I dont. 3) No I dont. I only said that it was an attempt to raise countries out of poverty and with that eradicating hunger. It failed, but it was an attempt, and you said we didnt even try to do it so far. Ive just shown you that we did actually try.
Uhuh, thats why they almost let everyone in, and the UN never gets shit done. No, the UN is meant as a forum for countries to settle their differences and prevent such things as genocide. I admit, its an utter failure, but again, it was an attempt to preserve peace through other means than war or the so called Balance of Power.
And do tell how it keeps smaller countries in check when every country can veto out anything they dont like?
Irrelevant. It was once again, an attempt. It failed sure, but people tried. Which was my argument.
Oh no, no no no just NO! Thats just grade A bullshit. Sorry, but you are way out of your league here. First of all, not the most powerful countries have only benefited from the EU and its predecessors. Ireland went from one of the poorest regions in Europe to one of the richest thanks to EU money. The creation of a single market benefits everyone within Europe. And the political system is set up in a way to ensure that smaller countries have a say in this as well. Of course its not perfect and France, Germany and Brittan still set the agenda on a lot of things, they cant get shit done without the smaller countries (unanimity rule and Qualified Majority Voting ensure this).
I admit, when they started the integration process with the ECSC their aim was mostly economical, and the emphasis still lays mostly on economics, but especially since the Maastricht treaty the EU has been trying really hard to become much more then just some economical union and its working.
As for justice, well, EU law goes over national laws. For now its still really broad when it comes to justice for the EU citizens, however it has already told certain member states to improve for example the way they treat immigrants and asylum seekers. Its still at the beginning but eventually, the EU court of Justice will become something similar as the Supreme Court in the US and justice will be standardized all over Europe.
Uhuh, thats why they almost let everyone in, and the UN never gets shit done. No, the UN is meant as a forum for countries to settle their differences and prevent such things as genocide. I admit, its an utter failure, but again, it was an attempt to preserve peace through other means than war or the so called Balance of Power.
And do tell how it keeps smaller countries in check when every country can veto out anything they dont like?
Irrelevant. It was once again, an attempt. It failed sure, but people tried. Which was my argument.
Oh no, no no no just NO! Thats just grade A bullshit. Sorry, but you are way out of your league here. First of all, not the most powerful countries have only benefited from the EU and its predecessors. Ireland went from one of the poorest regions in Europe to one of the richest thanks to EU money. The creation of a single market benefits everyone within Europe. And the political system is set up in a way to ensure that smaller countries have a say in this as well. Of course its not perfect and France, Germany and Brittan still set the agenda on a lot of things, they cant get shit done without the smaller countries (unanimity rule and Qualified Majority Voting ensure this).
I admit, when they started the integration process with the ECSC their aim was mostly economical, and the emphasis still lays mostly on economics, but especially since the Maastricht treaty the EU has been trying really hard to become much more then just some economical union and its working.
As for justice, well, EU law goes over national laws. For now its still really broad when it comes to justice for the EU citizens, however it has already told certain member states to improve for example the way they treat immigrants and asylum seekers. Its still at the beginning but eventually, the EU court of Justice will become something similar as the Supreme Court in the US and justice will be standardized all over Europe.
Again, and I'm sorry that I can't use words that someone of your standing can understand, but like I already said, throwing money at a problem does not solve the issue. Here it is again because I know reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.
1) In order to solve poverty, feed the children, and all that good stuff, Third World countries must be self-sufficient.
2) In order for countries to be self-sufficient they need to have jobs and a stable economy. They need to have industry.
3) Throwing money at a problem doesn't teach the people how to do any of that.
4) When the money is gone the people have no way to replenish it and fall back into the same issues they had prior to receiving aid.
5) Superpowers know this but are not willing to take the time to help Third World countries become self-sufficient. Why? Because helping the Third World increases the number of countries competing for power on the world stage.
Get it now? Oh who am I kidding of course you don't. :shrug:
I concede. Noex is right. You cannot be taught.
1) In order to solve poverty, feed the children, and all that good stuff, Third World countries must be self-sufficient.
2) In order for countries to be self-sufficient they need to have jobs and a stable economy. They need to have industry.
3) Throwing money at a problem doesn't teach the people how to do any of that.
4) When the money is gone the people have no way to replenish it and fall back into the same issues they had prior to receiving aid.
5) Superpowers know this but are not willing to take the time to help Third World countries become self-sufficient. Why? Because helping the Third World increases the number of countries competing for power on the world stage.
Get it now? Oh who am I kidding of course you don't. :shrug:
I concede. Noex is right. You cannot be taught.
Justice? That subject that was vaguely touched upon by Plato and some other people? Eh...if you insist.
It is within my view that justice is something that does indeed exist; but whether it exists within the confines of human opinion or within some innate order of things is another question all together. One that I personally have not thought too much about, and I will elaborate as to why.
Assume that an innate condition for what is to be considered "justice" does, indeed, exist. What does it matter? Simply because one knows "what" justice is, does not mean that one will seek to enact it. This simple fact is often demonstrated by the fact that a person can, and will, violate their purported morals under certain conditions (See the famous "Milgram experiment" for scientific validation of one such instance). Equally obvious is the fact that what one says and what one does are two different things in and of themselves. For example, I may say that I am against abortion no matter the reason. Then in this example, I get a girl pregnant and agree that she should get an abortion. My prior statement and moral stance fails to effect my behavior in any discernable way.
Given this, even if a clear-cut, innate definition of justice was known and felt, it does not mean one would act it out. It would be no different than the example in which I had a moral stance and went against it. In both I am aware of the moral value of something (Be it innate or relative, it matters not); and in both, neither will likely affect my actions as much as would be expected.
This is not to say that I believe an innate or objective definition of "justice" to exist in the least. I fail to. In fact, I believe that what is to be considered an act of "justice" depends upon the person and/or culture, as the moral values involved in reaching the conclusion that the behavior did indeed contain justice is, in of themselves, relative. Then again, anything under the scope of ethics can suffer from this. Because in the end of the day, anything "moral" or "ethical" is merely a human creation; one not shared by any other organism alive today.
It is within my view that justice is something that does indeed exist; but whether it exists within the confines of human opinion or within some innate order of things is another question all together. One that I personally have not thought too much about, and I will elaborate as to why.
Assume that an innate condition for what is to be considered "justice" does, indeed, exist. What does it matter? Simply because one knows "what" justice is, does not mean that one will seek to enact it. This simple fact is often demonstrated by the fact that a person can, and will, violate their purported morals under certain conditions (See the famous "Milgram experiment" for scientific validation of one such instance). Equally obvious is the fact that what one says and what one does are two different things in and of themselves. For example, I may say that I am against abortion no matter the reason. Then in this example, I get a girl pregnant and agree that she should get an abortion. My prior statement and moral stance fails to effect my behavior in any discernable way.
Given this, even if a clear-cut, innate definition of justice was known and felt, it does not mean one would act it out. It would be no different than the example in which I had a moral stance and went against it. In both I am aware of the moral value of something (Be it innate or relative, it matters not); and in both, neither will likely affect my actions as much as would be expected.
This is not to say that I believe an innate or objective definition of "justice" to exist in the least. I fail to. In fact, I believe that what is to be considered an act of "justice" depends upon the person and/or culture, as the moral values involved in reaching the conclusion that the behavior did indeed contain justice is, in of themselves, relative. Then again, anything under the scope of ethics can suffer from this. Because in the end of the day, anything "moral" or "ethical" is merely a human creation; one not shared by any other organism alive today.
So, basically the problem with justice is the presence of two different forms of justice: a true, impartial justice and a justice which benefits the one perceiving it. The example of abortion is a pretty good substantiation to this, as it shows how a person might utilize "convenient justice" for his/her own benefit, rather than a central impartial justice.
Of course I get that, and if you had actually read anything I said, I never argued that throwing money was solving anything. In fact, Ive repeatedly stated that all the money aid failed to change things really. However, we arent arguing about that. At least, I wasnt. I argued behind the intention of giving aid to third world countries. And yes, the intention has been to resolve poverty. I believe it was even one of the goals set by the UN. To have poverty resolved within the next so many years. We failed sure, but we tried. The intention was there to try and resolve poverty. The methods we used were flawed.
After all, if we really didnt care, we might as well leave them to rot. Without money they wont get anything done either.
If you cant convince me with arguments, you might as well resort to insults again right?
Because do tell, why do you think you know the EU better then me? Is it your area of expertise? Have you studied the EU? Do you know the history of the EU? Tell me then, what did Robert Schuman state in his May declaration? What were the reasons behind the invention of the High Authority and the ECSC? Do you understand the way the EU makes it decisions? Who has the real power within the EU? Which of the 7 official EU institutions? If you knew the answer on any of these questions you would know why what you said was just so horribly wrong.
After all, if we really didnt care, we might as well leave them to rot. Without money they wont get anything done either.
If you cant convince me with arguments, you might as well resort to insults again right?
Because do tell, why do you think you know the EU better then me? Is it your area of expertise? Have you studied the EU? Do you know the history of the EU? Tell me then, what did Robert Schuman state in his May declaration? What were the reasons behind the invention of the High Authority and the ECSC? Do you understand the way the EU makes it decisions? Who has the real power within the EU? Which of the 7 official EU institutions? If you knew the answer on any of these questions you would know why what you said was just so horribly wrong.
Or justice is no more but a moral stance.
You can't spell "jUStice" without the US
And it's called "jUStice" cause it's jUSt US that's jUStified
In judging jUSt cause, jUSt wars, and jUSt evidence
JUSt test this "jUStice" and get jUSt iced if you mess with US
And end up at the bottom of the ocean like bin Laden
- General Baxter
You can't spell "jUStice" without the US
And it's called "jUStice" cause it's jUSt US that's jUStified
In judging jUSt cause, jUSt wars, and jUSt evidence
JUSt test this "jUStice" and get jUSt iced if you mess with US
And end up at the bottom of the ocean like bin Laden
- General Baxter
What? What?! I'll need you to explain that one to me Kaze-dono. :happy:
"Might controls everything and without power you cannot protect anything."
No. Justice must be "exacted" by those in power. Those with power do not determine justice, but they do have the duty and of course the means to carry it out. Their negligence in doing so is to blame for the issues in this world. Those with power have an existential duty to help those without.
Is this another of your "I Love Hitler" plays [lexus]? Why don't you stop pretending and come out and say it. Say you wish the Holocaust lasted longer. Say you wish Hitler exterminated the Jews. Stop hiding behind your fake displays of civility and come out and say what you really want to. You are the man who said that he respected Hitler for all his achievements. You really do sicken me [lexus]. It's not that you're uneducated, I can get pass that. It's the fact that you don't actually know how disgusting you are as a person. One who knows nothing can understand nothing. One who respects a tyrant cannot claim to be any better. So before I continue this character assassination what is your aim in these forums? Apart from prove to us that your country's educational system is in terrible shape, what do you aim to do here apart from piss me off? Is your objective to incite more racial tensions? Are you trying to gather your soldiers for a good old fashioned Holocaust? Are you testing the waters for the second coming of your idol Adolf Hitler? Why am I the only one here who is willing to voice my issues with this uneducated irrational bigot?
"Might controls everything and without power you cannot protect anything."
No. Justice must be "exacted" by those in power. Those with power do not determine justice, but they do have the duty and of course the means to carry it out. Their negligence in doing so is to blame for the issues in this world. Those with power have an existential duty to help those without.
Is this another of your "I Love Hitler" plays [lexus]? Why don't you stop pretending and come out and say it. Say you wish the Holocaust lasted longer. Say you wish Hitler exterminated the Jews. Stop hiding behind your fake displays of civility and come out and say what you really want to. You are the man who said that he respected Hitler for all his achievements. You really do sicken me [lexus]. It's not that you're uneducated, I can get pass that. It's the fact that you don't actually know how disgusting you are as a person. One who knows nothing can understand nothing. One who respects a tyrant cannot claim to be any better. So before I continue this character assassination what is your aim in these forums? Apart from prove to us that your country's educational system is in terrible shape, what do you aim to do here apart from piss me off? Is your objective to incite more racial tensions? Are you trying to gather your soldiers for a good old fashioned Holocaust? Are you testing the waters for the second coming of your idol Adolf Hitler? Why am I the only one here who is willing to voice my issues with this uneducated irrational bigot?
Hadriel you devil. Are you using my argument against me? :blush:
Well that was an example I put together for someone, but I do not morally support the Kira method. I enjoy playing devil's advocate but I don't actually subscribe to the method myself. It's true that those in power abuse power and carry out "their own sense of justice" but those are the key terms here. "Their own sense of justice." The type of justice that people with power carry out is rarely ever true justice. We cannot, ethically say their is no justice simply because a tyrant, or two, or dozens are abusing their power.
Is this a debate you really want to have with "me?"
Well that was an example I put together for someone, but I do not morally support the Kira method. I enjoy playing devil's advocate but I don't actually subscribe to the method myself. It's true that those in power abuse power and carry out "their own sense of justice" but those are the key terms here. "Their own sense of justice." The type of justice that people with power carry out is rarely ever true justice. We cannot, ethically say their is no justice simply because a tyrant, or two, or dozens are abusing their power.
Is this a debate you really want to have with "me?"
What the fuck is your problem man?
I made a simple observation, and now you go on and accuse me of being a racist bigot Nazi who wants another holocaust? Seriously....
You know you can just disagree with me. Or you cant try to argue with me. But please, stop with all the personal insults man. This is just pathetic.
I made a simple observation, and now you go on and accuse me of being a racist bigot Nazi who wants another holocaust? Seriously....
You know you can just disagree with me. Or you cant try to argue with me. But please, stop with all the personal insults man. This is just pathetic.
Ouch.
Nah, the Kira method was just an example. If you had power and were to carry out justice in your terms, firstly you would have to believe in this "justice" you're carrying out. Secondly, if you had enough power, the justice you carry out would be at such a magnitude that it will overpower all other perceptions of justice and be considered "true justice" (note the inverted commas). Basically, the one who believes in his own definition of justice and carries it out in a way that reaches a global scale is indirectly defining what justice in general is, as his execution of it is so overbearing it replaces true justice. That isn't saying that true justice does not exist, just that it is being hindered by abuses of power.
Nah, the Kira method was just an example. If you had power and were to carry out justice in your terms, firstly you would have to believe in this "justice" you're carrying out. Secondly, if you had enough power, the justice you carry out would be at such a magnitude that it will overpower all other perceptions of justice and be considered "true justice" (note the inverted commas). Basically, the one who believes in his own definition of justice and carries it out in a way that reaches a global scale is indirectly defining what justice in general is, as his execution of it is so overbearing it replaces true justice. That isn't saying that true justice does not exist, just that it is being hindered by abuses of power.