Justice

[nutronjon]

I want to raise awareness of why the Lady of Justice holds a sword and scales and is blind folded.

 

Something is immoral when it causes harm. It was immoral for me to make a post without the correct copyright information, because this is against the law, and if the forums allow people to bread this law, the forums could be held accountable for allow this violation of the law. Such wrongs must not be tolerated, and that is why the Lady of Justice carries a sword. It is the sword of justice and it is used to protect those who are protected by law. Laws that are not enforced are no protection at all, and more than the violator of law are hurt when the violator is not stopped from violating the law. This is in part what is meant by, reason, is the controlling force of the universe. In nature it means such things like when there isn't enough food for a population of of deer, there is a mass die off of deer, or whatever creature population that is greater than the supply of food. The sword, the die off, etc. reestablishes balance and thus it protects.

 

The scales mean, Justice is balanced by with wisdom and compassion. Here we can exercise some human judgement. Was the wrong intentional? If not, the wrong can be forgiven by the court, as long we it is believed the wrong doer has learned something, regrets the wrongful act, and will not repeat it. Or wisdom, is the judgement of how bad is bad, and what is a just punishment. It requires a weak or strong action depending on the wrong. for example, killing daughters who behave inappropriately with men, outside of marriage, is a strong deteriant from being with men without a chaperon and vigilant care in protecting ones honor. Failure to do this can lead to unwed mothers, divorce, and all the problems that go with these things. So we want to be both wise and compassionate in the execution of our laws, again to protect the people who are protected by law.

 

Now the blind fold- InfiniteNow is a long time member of the forums and he makes a very worth contribution. Myself, I am new and lack science knowledge, and instead of making a desired contribution, my arguments about, reason and God are irritating to the people of the established science forum. I am an outsider causing trouble by going against the agreed way of thinking about things. I fear what will happen if I persist in my efforts to make a point about the importance of reason and what it has to with democracy, justice and liberty, and improving life around the world. While InfiniteNow appears to feel pretty secure as he ignores warnings and repeats the behavior he was warned to stop.

Both of us have commited the same wrong of deliberately harrassing each other. Both of us should be equally disiplined for deliberately commiting this wrong, because justice demands a response to the wrongful act,

rather a response based on emotions, if a person is liked or not, or if an moderator is irritated enough to take action or not. It is not the person punished, but the act that is punished. That is the blind fold, and what makes justice just.

 

Ideally, democracy is rule by reason. When understood, it leads to liberty and justice. This is greatly different from rule by Bush, or rule by Sadam, or any other leader. Moral judgments are based in reason, not hoping a god, king, or president will grant rewards or punishments, depending how much we please or displease, the god, king, or president and his men., or even the moderators. We should fear the consequences of violating the rules based on reason (cause and effect), but not the emotional reactions of any man or god.

 

At this point, I will say the moderators of the science forum are exercising great restraint and are superior to moderators of other forums, where moderators do not the discipline of scientific reasoning. You are honorable, and I hope we develop a better understanding of how all this works together. I hope we remember what our democracy is really about, and get excited about it again. This is not patriotism, because democracy comes from Greek and Roman classics, not North Americans. They have brought democracy into the present, but if they do not remember what it has to do with science and reason, it will again be lost again, and that would be a sad thing.

[InfiniteNow]

Now the blind fold- InfiniteNow is a long time member of the forums and he makes a very worth contribution. Myself, I am new and lack science knowledge, and instead of making a desired contribution, my arguments about, reason and God are irritating to the people of the established science forum. I am an outsider causing trouble by going against the agreed way of thinking about things.

The point you seem to continue missing is that this "agreed way of thinking about things" is precisely what science is all about. It's about discarding unsupportable claims and FORCING evidence to be used.

 

You have been starting a priori with invalid premises, and THAT is what is being challenged.

 

Your whole post is one giant strawman.

 

 

I hope we remember what our democracy is really about, and get excited about it again.

Me too. One important thing for you to remember, however, is that this forum is NOT a democracy. It is a private group to be run by whatever means they wish. It's a place for people to come together and share ideas following a certain set of logical and scientific principles. THIS is why you've been challenged so fervently, and also why I have not been the sole person to present such challenges.

 

Again, though... Hypography is not a democracy. So, can you please show some degree of internal consistency and either focus on a) the greater issues of society and governance, or :wink: hypography and your distaste for my challenges to your unsubstantiated statements?

[nutronjon]

The point you seem to continue missing is that this "agreed way of thinking about things" is precisely what science is all about. It's about discarding unsupportable claims and FORCING evidence to be used.

 

You have been starting a priori with invalid premises, and THAT is what is being challenged.

 

Your whole post is one giant strawman.

 

 

 

Me too. One important thing for you to remember, however, is that this forum is NOT a democracy. It is a private group to be run by whatever means they wish. It's a place for people to come together and share ideas following a certain set of logical and scientific principles. THIS is why you've been challenged so fervently, and also why I have not been the sole person to present such challenges.

 

Again, though... Hypography is not a democracy. So, can you please show some degree of internal consistency and either focus on a) the greater issues of society and governance, or :wave: hypography and your distaste for my challenges to your unsubstantiated statements?

 

Thank you such a polite reply.

 

I would agree this thread is a strawman, because it is about the symbol Lady Justice and democracy and used you and myself as an example when making my point, so that others might better relate to what I am saying.

 

I am pretty liberal and while writing it, I got a more solid understanding of why the sword must be used. I write of matters of democracy, because usually I learn something when I do. I suppose this is why you all write of science too. Because sceince is so important to democracy, I think there is a benefit to making a point of that in a science forum. I think about democracy a lot, because it makes me proud to be a US citizen, and I think I would have been a better parent, it I had understood the principles better.

 

Democracy is away of life and effects our lives in many ways. Do you agree that because I committed the same offense as you, if any disciplinary action is taken, it should happen to both of us equally? Once I posted, it dawned on me, the importance and difficulty of getting a child to understand, discipline is about correct a behavior, not punishing the child. This is not an easy concept to get across. When raising children we need to be consistant and I wasn't, and regret that! That makes discipline a matter of how Mom feels at the moment, not about the behavior, and that is a terrible thing to do to a child. After my kids are grown and on their own, I finally realize that.

 

Might you also agree, relationships flavor the way we understand what someone is saying, and that this might give someone with a long term relationship and good reputation, more security? Tradional authority is built on personal relationships, and justice is not equal. Much of the world is still operating under tradional authority, and this is critisized in the US. There are good reasons for doing things on a personal level. Our bureaucracies can be excessively impersonal, and this crushes personal liberty and power. Can we agree, privately owned forums, not only are not democratic institutions, but they also have traditional authority and not trails by a jury of peers? It appears moderators here are very honorable, and are putting in a lot of effort into judging well. I am very impressed and do not mean what I am saying as criticism. I mean what I am saying as away to understand our differences and the world we live it. Should we go to war with a country that does things differently?

 

I guess, Sadam, pretty much ran Iraq like his own forum, and were we just in taking him out? Here we are defending the rights of private ownership, and having a really hard time talking about democracy. In fact, when I do, I am reminded forums are not democracy, as though I shouldn't be trying to talk about democracy. Then my TV is recruiting young people to send to war.

 

This is about so more than you and me, or me and this forum. Am I wrong to do what I am doing in a Philosophy and Humanities forum?

[InfiniteNow]

So, you have called me a child, and expect me to respond politely? Never mind. I've expressed repeatedly and in different ways where the problem sits. If you still don't get it, then I don't care.

[nutronjon]

So, you have called me a child, and expect me to respond politely? Never mind. I've expressed repeatedly and in different ways where the problem sits. If you still don't get it, then I don't care.

 

Are you serious? :confused:

 

How did you get from my realization that I blew it as a mother, because a didn't understand important principles, to I insulted you?

 

I think this is a good example of how the quality of a relationship, influences how we interpret what someone said, and why good manners are important, to preventing things from spiraling from bad to worse.

[InfiniteNow]

I think this is a good example of how the quality of a relationship, influences how we interpret what someone said, and why good manners are important, to preventing things from spiraling from bad to worse.

Then how about you try answering my responses to you throughout the threads of Hypography... the ones where I devoted my time, energy, and patience to explain the issues with your logic (or lack thereof) and assertions. Wouldn't that be an example of "good manners?" But, no... instead you brush aside everything said because you thought I was "rude" or "mean."

 

Grow up. Answer the questions. Quit your whining.

[Boerseun]

Nutronjon, as InfiniteNow rightly said, Hypography is not a democracy. But it goes a little further than that, too. Science, in and of itself, isn't a democracy, either. A whole bunch of scientists didn't hold an election to vote between Einstein and Newton, if you get my drift.

 

Science goes where the evidence goes. End of story. And if you can't bring any evidence of the existence of any flavour of deity you care to mention to the table, then no, Science cannot involve "God" an any sort of discussion. Unless you want to discuss human delusions and the sociological implications thereof.

 

I recommend you read InfiniteNow's comments to your posts a little more objectively. He might be slightly spicier in his comebacks than the rest of us, but if someone criticise you, it doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong - you might just learn from it. But basically, InfiniteNow's spot-on.

 

What's the point of this thread again?

[jedaisoul]

It requires a weak or strong action depending on the wrong. for example, killing daughters who behave inappropriately with men, outside of marriage, is a strong deteriant from being with men without a chaperon and vigilant care in protecting ones honor. Failure to do this can lead to unwed mothers, divorce, and all the problems that go with these things. So we want to be both wise and compassionate in the execution of our laws, again to protect the people who are protected by law.

I'm not sure how you intended us to react tho this, but it is neither wise nor compassionate. You do not "protect" a daughter by killing her. You protect your family name which you value more than the daughter. It is a selfish an inhumane act, and should be acknowledged as such.

[nutronjon]

I'm not sure how you intended us to react tho this, but it is neither wise nor compassionate. You do not "protect" a daughter by killing her. You protect your family name which you value more than the daughter. It is a selfish an inhumane act, and should be acknowledged as such.

 

Thank you for arguing a point.

 

I think all arguments have at least two sides, and I am gifted with seeing both sides. Personally, I am opposed to killing our daughters, especially because this is to so sexist, and sons are not subject to the same rules. This is really offensive to me! I think the effort to maintain morals would be more successful if the rules were applied equally. However, most the world seems to be sexist, with the younger people in high tech countries finally becoming less sexist, but now we have the problem of unwed mothers and this is a terrible problem.

 

When I say unwed mothers are a terrible problem, I mean, we are demanding these mothers both take care of their children and get jobs to support them.

This is an extreme hardship on many young mothers and in the US we just have not taken necessary steps to protect the children and enable mothers to work without fear of what is happening to their children and fear of loosing their jobs, because of having to care for a child.

 

It might be a terrible thing to kill our daughters, but it does mean fewer unwed mothers. Fewer unwed mothers, means fewer at risk children and less of a social problem. The Sword of Justice exist to protect the whole of society. If we do not kill our daughters to maintain a moral code, how do we go about protecting society? This is about thinking these through, not me arguing I am right and you are wrong. Okay?

[Pyrotex]

...It might be a terrible thing to kill our daughters, but it does mean fewer unwed mothers. Fewer unwed mothers, means fewer at risk children and less of a social problem...

If you want fewer unwed mothers, then get them husbands! Marry them off to unwed fathers.

 

Why is a child "at risk" if its mother is unwed? What if its mother is a widow? Is her child also "at risk"? Do you kill widows? What if its mother is married, but the husband is in prison? Is her child also "at risk"? Do you kill women whose husbands are locked away?

 

The scales of justice represent the necessity of being fair and even-handed in justice. Justice should never declare that someone should be killed because their existence is a "burden" to someone, or is "embarrasing" to someone, or because their existence is "inconvenient" to Society.

[jedaisoul]

If we do not kill our daughters to maintain a moral code, how do we go about protecting society? This is about thinking these through, not me arguing I am right and you are wrong.

Oh, and I suppose the Nazi's were just protecting the Aryan race from the Jews? Quite reasonable, don't you think?

 

In both cases, the "solution" is disproportionate to the perceived threat. That is the point. Not whether in some twisted way you can morally justify it. Of course, you can morally justify it. You can morally justify anything (in your own mind).

 

What are morals? The way you chose to live your life. No more, no less. What gives you the right to impose your moral code on another adult? Nothing. That is the issue as far as I am concerned.

 

However, the law has to balance the rights of the individual against the rigts of other individuals, and against the rights of society in general. The morality it should consider is essentially:

• The right of the individual to live their life as they see fit, so long as it does not come into conflict with the rights of others.
  
• When a conflicts of rights does arise, the judgement should be based on the concept of "fair play".

So the law is essentially not a moral code, or, at least, it should not be. It is a set of compromises, seeking to achieve the best for all, individually and collectively. It should do so without bias, including not adopting a specific moral code (other than that outlined above).

[modest]

In both cases, the "solution" is disproportionate to the perceived threat. That is the point. Not whether in some twisted way you can morally justify it. Of course, you can morally justify it. You can morally justify anything (in your own mind).

 

What are morals? The way you chose to live your life. No more, no less. What gives you the right to impose your moral code on another adult? Nothing. That is the issue as far as I am concerned.

 

I think you hit the nail on the head jedaisoul. In fact, this argument was presented to Nutronjon in a previous thread to absolutely no avail. :shrug:

 

What you are missing is that anyone can use this idea to support any law. Slavery and genocide fit into natures idea of natural law just as well as liberty. It is therefore meaningless and foolish.

[jedaisoul]

I think you hit the nail on the head jedaisoul. In fact, this argument was presented to Nutronjon in a previous thread to absolutely no avail. :shrug:

Well, I tried. Thanks for this.