The origin of mankind

[Stosh]

I'm confused at your definition. I think you are thinking of the law as it is applied by the state, whilst I'm talking generally. So, we would judge objectively and meter out justice proportionately. Revenge is like "you insulted me so now I'm going to blow your head off" It isn't a rational judgement, it's whatever you feel like doing with complete disregard to any moral framework.

 

This doesn't mean justice is always right, but it does mean you are at least attempting to use you mind instead of your emotions to arrive at a judgement.

Why are you drawing revenge as a disproportionate act ? The goal of it is also usually parity , thats why they call it 'getting even' . Actually this kind of law isn't really a rational judgement... being that it is a preexisting paradigm which is force fit, to apply to real world events. Laws can be equally unjust. 

[Karl]

Why are you drawing revenge as a disproportionate act ? The goal of it is also usually parity , thats why they call it 'getting even' . Actually this kind of law isn't really a rational judgement... being that it is a preexisting paradigm which is force fit, to apply to real world events. Laws can be equally unjust.

 

Emotional parity. Im not talking about laws but justice. Revenge is emotionally motivated justice as opposed to rational justice. There is quite a gap between them.

[Stosh]

Emotional parity. Im not talking about laws but justice. Revenge is emotionally motivated justice as opposed to rational justice. There is quite a gap between them.

Well yeah, they are different.. but I certainly wouldn't say that in every case that the legal system provides justice , parity , resolution,, beyond what normal human interactions around revenge may achieve. 

Ex

Lets say you tick someone off below the threshold of the legal system , well if you can afford to and want it fixed, you might let them get their pound of flesh back , maybe with some interest , and be able to clean the slate so there isnt residual resentment. 

Edited July 22, 2016 by Stosh

[Karl]

Well yeah, they are different.. but I certainly wouldn't say that in every case that the legal system provides justice , parity , resolution,, beyond what normal human interactions around revenge may achieve.

 

Neither would I, but then we are talking about a definition of justice and not the legal practice of justice. Justice can and should be practised outside the courtroom. We do so every day. Maybe someone gives us the wrong change and so we point it out and then pay the right amount. We have two choices: we can either say nothing (on one hand this would be moral cowardice and on the other practised dishonesty) or we complain we received too little, or admit they gave us too much. That is justice. A moral judgement handled in a rational way.

 

Just recently we have witnessed a string of revenge killing against Muslim wives/daughters/sisters that have shamed the family by carrying out actions contrary to Islamic faith. There is no rationality employed in this sense. No justice at all, just pure emotional hatred turned into violent action.

[Stosh]

Neither would I, but then we are talking about a definition of justice and not the legal practice of justice. Justice can and should be practised outside the courtroom. We do so every day. Maybe someone gives us the wrong change and so we point it out and then pay the right amount. We have two choices: we can either say nothing (on one hand this would be moral cowardice and on the other practised dishonesty) or we complain we received too little, or admit they gave us too much. That is justice. A moral judgement handled in a rational way.

 

Just recently we have witnessed a string of revenge killing against Muslim wives/daughters/sisters that have shamed the family by carrying out actions contrary to Islamic faith. There is no rationality employed in this sense. No justice at all, just pure emotional hatred turned into violent action.

That's not much of an endorsement of Sharia law either.   Im thinking the perps would call it justice. 

Edited July 22, 2016 by Stosh

[Karl]

That's not much of an endorsement of Sharia law either.

 

Justice is a moral judgement. A man made law can be moral or immoral.

[Stosh]

Justice is a moral judgement. A man made law can be moral or immoral.

Fine, but being in accord with that,  I don't see what you think makes such justice, trump the retribution of revenge. 

Ex , in this country , there was the time  when slavery was considered , legal , just , and morally vindicated. Same for the extermination of 'native' americans. Frankly I dont consider such acts as ones of revenge. So the code of revenge wouldnt satisfy as justification for those acts , whereas the other codes did. 

Edited July 22, 2016 by Stosh

[Junko]

Spider man likes to put the threads.....

[Karl]

Fine, but being in accord with that,  I don't see what you think makes such justice, trump the retribution of revenge.

 

Yes, I know, that's the worrying part, even though I have already explained it in several ways. If you don't get it, then more explanation isn't really going to help the situation.

[Stosh]

Yes, I know, that's the worrying part, even though I have already explained it in several ways. If you don't get it, then more explanation isn't really going to help the situation.

You're misunderstanding me , I'm saying that there is a morality spectrum,I guess you're seeing it as an opposite pairing. 

But anyway  If you consider the exercise of moral judgement to be justice , then the slavery was just. ( to you ) Even If you do consider the slavery evil,  the same people were still acting out of a sense of their own morality.  

 

The argument boils down to , it is factually right    because I think its right,

no matter whether its cruel or dehumanizing or destructive. 

1. amoral --

   lacking a moral sense; unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something. as opposed to moral which IS concerned with that. 

    

   Revenge I would say is not concerned with societal endorsement of rightness therefore its amoral and therefore is related to the relations between individuals,  rather than be a blanket license considered to be endorsed by all of society or a god - to exterminate an race or force compliance with arbitrary rules. 

    

    

    

    

[Karl]

You're misunderstanding me , I'm saying that there is a morality spectrum,I guess you're seeing it as an opposite pairing. 

But anyway  If you consider the exercise of moral judgement to be justice , then the slavery was just. ( to you ) Even If you do consider the slavery evil,  the same people were still acting out of a sense of their own morality.  

 

The argument boils down to , it is factually right    because I think its right,

no matter whether its cruel or dehumanizing or destructive. 

 

 

 

•  

   

   

  amoral --

  lacking a moral sense; unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something. as opposed to moral which IS concerned with that. 

   

  Revenge I would say is not concerned with societal endorsement of rightness therefore its amoral and therefore is related to the relations between individuals,  rather than be a blanket license considered to be endorsed by all of society or a god - to exterminate an race or force compliance with arbitrary rules. 

   

   

   

   

You are not making the case for revenge, you are building a case around the fact that men make errors. That applies to all cases of both revenge and Justice, my assertion is that it is better to at least try to make a reasoned moral judgement (justice) than to act from emotional fervour (revenge).

 

In the case of slavery many men did judge it as immoral and acted to end it. They did not indulge in emotional revenge, they made sound reasoned arguments for abolition. Your argument would counter their reasoned justice as arbitrary and therefore you woukd act as if slavery was effectively amoral. You would argue that man cannot know the difference between right and wrong because he cannot ever be correct.

[Junko]

What do you care about moral and revenge so on.....just be yourself and have a fun.That's what matter.

[Karl]

What do you care about moral and revenge so on.....just be yourself and have a fun.That's what matter.

Fun at any price ?

[Junko]

What do you mean Karl? You mean you can't have fun?

[Karl]

What do you mean Karl? You mean you can't have fun?

No. I asked you if you meant fun at any price, as you said that was what mattered.

[Stosh]

You are not making the case for revenge, you are building a case around the fact that men make errors. That applies to all cases of both revenge and Justice, my assertion is that it is better to at least try to make a reasoned moral judgement (justice) than to act from emotional fervour (revenge).

 

In the case of slavery many men did judge it as immoral and acted to end it. They did not indulge in emotional revenge, they made sound reasoned arguments for abolition. Your argument would counter their reasoned justice as arbitrary and therefore you woukd act as if slavery was effectively amoral. You would argue that man cannot know the difference between right and wrong because he cannot ever be correct.

It is true I do consider it that there can be no knowing of right and wrong AS facts and such judgement can never be considered correct. That does not preclude you from having your own compass , and deciding for yourself what you feel is right and wrong for you,, nor does it preclude me from judging you as being , contrary to my own  assessment of right and wrong.  

 

Institutional slavery is a MORAL act since the doers felt it was right. From an amoral position , (abandoning societal judgement of rightness ), I feel it was a horrific thing. 

 

While revenge as a tool of societal relations does indeed have some problems , its use is widespread and common.

(The idea being that retroactively one prevents crime against onesself by threat of retaliation )

The employ of a societal moral code also has some very significant problems. For instance , if its legal to kill, rob , take lands of , native peoples as a basic RULE somewhere, ,, like in Tasmania, no personal offense is required as a causative agent., I can just go ahead and do the deed because in that society its considered 'right'.Even In existing situations countries ,There can be rules which allow one to rape, beat , kill women with impunity or highly incommensurately for some imagined offense. 

 

At least with revenge there is a causative event ,, and if that doesnt exist ,then the act is not considered revenge , but rather an act of aggression which I am not endorsing , and believe the faith in rightness in fact often does , like jihad and genocide. 

 

The difference is similar to comparing 'personal grievances' -to wars where thousands are caught up in trying to kill people they don't even know , for reasons they don't get , (and perhaps could have successfully negotiated with, had over to dinner, shared schools with. etc. )

 I'm just describing how it is,  that these violent relations are due to MORAL stances , ideas about who is right and wrong. Its the same dynamics that sent Christians on the Crusades , or King David to establish his power. 

 

Without the idea that one is socially considered 'right',  one stands alone as the doer of a deed ,

and bears alone , the brunt of repercussions related to it.

I think  Few Germans on their own , would've created an Auschwitz. 

[Stosh]

Fun at any price 

That should be a t shirt slogan.

[Karl]

It is true I do consider it that there can be no knowing of right and wrong AS facts and such judgement can never be considered correct. That does not preclude you from having your own compass , and deciding for yourself what you feel is right and wrong for you,, nor does it preclude me from judging you as being , contrary to my own  assessment of right and wrong.  

 

Institutional slavery is a MORAL act since the doers felt it was right. From an amoral position , (abandoning societal judgement of rightness ), I feel it was a horrific thing. 

 

While revenge as a tool of societal relations does indeed have some problems , its use is widespread and common.

(The idea being that retroactively one prevents crime against onesself by threat of retaliation )

The employ of a societal moral code also has some very significant problems. For instance , if its legal to kill, rob , take lands of , native peoples as a basic RULE somewhere, ,, like in Tasmania, no personal offense is required as a causative agent., I can just go ahead and do the deed because in that society its considered 'right'.Even In existing situations countries ,There can be rules which allow one to rape, beat , kill women with impunity or highly incommensurately for some imagined offense. 

 

At least with revenge there is a causative event ,, and if that doesnt exist ,then the act is not considered revenge , but rather an act of aggression which I am not endorsing , and believe the faith in rightness in fact often does , like jihad and genocide. 

 

The difference is similar to comparing 'personal grievances' -to wars where thousands are caught up in trying to kill people they don't even know , for reasons they don't get , (and perhaps could have successfully negotiated with, had over to dinner, shared schools with. etc. )

 I'm just describing how it is,  that these violent relations are due to MORAL stances , ideas about who is right and wrong. Its the same dynamics that sent Christians on the Crusades , or King David to establish his power. 

 

Without the idea that one is socially considered 'right',  one stands alone as the doer of a deed ,

and bears alone , the brunt of repercussions related to it.

I think  Few Germans on their own , would've created an Auschwitz.

 

Again, you are making the assumption that right and wrong cannot be known because people make errors of judgement. Then you assert that people can make the right judgement due to some inbuilt emotional moral compass. How do you explain why some people protested against slavery and why you think they were correct to abolish slavery, if, as you assert, you cannot know right from wrong. Are you saying that you could actually be wrong, that your emotional compass is all screwed up and slavery is could actually be perfectly fine, that we didn't really know until we decided on it, we took a consensus approach, cast bones, threw some dice and decided that it was the wrong thing from that time forth ?

[Stosh]

It has nothing to do with error. There just is just no such existant thing as being right. It is a judgement.

And no there is no way I can possibly be wrong , divergent compass or not... since there is no such thing that Is wrongness, that too is judgement. No slavery cant be fine,since theres no such thing as being fine, its a subjective judgement.

 

The roll of dice doesnt need to happen for one to be unhappy with being enslaved, thats a personal view, which I allow exists. As does the prospect that one can consider such treatment cruel. We may come to that conclusion through empathy... but that wasnt true for , , Dahlmer.

Edited July 22, 2016 by Stosh

[Karl]

It has nothing to do with error. There just is just no such existant thing as being right. It is a judgement.

And no there is no way I can possibly be wrong , divergent compass or not... since there is no such thing that Is wrongness, that too is judgement. No slavery cant be fine,since theres no such thing as being fine, its a subjective judgement.

The roll of dice doesnt need to happen for one to be unhappy with being enslaved, thats a personal view, which I allow exists. As does the prospect that one can consider such treatment cruel. We may come to that conclusion through empathy... but that wasnt true for , , Dahlmer.

Yet you are saying 'there is no such thing as being right' which negates your argument. You are stating an absolute whilst asserting there are no absolutes. You even say 'there is no way I can possibly be wrong' whilst asserting there is no way you can know that you can be right.

 

Surely that's enough. You wrestled yourself into a heap on the ground. It's not me saying you are wrong, it's you that are saying you are wrong. I can't fight an opponent that insists on knocking himself out before the bell has even been rung to begin the first round. :-)

[Nungali]

Justice is objectively judged retribution. Justice is blind, unemotional morality. Revenge is emotionally driven violence devoid of moral judgement.

 

I think you have your definitions reversed. Revenge is not a proportional balanced response, ...

 

it can be . 

[Nungali]

Why are you drawing revenge as a disproportionate act ? The goal of it is also usually parity , thats why they call it 'getting even' . Actually this kind of law isn't really a rational judgement... being that it is a preexisting paradigm which is force fit, to apply to real world events. Laws can be equally unjust. 

 

Hey !  You knocked over my nephew with your car yesterday ... that will cost you  5 pigs ! 

 

Not going to pay eh ? .....    Okay, I bring the family over .... we talk about it 

 

 

 

 

 

[Nungali]

Fun at any price ?

 

 

Well ,   yeah  

 

 .... in the red light district  ..... if you are well cashed up . 

[Stosh]

Yet you are saying 'there is no such thing as being right' which negates your argument. You are stating an absolute whilst asserting there are no absolutes. You even say 'there is no way I can possibly be wrong' whilst asserting there is no way you can know that you can be right.

Surely that's enough. You wrestled yourself into a heap on the ground. It's not me saying you are wrong, it's you that are saying you are wrong. I can't fight an opponent that insists on knocking himself out before the bell has even been rung to begin the first round. :-)

Nice twist Karl, but the thing is ,correct and incorrect ,is not what we are discussing. We are talking about moral right and wrong. It's not an error on my part to use the words in this fashion. You re conflating the Meanings of words which arent identical meanings. I didnt say there was no absolutes either, that too is another subject. You still have grappling to do. ... But it really is a cute move there to try and get out of the ring. You can wave a white flag whenever you want.

[Stosh]

Hey ! You knocked over my nephew with your car yesterday ... that will cost you 5 pigs !

 

Not going to pay eh ? ..... Okay, I bring the family over .... we talk about it .quote] Yep , thats precisely how it works. And Im told that those societies are really rather peaceful and secure. You pay the five pigs ,, which is negotiated extensively , thank your palm trees that the debt is paid in pork rather than blood, and watch your step about transgressing in the first place.

Edited July 23, 2016 by Stosh