Is it just?

[Speakpigeon]

It is true that it is either true of false that the law just?

It's either true or false that the law is just.

That statement is false. "Just" means "based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair". Therefore, any statement that "X is just" is a subjective moral stance to which the concept of truth or falsehood does not even apply.

It has no more truth value than "Apples are better than oranges."

It's only a matter of definition. We only need to have a proper definition.

We have the definition of the metre. It's either true or false that the speed of light is 299 792 458 m/s, even before we measure it. And indeed, independently of any actual measure.

Once we have an appropriate definition of justice, then it is either true or false that the law is just.

And irrespective of whether the speed of light is 299 792 458 m/s today, it is either true or false that it was 299 792 458 m/s even before we settled on the definition of the meter and second.

We may not be able to tell today whether the law is just, but it is either true or false that the law is just.

Thank you all to give you opinion of the particular point of whether it is true that it is either true of false that the law just.
EB

 

[ronburgundy]

It is true that it is either true of false that the law just?

It's either true or false that the law is just.

That statement is false. "Just" means "based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair". Therefore, any statement that "X is just" is a subjective moral stance to which the concept of truth or falsehood does not even apply.

It has no more truth value than "Apples are better than oranges."

It's only a matter of definition. We only need to have a proper definition.

We have the definition of the metre. It's either true or false that the speed of light is 299 792 458 m/s, even before we measure it. And indeed, independently of any actual measure.

Once we have an appropriate definition of justice, then it is either true or false that the law is just.

Except that since the definition entails reference to a person's subjective values, then the statement is simultaneously true for some people and false for others. Which means the statement that "It is either true or false" is itself false, because it is both.

And irrespective of whether the speed of light is 299 792 458 m/s today, it is either true or false that it was 299 792 458 m/s even before we settled on the definition of the meter and second.

We may not be able to tell today whether the law is just, but it is either true or false that the law is just.

But that is an invalid analogy, because the speed of light has an objective state independent of and there prior to any thoughts/feelings we have about it. Justice does not. Justice is entirely a subjective feeling about something. So a thing cannot be just until we have a feeling about it, and if different people can have different feelings about it, then the thing can never be said to be "Just" or "Unjust" in general, but only in reference to particular individuals. In fact, "The law is just" is nonsensical if taken literally as though the law itself can have a property of justness. It cannot. The statement, like all moral statements, is a shorthand for "I/we/someone feels the law is just." Justness is actually a state of mind in response to a thing, not a property of the thing it refers to.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Once we have an appropriate definition of justice, then it is either true or false that the law is just.

Except that since the definition entails reference to a person's subjective values, then the statement is simultaneously true for some people and false for others. Which means the statement that "It is either true or false" is itself false, because it is both.

???

What definition are you talking about?

These are the definitions I posted from three dictionaries:

just
1. Honorable and fair in one's dealings and actions: a just ruler. See Synonyms at fair.
1. a. fair or impartial in action or judgement
1. guided by reason, justice, and fairness.

There's no reference to a person's subjective values.

And irrespective of whether the speed of light is 299 792 458 m/s today, it is either true or false that it was 299 792 458 m/s even before we settled on the definition of the meter and second.

We may not be able to tell today whether the law is just, but it is either true or false that the law is just.

But that is an invalid analogy, because the speed of light has an objective state independent of and there prior to any thoughts/feelings we have about it. Justice does not. Justice is entirely a subjective feeling about something. So a thing cannot be just until we have a feeling about it, and if different people can have different feelings about it, then the thing can never be said to be "Just" or "Unjust" in general, but only in reference to particular individuals. In fact, "The law is just" is nonsensical if taken literally as though the law itself can have a property of justness. It cannot. The statement, like all moral statements, is a shorthand for "I/we/someone feels the law is just." Justness is actually a state of mind in response to a thing, not a property of the thing it refers to.

That's why a definition is necessary. Without a definition, there's no reference.

The dictionary definitions above provide an objective basis, a reference, for deciding if something is just or unjust.
EB

 

[fast]

Was supper good?

Anna: most items were delicious, but a couple items sucked, and since the good outweighed the bad, supper was good.
Bob: most items were delicious, but a couple items sucked, and since not all items were delicious, supper was bad.
Cathy: most items were delicious, but a couple items sucked, and since at least one item was good, supper was good.

The justice system is not perfect, just like supper, yet like supper, whether it’s considered just might just hinge on the basis for their consideration.

I think we can treat this is an objective issue. But, you’re a Frenchman and I don’t know if you’re more like Anna, Bob, or Cathy. I suspect Bob whereas I’m more like Anna.

 

[The AntiChris]

These are the definitions I posted from three dictionaries:

just
1. Honorable and fair in one's dealings and actions: a just ruler. See Synonyms at fair.
1. a. fair or impartial in action or judgement
1. guided by reason, justice, and fairness.

There's no reference to a person's subjective values.

They all look straightforwardly subjective to me.

The dictionary definitions above provide an objective basis,
EB

I guess it depends on your definition of 'objective'.

Here's mine:

5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased:

 

[Speakpigeon]

They all look straightforwardly subjective to me.

Tell the guys who wrote the definitions. They'll all have a good laugh.

The dictionary definitions above provide an objective basis,

I guess it depends on your definition of 'objective'. Here's mine:

5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased:

Exactly, based on facts.

Can't you assess the justice of the laws based on facts.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Was supper good?

Anna: most items were delicious, but a couple items sucked, and since the good outweighed the bad, supper was good.
Bob: most items were delicious, but a couple items sucked, and since not all items were delicious, supper was bad.
Cathy: most items were delicious, but a couple items sucked, and since at least one item was good, supper was good.

The justice system is not perfect, just like supper, yet like supper, whether it’s considered just might just hinge on the basis for their consideration.

I think we can treat this is an objective issue. But, you’re a Frenchman and I don’t know if you’re more like Anna, Bob, or Cathy. I suspect Bob whereas I’m more like Anna.

The applicable definition of law here is this one:

Law
2.a. The body of rules and principles governing the affairs of a community and enforced by a political authority; a legal system: international law.

As defined here, I would expect the law to be just in most democratic countries. Yep. But that's irrelevant. The question is whether it is true that it is either true or false that the law is just. So, maybe I'm wrong and that the law is not just but, either way, it's still true or false that the law is just.
EB

 

[fast]

Was supper good?

Anna: most items were delicious, but a couple items sucked, and since the good outweighed the bad, supper was good.
Bob: most items were delicious, but a couple items sucked, and since not all items were delicious, supper was bad.
Cathy: most items were delicious, but a couple items sucked, and since at least one item was good, supper was good.

The justice system is not perfect, just like supper, yet like supper, whether it’s considered just might just hinge on the basis for their consideration.

I think we can treat this is an objective issue. But, you’re a Frenchman and I don’t know if you’re more like Anna, Bob, or Cathy. I suspect Bob whereas I’m more like Anna.

The applicable definition of law here is this one:

Law
2.a. The body of rules and principles governing the affairs of a community and enforced by a political authority; a legal system: international law.

As defined here, I would expect the law to be just in most democratic countries. Yep. But that's irrelevant. The question is whether it is true that it is either true or false that the law is just. So, maybe I'm wrong and that the law is not just but, either way, it's still true or false that the law is just.
EB

If one says yes and another says no (and both speak in the same sense), it would seem to me, yes, it’s as black and white as that, rendering one correct and one incorrect; however, that’s at first glance. When two speakers, even when speaking in the same sense, look at the same data yet weigh the pleathers of elements differently, the idea of subjectivity rears it’s ugly head, giving rise to the notion that no, things are not as black and white as they seem. At third glance, I come full circle and once again side with the idea that objectively speaking, a set of collective laws are either just or unjust despite the varied weighting’s. For instance, a person that improperly weighs an element doesn’t alter the objective weight expected by a proper assessment. At forth glance, well, I haven’t done that yet.

 

[The AntiChris]

Tell the guys who wrote the definitions. They'll all have a good laugh.

They all reference value judgements. Value judgements are subjective.

Can't you assess the justice of the laws based on facts.
EB

"reason, justice, and fairness" are all based on opinion. They're opinions (value judgements) about facts but they're still opinions.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Tell the guys who wrote the definitions. They'll all have a good laugh.

They all reference value judgements. Value judgements are subjective.

Can't you assess the justice of the laws based on facts.
EB

"reason, justice, and fairness" are all based on opinion. They're opinions (value judgements) about facts but they're still opinions.

You are asserting this without providing any justification.

Seems like your subjective opinion to me.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Actually antichrist is leaving something for you to sylogize on.

He's doing you, a presumed intelligent being, a favor.

 

[The AntiChris]

You are asserting this without providing any justification.

EB

I've explained that your definition of "just" references value judgements (reason, justice, and fairness) and as we all know, value judgements are subjective. What more do you want in the way of justification?

 

[bilby]

There is no justice. There's just us.

 

[Bomb#20]

It is true that it is either true of false that the law just?
It's only a matter of definition. We only need to have a proper definition. ...
Once we have an appropriate definition of justice, then it is either true or false that the law is just.

Except that since the definition entails reference to a person's subjective values, then the statement is simultaneously true for some people and false for others. Which means the statement that "It is either true or false" is itself false, because it is both.

What definition are you talking about?

These are the definitions I posted from three dictionaries:

just
1. Honorable and fair in one's dealings and actions: a just ruler. See Synonyms at fair.
1. a. fair or impartial in action or judgement
1. guided by reason, justice, and fairness.

There's no reference to a person's subjective values.

They all reference value judgements. Value judgements are subjective.

"reason, justice, and fairness" are all based on opinion. They're opinions (value judgements) about facts but they're still opinions.

You are asserting this without providing any justification.

I've explained that your definition of "just" references value judgements (reason, justice, and fairness) and as we all know, value judgements are subjective. What more do you want in the way of justification?

https://vimeo.com/47833797

...
Man: Oh you did!!

Mr. Vibrating: No, no, no.

Man: You did just then.

Mr. Vibrating: Nonsense!

Man: Oh, this is futile!

Mr. Vibrating: No it isn't.

Man: I came here for a good argument.

Mr. Vibrating: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.

Man: An argument isn't just contradiction.

Mr. Vibrating: It can be.

Man: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

Mr. Vibrating: No it isn't.

Man: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.

Mr. Vibrating: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.

Man: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'

Mr. Vibrating: Yes it is!

Man: No it isn't! Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.

Mr. Vibrating: No it isn't.
...​

Are any of you able to present any evidence, linguistic or otherwise, as to whether "reason, justice, and fairness" entail reference to a person's subjective values?

 

[The AntiChris]

Are any of you able to present any evidence, linguistic or otherwise, as to whether "reason, justice, and fairness" entail reference to a person's subjective values?

Apart from the observation that all claims about these appear to be based upon personal judgements, what more do you require as evidence?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It is true that it is either true of false that the law just?

Yes, or rather, it is after you identify the law you're talking about. Some laws are just, some not. Some legal systems are (overall) mostly just, others aren't. And so on.

That's why a definition is necessary. Without a definition, there's no reference.

The dictionary definitions above provide an objective basis, a reference, for deciding if something is just or unjust.
EB

No, they are not necessary to assess whether the law is just. Otherwise, how would people in societies without writing go about assessing whether their rules (not written, but customary) or the rules of other groups they were in contact with, were just? And how would dictionaries go about changing that? Dictionaries only provide an approximation to the actual meaning, which is defined by usage (and in the case "just", I'd say the concept it denotes stays across societies modulo translation).

 

[Bomb#20]

Are any of you able to present any evidence, linguistic or otherwise, as to whether "reason, justice, and fairness" entail reference to a person's subjective values?

Apart from the observation that all claims about these appear to be based upon personal judgements, what more do you require as evidence?

What do I require? Hey man, it's Speakpigeon's thread. Instead of John Cleesing him, try giving him what he requires.

But were I in his shoes, I'd require two more things:

(1) Logic
(2) Some observation even remotely relevant to the point in dispute​

Now, I realize that you sincerely think that's what you provided. This is because you have been culturally exposed to careless thought patterns that have become habitual in the moral subjectivist community. You are evidently equating "entail reference to a person's subjective values" with "all claims about these appear to be based upon personal judgements". Subjectivists equate those for exactly the same reason creationists equate "monkeys didn't evolve into humans" with "there are still monkeys": because they heard someone else do it, they liked the conclusion it pointed to, and their pleasure in hearing their opinion endorsed turned off their inclination to critique inferences.

So let's turn the critiquing back on. Would you take seriously the notion that "entail reference to a person's subjective values" is equivalent to "all claims about these appear to be based upon personal judgements", even for a second, if the topic under discussion were something other than moral claims?

Many people make claims about whether the Earth has been visited by space aliens.
Many people make claims about whether space aliens even exist.
Many people make claims about whether parallel universes exist.
Many people make claims about whether physics is "fine-tuned" for life.
Many people make claims about whether the universe is finite or infinite.
Many people make claims about whether there was a "first cause".
Many people make claims about whether physics is deterministic or irreducibly random.​

All of these claims about all of these topics appear to be based upon personal judgments. Who among those people has ever supplied an iota of empirical evidence for his or her claim? None of them. Well then, are you going to infer that "The Earth has been visited by space aliens" entails reference to a person's subjective values? Is "There are parallel universes" semantically equivalent to "I value parallel universes"? Is the universe only finitely large for untermensche but infinitely large for steve_bank? Can the sentence "Given an initial state, a time interval, and the laws of physics, only one subsequent state is possible." be adequately paraphrased by "Randomness, Ewwww!"?

 

[The AntiChris]

Would you take seriously the notion that "entail reference to a person's subjective values" is equivalent to "all claims about these appear to be based upon personal judgements", even for a second, if the topic under discussion were something other than moral claims?

Many people make claims about whether the Earth has been visited by space aliens.
Many people make claims about whether space aliens even exist.
Many people make claims about whether parallel universes exist.
Many people make claims about whether physics is "fine-tuned" for life.
Many people make claims about whether the universe is finite or infinite.
Many people make claims about whether there was a "first cause".
Many people make claims about whether physics is deterministic or irreducibly random.​

All of these claims about all of these topics appear to be based upon personal judgments.

Given context I assumed you'd know I'm talking about claims about personal value judgements (i.e. judgements which are based on the speaker's values - not claims which are obviously about objectively (in principle) verifiable claims. All the above are clearly verifiable (in principle) without reference to anyone's personal values.

It'd be interesting to discuss what you consider to be the distinction between subjective and objective claims.

 

[ronburgundy]

???

What definition are you talking about?

These are the definitions I posted from three dictionaries:

just
1. Honorable and fair in one's dealings and actions: a just ruler. See Synonyms at fair.
1. a. fair or impartial in action or judgement
1. guided by reason, justice, and fairness.

There's no reference to a person's subjective values.

And irrespective of whether the speed of light is 299 792 458 m/s today, it is either true or false that it was 299 792 458 m/s even before we settled on the definition of the meter and second.

We may not be able to tell today whether the law is just, but it is either true or false that the law is just.

But that is an invalid analogy, because the speed of light has an objective state independent of and there prior to any thoughts/feelings we have about it. Justice does not. Justice is entirely a subjective feeling about something. So a thing cannot be just until we have a feeling about it, and if different people can have different feelings about it, then the thing can never be said to be "Just" or "Unjust" in general, but only in reference to particular individuals. In fact, "The law is just" is nonsensical if taken literally as though the law itself can have a property of justness. It cannot. The statement, like all moral statements, is a shorthand for "I/we/someone feels the law is just." Justness is actually a state of mind in response to a thing, not a property of the thing it refers to.

That's why a definition is necessary. Without a definition, there's no reference.

The dictionary definitions above provide an objective basis, a reference, for deciding if something is just or unjust.
EB

First, there is nothing remotely objective about "honorable", which means nothing other than "worthy of being honored". Worthy according to what? According to whatever arbitrary subjective feelings each person has that make them want to honor something.

Second, other definintions of "Just", such as the one I gave in my first post and what comes up when you google it explicitly reference moral values, as in "based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair." Since all morality is nothing but subjective preferences, "just" only has meaning based on subjective preference.

150 years ago, most white people in the US thought that it was honorable, just, and fair, for the law to prohibit women and non-whites from voting. Many Trump supporters today still believe that. Nothing objective has changed, yet the law did because the subjective preferences of a majority of voters changed.

 

[Bomb#20]

Apart from the observation that all claims about these appear to be based upon personal judgements, what more do you require as evidence?

Would you take seriously the notion that "entail reference to a person's subjective values" is equivalent to "all claims about these appear to be based upon personal judgements", even for a second, if the topic under discussion were something other than moral claims?

Many people make claims about whether the Earth has been visited by space aliens.
Many people make claims about whether space aliens even exist.
Many people make claims about whether parallel universes exist.
Many people make claims about whether physics is "fine-tuned" for life.
Many people make claims about whether the universe is finite or infinite.
Many people make claims about whether there was a "first cause".
Many people make claims about whether physics is deterministic or irreducibly random.​

All of these claims about all of these topics appear to be based upon personal judgments.

Given context I assumed you'd know I'm talking about claims about personal value judgements (i.e. judgements which are based on the speaker's values

What an odd response. Given context, you appear to be talking about claims such as "The law is guided by reason, justice, and fairness." Whether that sort of claim is in fact a claim about personal value judgments is precisely the point in dispute. I kibitzed in your discussion with Speakpigeon to tell you both you were doing a poor job of making your respective cases; you seemed unaware of it. Why, given that context, would you assume I know you're right and he's wrong?

But let's say for the sake of discussion that you're right and Speakpigeon is wrong. If so, then yes, you're talking about claims about personal value judgments. It's still an odd response. What was your point? Why are you telling me you're talking about claims about personal value judgments? Are you under the impression that when you make an inference and somebody points out a counterexample to the inference rule you relied on, replying that you weren't talking about his example, but about your own, is sufficient to save the validity of your inference? I suspect that never in the history of debate has the maker of an invalid inference been talking about the counterexample that the guy who refutes him draws his attention to. Do you think that makes pointing out counterexamples a form of incorrect reasoning? If there exists a counterexample then the inference rule is wrong, whether you were talking about that example or not. Counterexamples show your inference is invalid, end of story.

Would you take seriously the notion that "entail reference to a person's subjective values" is equivalent to "all claims about these appear to be based upon personal judgements", even for a second, if the topic under discussion were one of those I listed? Clearly you would not. So why do you treat them as equivalent in a metaethics discussion? The two concepts are demonstrably inequivalent.

So, are you able to present any evidence, linguistic or otherwise, as to whether "reason, justice, and fairness" entail reference to a person's subjective values? Your observation that all claims about these appear to be based upon personal judgments demonstrably does not qualify, so yes, apart from that one.

- not claims which are obviously

Consider using the word "obviously" sparingly. Many people regard their own false opinions as "obviously" true. Keep in mind that you might be such a person.

about objectively (in principle) verifiable claims.

What's your point? How do you propose to use the alleged objective verifiability of my counterexamples to patch up your case? Are you

(1) trying to rescue post #15 by proposing that "entail reference to a person's subjective values" and "all claims about these appear to be based upon personal judgments", although not equivalent in general, are nonetheless equivalent in the restricted case of claims that are not in principle objectively verifiable? Or are you

(2) withdrawing post #15 and offering in its place "Reason, justice, and fairness claims are not in principle objectively verifiable" as your evidence that "reason, justice, and fairness" entail reference to a person's subjective values? Or are you

(3) pursuing some other line of reasoning I haven't thought of?

All the above are clearly verifiable (in principle) without reference to anyone's personal values.

"Obviously". In the event that space aliens exist, then yes, that's in principle objectively verifiable; it's merely technically infeasible at mankind's present level of progress. But you say "all of the above". By all means, enlighten me. Postulating any technological advancement you please, what imaginable observation would let us know one way or the other whether the universe is infinitely large, or whether there was a "first cause", or whether the laws of physics are ultimately deterministic or random?

It'd be interesting to discuss what you consider to be the distinction between subjective and objective claims.

Your definition in post #5 wasn't too bad. If you want more details on my views on that point, I laid them out in last year's "non-existence of objective morality" thread.

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...ctive-morality&p=554997&viewfull=1#post554997

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...ctive-morality&p=561213&viewfull=1#post561213