Logic of the justice of the law

[Speakpigeon]

Fairness lies in treating like cases alike and unlike cases unlike. A teacher that awards A-students with a star yet provides no star for lesser grade earning students is not treating lesser grade earners unfairly. In this case, not giving an A-student an earned star to a student who earns an ‘A’ is unfair to that student, and awarding a star to a lesser grade earner is unfair to all the students, especially the ‘A’ students.

If the teacher decides to award a star to a B-student but does so for a different reason (oh say, biggest improvement), then we need to be mindful of my first sentence: fairness has to do with like and unlike cases. In this scenario, there’s a special case (which is greatest improvement vs not greatest improvement). So long as the B student receives the star because of belonging to that case, that is not unfair to other students—even the A-students.

As to your “like crap” response, the group pertains to all workers. It would be unfair to treat one good. It would be right, but it would be unfair.

People too closely associate some forms of immoral behavior as being unfair. I’m just saying there is a difference worthy of being mindful of.

just
adj. 1. Honorable and fair in one's dealings and actions: a just ruler. See Synonyms at fair.

just
adj 1. a. fair or impartial in action or judgement

just
adj. 1. guided by reason, justice, and fairness.

EB

 

[fast]

just
adj 1. a. fair or impartial in action or judgement

just
adj. 1. guided by reason, justice, and fairness.

EB

If every definition were numbered and we spoke aided with numbers, the complexities of language would be better understood. I wasn’t using “just” in those senses.

 

[Speakpigeon]

If every definition were numbered and we spoke aided with numbers, the complexities of language would be better understood. I wasn’t using “just” in those senses.

Sure, but that's the sense used for this thread.
EB

 

[fast]

Definitions, at their core, are explanations written by others intended to capture the meaning expressed by fluent speakers. The problem, besides the underlying lack of precision, is that although they serve to assist us to quickly grasp the meaning, they utterly fail to capture the subtle nuances.

Those lazy definitions you cite completely forsake the nuances to the extent that if unwitting readers decided to rely soley on those definitions for their one and only source of understanding, they would fail to grasp some very important distinctions. It is often the case that an unjust act goes hand in hand with being an unfair act, so I don’t fault either the fluent speakers or the lexigraphers that capture their usage, but a good argument for applying a better distinction by their usage is a superior overriding use.

 

[Bronzeage]

What I am saying, in plain language is, your argument is too silly for validity or non-validity to be considered.

More likely, you're too lazy to be bothered.

And the argument is definitely not too silly for most people to be willing to try to assess its validity.

Still, you're obviously not so lazy that you wouldn't want to post at least some cheap comment.
EB

You already have your serious comment in a previous post. Using logic argument I can prove your saddle is a mule, but gain little in the transaction. As for lazy, my time is my own and I use it as I please.

 

[ruby sparks]

Using logic argument I can prove your saddle is a mule.....

Go for it.

 

[Bronzeage]

Using logic argument I can prove your saddle is a mule.....

Go for it.

A mule is something halfway between a horse and an ass.

 

[ruby sparks]

Using logic argument I can prove your saddle is a mule.....

Go for it.

A mule is something halfway between a horse and an ass.

I never doubted you for a second.

 

[Torin]

Using your personal sense of logic, i.e. your logical intuition, thank you to answer the following two questions.

A) Which of the following propositions do you see as false, and which as true?

(s1) The law is just.

Some parts of the law in my country (USA) are just and others are not. I'm not comfortable giving a categorical affirmative or negative answer to this.

(s2) Innocent people don’t go to jail.

This is false. Isn't that obvious?

(s3) If the law is just then innocent people don't go to jail.

Also false, since an innocent person living under a just legal system can go to jail through an error of knowledge.

(s4) It is not true that if the law is just then innocent people don't go to jail.​

This is true. (See above.)

B) That being said, do you see the following proposition as valid or not valid?

(s5) It is not true that if the law is just then innocent people don't go to jail; therefore, the law is just.​

I don't see how that follows.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Some parts of the law in my country (USA) are just and others are not. I'm not comfortable giving a categorical affirmative or negative answer to this.

Any specific example of some unjust part of the law?

(s2) Innocent people don’t go to jail.

This is false. Isn't that obvious?

I would say it is, but I have seen too many apparently well-educated and rational people say absurd things... So I prefer to make sure.

(s3) If the law is just then innocent people don't go to jail.

Also false, since an innocent person living under a just legal system can go to jail through an error of knowledge.

Good point. Any other reason?

(s4) It is not true that if the law is just then innocent people don't go to jail.​

This is true. (See above.)

Right. Just checking.

B) That being said, do you see the following proposition as valid or not valid?

(s5) It is not true that if the law is just then innocent people don't go to jail; therefore, the law is just.​

I don't see how that follows.

OK, but would you say you have a distinct impression it does not follow?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

What I am saying, in plain language is, your argument is too silly for validity or non-validity to be considered.

It's not obviously silly to me and several people have provided considered answers, suggesting they don't see the argument as too silly to even assess its validity.

So, why is the argument silly exactly?
EB