You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Is human good or bad by nature? Is there justice?
I think it will be necessary to argue that "yes", because if not we are simply wasting time.
Do you think that truth is a human invention? Don't you think there is truth?
Yes. "Truth" like "justice" and "the American way" exist only in the minds and writings of human beings, without any human beings who could decide what "the truth" is? Without human beings who could tell the truth or a lie?
In the same way I could say that what you see exists only in your eye, and that what you smell exists only in your nose, and what you hear exists only in your ear, right?
Because if there is no living being that sees, then there is nothing that can be seen, and if there is no living being that smells, then there is nothing that can be smelled, and if there is no living being that listens, then there is nothing that can be heard, right?
You see, for something can be seen there must be two things; someone who sees, and something that is seen, there is no vision without any of these things. For something can be smelled there must be two things; someone who smells, and something that is smelled, there is no smell without any of these things. For something can be heard there must be two things; someone who listens, and something that is heard, there is no audition without any of these things.
Without anyone who sees, who can verify that there is something visible? Without anyone who smells, who can verify that there is something that smell? Without anyone who listens, who can verify that there is something listenable?
In the same way, if you take away those who are able to think, obviously no one can prove whether the ideas exist or not, but as you will have realized, that is not defined if the ideas exist or not.
Ideas, like objects that are seen, smelled or heard, exist, only that while the latter exist in a sensitive way, ideas exist in an intelligible way.
The human can have problems in defining if something is one thing or another, that does not tell us that something is relative or does not exist, it tells us that there is ignorance about it, and that either a group of humans, or all, are perceiving wrongly that something. This "something" can be either an object or an idea.
Not really because those are perceptions about real objects, we may perceive them differently but smells and objects exist apart from humans ability to perceive them, "justice" does not. I don't understand the bit about "hatred".
There are many living beings that are not humans. That's a good way to tell the difference between human constructs and things that objectively exist, a cat wouldn't understand "justice" but would smell and see real things, albeit differently, that people see and smell.
You guys are trying to fight the old nominalist-realist battle from the Middle Ages. William of Ockham showed how common sense cuts through this problem establishing a sort of middle ground.
Only the individual and our perceptions exist, universals such as "justice", "truth", "beauty", "humanity", etc, exist in the mind on of an individual rather than being an entity that is independent of the mind. So sure, these abstractions can exist in the sense of being shared and in common by groups of individuals, but it doesn't necessarily mean they are real in a total universal sense. Furthermore, there are too many assumptions related to believing something like "justice" can be explained universally at all times and places.
That's why I was saying a free association of individuals can determine what something means to be just, beautiful, or true, though you always have to be aware of it's subjective nature(another reason why freedom is so important).
Well put!
It is true what you say. The problem is to define "justice", you see, I defined it in a way that for some may seem vague as; “the action of giving each one what corresponds to him”, however, such definitions are the only ones that can be valid for ideas, that is, ideas are only valid as long as they are ideal, and not material, and I explain myself.
There are people who believe that killing is "bad" or "unfair", or as in the same publication that there are people who believe that the man is "good" or "bad", "fair" or "unfair", what will you tell me, do you think in this way?
This way of thinking is not valid, logically speaking, because you will see that if someone comes to attack you, and you kill him, then we can say that such an action in self-defense is not bad. Many use this to say that good or evil is relative. In the same way there are those who say that "lying" is bad, but relativists say that if you lie to save a life, then the action is good, again good and evil would be relative.
However, the ideas, as I said before, are valid only as long as they remain in ideas. Material actions such as "kill" or "lie" are not bad per se, because matter is not bad per se, ideas must be validated based on "reasons", "purposes", "meanings", and other ideal indicators. So, if you kill someone and the reason is good (idea), a reason like self-defense, then your action will be good, but if you kill someone and the reason is bad (again, idea), then your action will be bad. In the same way if you lie and the reason is good, like saving someone's life, then your action will be good, but if you lie and the reason is bad, like cheating, then your action will be bad.
The reason must be seen as what it is, that is, always as "cause" and not as "effect", that is, you can not kill another in self-defense, if the latter has not assaulted you, since there is no such thing as "preventive self-defense", because the future has not passed, the past yes, therefore, the reason of the action must be in the past "cause", and the action must be in the future "effect". This is because we ignore the future because it has not happened, and we only know the past, in this way, and as I said in the publication, the bad resides in ignorance and good in knowledge, when man takes actions guided by ignorance, they are always bad. The end never justifies the means.
In this way, there can be a universal and ideal "justice". The fact that some humans in the past have used this word to describe something that is not justice and commit injustice, as it is usual in men to confuse revenge with justice, does not mean that justice does not exist, it only shows that these people did not know really justice, and only used that word to designate another concept. In the past, for example, the Stoics used the word "liberty" to refer to a state of austerity and self-control, you will see that while they used the "same" word that we (and in quotes because it is only equal in the translation), they referred to a different concept. Or the same Spaniards who used the word "libertad", before and now and their concept changed. An action in the past can be "just" and if the same action is taken now it can be "unjust", because justice is an idea, a concept, not an action, therefore, the only thing that can be just is justice itself, and not something material.
I support that, however, although we are using the same words, we can notice that the concepts are different, the concept of which I speak is "to give each one what corresponds to him on the basis of natural good and natural evil", and the concept of which you speak is "to give each one what corresponds to him on the basis of social norms". Then you will see that, as social norms are relative, the justice of which you speak is also, however, as the norms nature are eternal, the justice of which I speak is also eternal.
With regard to ideas per se, you can read the comment I made to @funbobby51 and give me your opinion.