nihilism

[henry quirk]

[LINK]

[VVilliam]

[LINK]

The link goes to an example of a particular way I have of dealing with the rabid dogs you mentioned ... that is why I wrote "there are other ways in which to keep those dogs at bay..."

It doesn't matter what degree of severity an offense against one is - rabid dogs are rabid dogs...

[Immanuel Can]

Perhaps you can answer the question I asked there:

Will someone who believes it, please explain how punishment fixes, cancels, makes better, or in any way mitigates what is obviously regarded as wrong. How can causing someone else to suffer be a remedy for anything beyond satisfying some vindictive individual's lust for revenge or perverse sadistic pleasure in seeing others suffer.

Has anyone proposed that the purpose of justice is to "fix, cancel, make better or mitigate" the wrong that is being addressed? I'd be interested in knowing who has this theory.

[henry quirk]

[LINK]

The link goes to an example of a particular way I have of dealing with the rabid dogs you mentioned ... that is why I wrote "there are other ways in which to keep those dogs at bay..."

It doesn't matter what degree of severity an offense against one is - rabid dogs are rabid dogs...

Yeah, I'm not seein' anything in the linked post that'll keep the murderer, the slaver, the thief, or the rapist at bay.

[Immanuel Can]

Nobody knows what "your dasein" means. You never said.

This is simply preposterous.

Then define it. And no using the word "dasein" in any defintion of "dasein."

Fire away.

I've explained above and elsewhere my own thinking about reducing words like "dasein" [as I use it] down to a definition.

Well, all those other philosophers whom I mentioned, including Heidegger, were more than happy to define what they meant. It is your claim, then, that you understand "dasein" in a more profound way than they did, so you cannot possibly be asked to do what they believed it was very possible for them to do?

Forgive me if I express my skepticism on such a claim. I think it's far more likely that the reason you are reluctant is that you actually HAD no precise meaning in mind when you used the word, and are simply using it as technical jargon in the hopes of avoding being specific.

But convince me otherwise, if you want. Are you actually smarter than Heidegger et al., or were you simply bluffing? Or do you have an actual definition to offer?

There's no point in me trying to "drill a hole in water" here. If you've got nothing, I can't ask you for anything, right?

[Immanuel Can]

Justice delay is justice denied.

Nope. It just means we're getting a temporary break. That's all.

"...with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not willing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance.

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be discovered." (2 Peter 3:8-10)

So, you, for example, leave a serial killer free to kill more until he dies naturally? What type of logic is this?

Point out to me where the Scripture says what you attribute to it.

[RCSaunders]

Perhaps you can answer the question I asked there:

Will someone who believes it, please explain how punishment fixes, cancels, makes better, or in any way mitigates what is obviously regarded as wrong. How can causing someone else to suffer be a remedy for anything beyond satisfying some vindictive individual's lust for revenge or perverse sadistic pleasure in seeing others suffer.

Has anyone proposed that the purpose of justice is to "fix, cancel, make better or mitigate" the wrong that is being addressed? I'd be interested in knowing who has this theory.

Nope! The question remains, if justice does not achieve anything of value, if nothing is improved or no evil mitigated by it, what is for?

[Immanuel Can]

Perhaps you can answer the question I asked there:

Will someone who believes it, please explain how punishment fixes, cancels, makes better, or in any way mitigates what is obviously regarded as wrong. How can causing someone else to suffer be a remedy for anything beyond satisfying some vindictive individual's lust for revenge or perverse sadistic pleasure in seeing others suffer.

Has anyone proposed that the purpose of justice is to "fix, cancel, make better or mitigate" the wrong that is being addressed? I'd be interested in knowing who has this theory.

Nope! The question remains, if justice does not achieve anything of value,

Oh. You just changed the question.

Or is your assumption that "of value" means to "fix, cancel, make better or mitigate"? Nothing else?

So, for example, for a penalty be what one has merited, or for it to put a stop to evil, or to be the appropriate result of one's actions, or for it to correspond to what one has freely chosen are not to be included in your understanding of "of value" or "justice"?

Maybe you can explain why.

[RCSaunders]

Has anyone proposed that the purpose of justice is to "fix, cancel, make better or mitigate" the wrong that is being addressed? I'd be interested in knowing who has this theory.

Nope! The question remains, if justice does not achieve anything of value,

Oh. You just changed the question.

Or is your assumption that "of value" means to "fix, cancel, make better or mitigate"? Nothing else?

So, for example, for a penalty be what one has merited, or for it to put a stop to evil, or to be the appropriate result of one's actions, or for it to correspond to what one has freely chosen are not to be included in your understanding of "of value" or "justice"?

Maybe you can explain why.

Explain what? I have no point to make. I'm asking what the point of justice is. Does it have a value? If so, what is it? I'm not suggesting anything is or is not a value, just giving some examples others often considered values. Perhaps you don't think mitigating harm, relieving suffering, or restoring loss are positive values. I have rejected nothing.

So let me ask again, If justice has a purpose, is it or is it not to achieve something of value and what would that value be?

Just so you won't dance away from the question [as you have already begun to do], or intend to pull Henry's switch ...

Now here comes the switch:

I could say only fools permit rabid dogs to roam free;

Putting down a rabid dog is not getting revenge on or, "punishing," a dog. Executing or incarcerating someone to prevent them from commiting more crimes is not retribution, not revenge, not even punishment, it a measure of protection against realistically potential threats. The question is not about those.

...the question only pertains to retributive justice, as in, "punishment," however you choose to define those terms.

I'm only asking about those kinds of justice which involve the intentional inflicting of pain or suffering on others. What good, if any, does it achieve?

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not suggesting anything is or is not a value

Then it's no problem if, as you say, justice is not "of value." You don't mean anything by it.,

So let me ask again, If justice has a purpose, is it or is it not to achieve something of value and what would that value be?

You don't believe "of value" means anything in particular. You just said so.

[henry quirk]

Henry's switch

Yeah, you accused me of that before.

There was no switch.

You should read my post again.

[RCSaunders]

Henry's switch

There was no switch.

You should read my post again.

I apologize. Didn't mean you were making the switch, only describing it. You actually repudiated it as not explaining your position, I know. You have to use very simple language with IC that he cannot intentionally, "misunderstand."

I've already expressed my appreciation of your sincere honesty in this question. Looking for the same thing from IC, but having my doubts.

[henry quirk]

I apologize. Didn't mean you were making the switch, only describing it. You actually repudiated it as not explaining your position, I know. You have to use very simple language with IC that he cannot intentionally, "misunderstand."

I've already expressed my appreciation of your sincere honesty in this question. Looking for the same thing from IC, but having my doubts.

Well, okay then.

[RCSaunders]

I'm not suggesting anything is or is not a value

Then it's no problem if, as you say, justice is not "of value." You don't mean anything by it.,

So let me ask again, If justice has a purpose, is it or is it not to achieve something of value and what would that value be?

You don't believe "of value" means anything in particular. You just said so.

I'm not asking you about what I think, and i certainly do think, "of value," means something, but what I think or believe is irrelevant.

I'm asking you what you think and believe. Do you think intentionally inflicting pain, suffering, or loss, as a form of punishment or retribution, has any purpose you would consider a positive value?

If you think there is some positive value, what might it be?

[Immanuel Can]

I'm asking you what you think and believe.

And I gave you some of the things in the Bible that ground my beliefs.

In point of fact, what I "think" doesn't matter any more than what you "think" does. What matters is whether or not what God says is true.

If you think there is some positive value, what might it be?

I think that perhaps you misunderstand what "justice" is.

You seem to think it's supposed to be something instrumental to human goals of some kind, and absent some obvious utility to humans, you think it's not important. Or if it does not reverse the injustice that calls for it, and somehow "unring that bell," then somehow it has failed in some way. But justice is an equitable property: it delivers exactly what is appropriate to the deed in question, and neither more nor less.

"Justice" or "fairness," if you like, is not something instrumental to human purposes --- or not only that, though we all recognize that it's a good thing. Rather, justice is a property of the character of God. Its relevance is to His nature and identity, not ours. I think it's pretty abundantly apparent that it's not a characteristic human beings possess, since there seems to be so many cries of "injustice" and "inequity" and "unfairness" around today.

Still, we seem to know what it is, and we pretty much instantly recognize that we want it, and that we don't think we have it, and that a God who lacked that property would be deficient in an important expectation.

But don't worry: God is just.