nihilism

[henry quirk]

your justification hasn't convinced me otherwise.

I offered no justification.

RC asked a question: I gave a specific answer to a specific take on the question.

That's it, that's all.

Wasn't lookin' to convince anyone of anything.

Anyway: it's all good, guy.

[VVilliam]

your justification hasn't convinced me otherwise.

I offered no justification.

RC asked a question: I gave a specific answer to a specific take on the question.

That's it, that's all.

Wasn't lookin' to convince anyone of anything.

Anyway: it's all good, guy.

Sweet.

[RCSaunders]

Sorry, I just don't get you, "point?"

We don't know what you understand by your use of the word "justice." Can you define what you think it is?

No no no. You aren't getting away with that one. I ask you what you mean by justice, and your answer is, "I don't know what you mean by justice?" And you don't regard that as deceitful?

It doesn't matter what I would mean by the word justice, if I used it (and I would never use it the way you do if I did). I'm asking you what you mean by justice, the word you chose to replace punishment in an earlier discussion. I don't care what you call it, the question remains, is it (right, correct, just, proper, or any other word you like) to intentionally inflict suffering, pain, loss, grief, or torment on a human being with no other purpose than to fulfill whatever you mean by justice, retribution, punishment, or any other term you choose to use to weasel out of answering the question.

[RCSaunders]

your justification hasn't convinced me otherwise.

I offered no justification.

RC asked a question: I gave a specific answer to a specific take on the question.

That's it, that's all.

Wasn't lookin' to convince anyone of anything.

Anyway: it's all good, guy.

And I cannot express strongly enough how refreshing your honesty and frankness are, especially on this thread!

[Immanuel Can]

I am not asking what scripture says. Scripture says that God will repay. Do you think that we should leave serial killers free?

Oh, I see what you're trying to ask: is God the ONLY legitimate judge.

No, because there are those given authority by Him to make social and political judgments for the common good. Now, His instruction is that they are to judge according to the standards He has given, and if they do not, they have a greater responsibility than others. But they do have the right to judge.

So the courts and magistrates have the right to incarcerate or dispatch killers. Indeed, they even have a responsibility to do so, inasumuch as they are under the instructions of God to fulfill that role.

But I'm not a magistrate, a judge or even a police officer. Such powers do not descend to me.

[Immanuel Can]

Sorry, I just don't get you, "point?"

We don't know what you understand by your use of the word "justice." Can you define what you think it is?

No no no. You aren't getting away with that one. I ask you what you mean by justice, and your answer is, "I don't know what you mean by justice?" And you don't regard that as deceitful?

I regard it as an honest question. And it comes from the fact that your own question seems to require that "justice," in order to be justified, must somehow undo a wrong. (You use words like "fix," etc.)

I don't think anybody at all thinks that's what it does. So I have to ask, because clearly you have something in mind that ordinary usage does not foresee.

[henry quirk]

your justification hasn't convinced me otherwise.

I offered no justification.

RC asked a question: I gave a specific answer to a specific take on the question.

That's it, that's all.

Wasn't lookin' to convince anyone of anything.

Anyway: it's all good, guy.

And I cannot express strongly enough how refreshing your honesty and frankness are, especially on this thread!

[promethean75]

"Such powers do not descend to me."

Fortunately they don't descend to the opportunistic liars and clowns that operate in the criminal courts who knowingly convict people of crimes they didn't commit to promote their own pockets and agendas, either, cuz if they did... I'd have an army of infidels behind me.

Most of the innocent inmates I knew believed god was entirely absent from the courtroom, despite my attempts to convince them that if god did exist, this would be where you see his worst work.

Fortunately god does not exist, so we can blame the maelstrom of lies and deceit produced by the criminal justice system on human nature. And if we wanted to exacerbate these things to the most ridiculous levels possible, we can make those societies in which these cockroaches operate, capitalistic.

Nevermind tho. This isn't the kind of wisdom that can be explained. You 'had to be there'.

[promethean75]

Lol and btw, during the time it took me to post that, there were three settlement lawyer firm (ambulance chasers) commercials on the TV almost back to back. Holy fuck man does it ever end.

[RCSaunders]

We don't know what you understand by your use of the word "justice." Can you define what you think it is?

No no no. You aren't getting away with that one. I ask you what you mean by justice, and your answer is, "I don't know what you mean by justice?" And you don't regard that as deceitful?

I regard it as an honest question. And it comes from the fact that your own question seems to require that "justice," in order to be justified, must somehow undo a wrong. (You use words like "fix," etc.)

I don't think anybody at all thinks that's what it does. So I have to ask, because clearly you have something in mind that ordinary usage does not foresee.

No. I have no idea what you mean by justice. My suggestions were only that, because I have no idea what you mean if you describe something as just, or something else as unjust. What's the difference? From your failure to define exactly what justice is, and what differentiate something that is just, from something that isn't, I can only assume there isn't any real difference, just something you would like to be true or believe for no reason whatsoever, except that you believe it.

[RCSaunders]

More to the point of truth - And from my own experience - most Christians appear to believe in an image of GOD who is the one Christians believe intentionally inflicts pain, suffering, or loss, as punishment or retribution, as a form of justice.

Which is different from how you are wording it.

Because they say God is the one who does it changes the fact they believe intentionally inflicting pain, suffering, or loss, as punishment or retribution, is a form of justice? Don't they think God is administering justice? I can't see how indicating who administers justice changes its meaning.

Sorry, I just don't get you, "point?"

I suppose my point is that I understand that they believe that God has the right to administer such punishment as Justice, and there is no evil attached to that.

In the same way there is no evil attached to humans administering justice and even the death penalty, earth-side.
Some Christians do argue that humans have no right to take human life and thus the taking of life is evil - but I have never meet any who advocate "let the rabid dogs free to roam and abuse as they will!".

It''s called intrinsicism, the idea that something is just good or bad or right or wrong or just or unjust, not for any reason or purpose, but because it just is. In the case of Christians, they cover up the absurdity that something can just be a value (good or bad) without being good or bad for anything, by saying values are dictated by their God. It amounts to turning the absurd notion that, "might makes right," into a doctrine.

[Immanuel Can]

No. I have no idea what you mean by justice.

I didn't ask you what I meant. Isn't it obvious I already know that?

I asked you to say what you mean.

My suggestions were only that, because I have no idea what you mean if you describe something as just, or something else as unjust.

And yet, I've defined it for you.

Let me make it dead simple: "justice" means "getting just what you deserve," for good or ill.

[RCSaunders]

No. I have no idea what you mean by justice.

I didn't ask you what I meant. Isn't it obvious I already know that?

I asked you to say what you mean.

My suggestions were only that, because I have no idea what you mean if you describe something as just, or something else as unjust.

And yet, I've defined it for you.

Let me make it dead simple: "justice" means "getting just what you deserve," for good or ill.

Oh that's helpful. Everyone just knows what one deserves and how that is determined. Can you be a little more vague, please.[/sarcasm off]

[Immanuel Can]

Everyone just knows what one deserves and how that is determined. Can you be a little more vague, please.[/sarcasm off]

It's not helpful to you, because you are not the Judge. But then, it doesn't need to be: all you need is a healthy sense of how badly behind that standard we all actually are.

[iambiguous]

Good news for nihilists? Life is meaningless after all, say philosophers
Tom Howell
at the CBC website

If a second year of shutdowns, social restrictions, health risks, and existential dread has eroded your sense of life's ultimate meaning and purpose, a new report by philosophers in Britain and Australia may offer a double whammy of encouragement.

First, you're absolutely right, they say. Life is meaningless.

Well, since they are philosophers, the first thing one [like me] might assume is that by "meaningless" they [ironically enough] mean philosophically. The key words of course being "ultimate meaning and purpose".

After all, in regard to virtually every aspect of your life -- relationships, work, the arts, social pursuits, politics -- meaning and purpose are everywhere. Indeed, trying to intertwine all of the at times contradictory meaning and purpose proposed here can for some become nothing short of overwhelming.

With respect to the covid pandemic, what is meaningful and purposeful to you? Here alone we have had endless debates [some rather caustic] because the objectivists among us insist that only the manner in which it is meaningful and purposeful to them reflects the most rational point of view.

Second, this fact poses no significant problems or threats.

"In fact, there are good things that might come out of it," said Tracy Llanera, research fellow at the University of Notre Dame Australia in Sydney and assistant research professor at the University of Connecticut.

"I think that shift in perspective will just open a lot more philosophical and practical possibilities for people."

Well, there can be a huge difference between noting that "good things can come out of it" and suggesting it "poses no significant problems or threats". Clearly, when the discussions come around to what it means to be a moral or immoral person given a specific set of circumstances, the consequences can be devastating when an agreement can't be found.

Especially given the fact that for the objectivists among us there is no real distinction made between existential meaning and purpose and essential meaning and purpose. For them the meaning they accept must be the meaning that you and I must accept too.

The potential for problems and threats are everywhere here.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=195600