Justice is an abstract concept

[coberst]

Justice is an abstract concept

I love chocolates, I love freedom, I love mom, I love my dog, I love April in Paris, etc. When we abstract (disassociate from any instance) we remove the contingent (unpredictable). When I abstract all of this lovin I am left with that which is ‘necessary and sufficient’ I am left with an emotion. When I attach this abstract idea of ‘love’ to these other entities I have a specific instance of an abstract idea.

Is the emotion attached to each one of these abstract ideas exactly the same? I suspect no one knows or can know.

In “A Theory of Justice” John Rawls seeks to discover the essence of the concept ‘justice’. To do this he uses a technique he calls a “veil of ignorance”. To discover the essence of justice one can, while covered by a veil of ignorance, discover what s/he feels ‘in the gut’ just what justice means.

Under the veil of ignorance, like the juror who disregards something said in court at the command of the judge, the individual disregards their station in life to determine what principles they would desire a society to have. ‘Justice is fairness’ is what the rational person chooses to enter if they knew nothing else about that society.

Like the example of abstraction with the concept love so the abstraction of the concept ‘justice’ would yield ‘justice as fairness’.

[Laharl]

Whenever anyone says that something is "abstract", first thing I like to do is get a dictionary definition.

American Heritage Dictionary
jus·tice (jsts)

1. The quality of being just; fairness.
2. a. The principle of moral rightness; equity.
b. Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness.
3. a. The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.
b. Law. The administration and procedure of law.
4. Conformity to truth, fact, or sound reason: The overcharged customer was angry, and with justice.
5. Abbr. J. Law.
a. A judge.
b. A justice of the peace.

So yes, basically, emotion is attatched to justice. It's a concept that is defined by morality, and morality means something completely different to any and everyone because personal morality is dictated by what we consciously think but most often simply FEEL is the correct way to be.

[coberst]

Originally Posted by Laharl

Whenever anyone says that something is "abstract", first thing I like to do is get a dictionary definition.

American Heritage Dictionary
jus·tice (jsts)

1. The quality of being just; fairness.
2. a. The principle of moral rightness; equity.
b. Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness.
3. a. The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.
b. Law. The administration and procedure of law.
4. Conformity to truth, fact, or sound reason: The overcharged customer was angry, and with justice.
5. Abbr. J. Law.
a. A judge.
b. A justice of the peace.

So yes, basically, emotion is attatched to justice. It's a concept that is defined by morality, and morality means something completely different to any and everyone because personal morality is dictated by what we consciously think but most often simply FEEL is the correct way to be.

Your habit of always getting a dictionary definition when in doubt is a great attitude!

[Anticrombie0909]

ps this topic is "duh"

[Laharl]

Originally Posted by coberst

Your habit of always getting a dictionary definition when in doubt is a great attitude!

If you're insinuating it's because I don't have my own definition of what justice means, you're wrong. It just allows us both to look at it from the same 'standard', if you will. You never presented a definition, instead referring to something entirely abstract. American-Heritage put it down on paper, giving at the very least something concrete that is plausable to use as a focus for discussion.

I agree with anticrombie on this one. The topic really is "duh."

[Cavernio]

Umm, I think is an example where coberst wasn't using sarcasm, but it was mistaken he was.

What about sociopaths.

[coberst]

Originally Posted by Laharl

If you're insinuating it's because I don't have my own definition of what justice means, you're wrong. It just allows us both to look at it from the same 'standard', if you will. You never presented a definition, instead referring to something entirely abstract. American-Heritage put it down on paper, giving at the very least something concrete that is plausable to use as a focus for discussion.

I agree with anticrombie on this one. The topic really is "duh."

My dictionary comment was meant as a complement not a negative. These forums are so often negative I guess we just automatically assume all statements are in that vane. This is unfortunate.

[coberst]

Judge a man by his questions rather than by his answers.
--Voltaire (1694-1778)


Until a person learns to ask questions the world will always be “duh”. My posts are always my answers to my questions. My question that led to this post was ‘what is an abstract idea?’

Can you not ask more questions about abstract ideas? Can you not ask more questions about ideas in general? Can you not ask how we construct abstract ideas in the first place? In what way do we construct any idea? How many kinds of ideas are there? Why is the question the most important part of an independent’s technique for discovery?

[Cavernio]

You should get yourself a blog coberst. That way, you can post your answers to your questions on it without having people complain that you're not opening discussion.

[Laharl]

That's entirely siggable, Cavernio.

[Specforces]

I agree with Laharl on this one, completely siggable.

Too much thinking, my head is about to explode.

(Waits for Casey's witty rhetoric)



I'm a sociopath.

[Cavernio]

siggable = ??????
NM, found it.

Umm, I didn't mean to be mean about it, I thought it was a good suggestion. A better one is to find a REAL CT blog and become a member. Also, putting down your questions and perhaps a little more about the process of your 'conclusion.'