How The Modern World Makes Us Mentally Ill

[SteveH]

Justice is objective from the definition of the word. Paying all your employees the same amount for the same work is just; paying the men more than the women is unjust. You may think that there is a case, in a certain specific situation, for paying the men more, but you can't claim that it's just.

[jeremyp]

Does the pint and crisps and peanuts at Wetherspoons count?

What a strange way of defining the concept of God.

[Nearly Sane]

Justice is objective from the definition of the word. Paying all your employees the same amount for the same work is just; paying the men more than the women is unjust. You may think that there is a case, in a certain specific situation, for paying the men more, but you can't claim that it's just.

And yet further assertion in your opening sentence.

[SteveH]

I don't argue with the existence of the abstract concept of God, although theists seem to have a lot of trouble agreeing on the form of that abstract concept.

As for whether numbers are real, can you show me -4?

No, of course I can't. That's the point!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'll take that as a declaration that you are completely certain that God exists and that you admit no possibility that you might be mistaken. Although, you could have just written "no". I wasn't asking you to justify your position.

I'm pretty certain that God does not exist although I admit the possibility that I might be mistaken. The reason I don't go round investigating it is that I am almost completely certain that I will not find any evidence of God and I'll be wasting my time.

The Sun may not rise tomorrow, but despite the stakes involved, I take it you do not go round investigating the possibility.

I have passed from Carl Sagans position which was there is always a place to put God to always finding a place where God is.
What can I do if the sun doesn't rise tomorrow? There isn't the same hopelessness with God.

[Stranger]

I also consider I have been to the 'abyss' of the old atheists and found it to be God shaped.

Meaning, what exactly - is this a literal shape? Objective or subjective?   

Vlad, every aspect of your argument has been comprehensively demolished.

You started off trying to claim that rejecting a proposition because it had no evidence or sound reasoning to back it up, while recognizing it was unfalsifiable, was somehow both accepting and rejecting it.

This is totally undermined by the fact that 100% certainty is not available outside of logic and mathematics. All anybody can do is assess the evidence and reasoning.

You then moved on to saying how dismissing and not investigating god was a 'high stakes punt'.

This is undermined by the fact that there isn't a single notion of god, a methodology to use to investigate, that other unfalsifiable ideas would actually make your belief just as risky, and that it's a basically daft idea anyway because of the previous arguments.

Finally, I pointed out that a trustworthy god would provide a clear, unmistakable message, if it was important to us - so the sort of god you are proposing and the associated risk you were trying to present, are further undermined.

Then you wanted to debate what the idea of trustworthy means.

Now we're into the shape of an abyss.

Talk about desperate straw clutching...

[SteveH]

And yet further assertion in your opening sentence.

We are going round in circles here, so I'm ignoring this particular strand of the thread from now on. That doesn't mean that I admit that you're right.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What a strange way of defining the concept of God.

I was defining maths....possibly.

[jeremyp]

Justice is objective from the definition of the word. Paying all your employees the same amount for the same work is just; paying the men more than the women is unjust. You may think that there is a case, in a certain specific situation, for paying the men more, but you can't claim that it's just.

Doesn't your example contradict your assertion? Go back 50 years and you'll find men were routinely paid more than women and it was justified at the time the grounds that generally the men had to support families whereas the women didn't.

We consider it "just" that people doing the same work get the same reward. Our ancestors did not.

[Nearly Sane]

We are going round in circles here, so I'm ignoring this particular strand of the thread from now on. That doesn't mean that I admit that you're right.

No, it's not circles, you are just either refusing or unable to justify your assertion that the concepts are objective and absolute.

[jeremyp]

No, of course I can't. That's the point!

So how can you say that -4 is real?

There point is that -4 is an abstract concept, it exists in our minds. I do not argue that God as an abstract concept does not exist, that is clearly false, but it is not a concept that describes anything real.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Meaning, what exactly - is this a literal shape? Objective or subjective?   

Since it is the atheists abyss there should be no bar for you to visit it.

[SteveH]

Doesn't your example contradict your assertion? Go back 50 years and you'll find men were routinely paid more than women and it was justified at the time the grounds that generally the men had to support families whereas the women didn't.

We consider it "just" that people doing the same work get the same reward. Our ancestors did not.

Justice dictates that everyone gets the same pay for the same work. 50 years ago, paying men more than women may have been justified in the way that you say, but no-one would have pretended that it was just. The question is whether perfect justice is always the right way to go. After all, to Christians, the crucifixion was a massive overturning of justice - killing an innocent man - in the interest of mercy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Meaning, what exactly - is this a literal shape? Objective or subjective?   

Vlad, every aspect of your argument has been comprehensively demolished.

You started off trying to claim that rejecting a proposition because it had no evidence or sound reasoning to back it up, while recognizing it was unfalsifiable, was somehow both accepting and rejecting it.

This is totally undermined by the fact that 100% certainty is not available outside of logic and mathematics. All anybody can do is assess the evidence and reasoning.

Are you 100% certain of that?

[floo]

Justice dictates that everyone gets the same pay for the same work. 50 years ago, paying men more than women may have been justified in the way that you say, but no-one would have pretended that it was just. The question is whether perfect justice is always the right way to go. After all, to Christians, the crucifixion was a massive overturning of justice - killing an innocent man - in the interest of mercy.

If that Jesus was crucified, a terrible death, he did seal his own fate by winding up the powers that be by being silly enough to infer he was some sort of messiah!

[SteveH]

https://www.quora.com/Is-justice-a-subjective-concept-or-an-objective-one

[SteveH]

If that Jesus was crucified, a terrible death, he did seal his own fate by winding up the powers that be by being silly enough to infer he was some sort of messiah!

Paulo rosae locuta est; causa finita est.

[jeremyp]

Justice dictates that everyone gets the same pay for the same work.

I've just shown you that that is not always the case.

Another example: sixty years ago justice dictated that men engaging in homosexual relationships were to be punished. We lost one of our greatest mathematicians because of that, but at the time, society considered it justice.

50 years ago, paying men more than women may have been justified in the way that you say, but no-one would have pretended that it was just.

Have you looked at the word "justified"? See how it's spelled?

to Christians, the crucifixion was a massive overturning of justice - killing an innocent man - in the interest of mercy.

By your qualification of the above with the words "to Christians" you admit that justice is subjective.

[SteveH]

I give up. You're all mad - or wind-up merchants.
P.S. - This

Have you looked at the word "justified"? See how it's spelled?

is the etymological fallacy.

[jeremyp]

https://www.quora.com/Is-justice-a-subjective-concept-or-an-objective-one

Justice (properly put) is a rational agreement between all concerned parties about the correct method for redressing a wrong.

Subjective then.

[Stranger]

Since it is the atheists abyss there should be no bar for you to visit it.

I see no abyss.

Are you 100% certain of that?

Yes. It's a logical conclusion.

I see you've given up even trying or pretending to make any sensible arguments.     

[jeremyp]

I give up. You're all mad - or wind-up merchants.

Have you considered the possibility that we're not mad and that you might be wrong?

Justice is a human construct. The very fact that we frequently disagree on the appropriate punishment for a crime should tell you that it is not objective.

[ekim]

Justice dictates that everyone gets the same pay for the same work.

... except as in the parable of Matt 20 (1 - 16).

[SteveH]

Subjective then.

The article calls it "inter-subjective". I added the link because it was an interesting contribution to the debate, not because it necessarily supported my position fully.

[SteveH]

... except as in the parable of Matt 20 (1 - 16).

But no-one, least of all Jesus, said that that was just.