No Justice, No God

[evolvedForm]

If there is no essential, universally true conception of Justice, then there can be no God (who is just).

Can anybody see how the conclusion would NOT follow?

I ask this because a group of 4 philosophy students, myself included, could not find a sufficient argument for the existence of universal justice. At the outset, I was the only relativist regarding justice. I was also the only atheist. I put the above proposition to them and I think it made them think.

[Phil153]

Justice basically means "things ought to be or end a certain way". It's a concept based on the idea that expectations should be reasonably met, altruism should be reasonably rewarded and selfishness should be reasonably punished. Of course, no one will ever agree on what this entails.

The best way I can explain the bankruptcy of this idea is with a poker analogy. In a session, the best/smartest/most insightful player can lose every hand and go bust. A player can play a thousand hands well and lose money while a fish can play badly and win. Is this reasonable or just? No. There are people who will say "the fish deserved to win, he's missed a lot of draws." Others will say "the best hand lost, that's stupid". Others will say "the fish didn't deserve to win, but it's not unfair that he did." No one agrees on what's fair here.

But the game itself is fair, even though what happens to its participants doesn't seem to be. Taken from a sufficient perspective, there is always a universal justice even if it can't be understood.

As an aside, I think the fairest universe is one in which God doesn't exist, or where he is impartial to all the affairs of humans.

[shhhnake_eyes]

[ QUOTE ]
As an aside, I think the fairest universe is one in which God doesn't exist, or where he is impartial to all the affairs of humans.

[/ QUOTE ]

[evolvedForm]

[ QUOTE ]
But the game itself is fair

[/ QUOTE ]

This is where your analogy fails. By fair I take you to mean random. Yes, life is random, but the long run is not long enough to even everything out, as it is in poker for a player's life. Also poker does not include getting dealt 2-7 every hand. Life does; look at people born with horrible handicaps.


[ QUOTE ]
Taken from a sufficient perspective, there is always a universal justice even if it can't be understood.


[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain this perspective...

[evolvedForm]

[ QUOTE ]


As an aside, I think the the only possible universe is one in which God doesn't exist, or where he is impartial to all the affairs of humans.

[/ QUOTE ]

fyp

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Justice basically means "things ought to be or end a certain way".

[/ QUOTE ]

That’ll work. However, without reference to God, the “ought to” is merely a matter of opinion and, in fact, a bit of a nuisance to those with the power and inclination to run roughshod all over you.

[billygrippo]

no respect.

http://www.progressiveboink.com/b/images/hanna/jabberjaw.jpg

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Justice basically means "things ought to be or end a certain way".

[/ QUOTE ]

That’ll work. However, without reference to God, the “ought to” is merely a matter of opinion and, in fact, a bit of a nuisance to those with the power and inclination to run roughshod all over you.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not God who keeps you safe in your bed at night. It's secular laws, secular ethics, the separation of powers, a democratic government, police with guns and the power to detain, and army with planes and bombs and tanks. You don't have to refer to God to have a civilized society with fair justice. In fact, it's usually better if you don't. Read about the history of secular ethics, philosophy and jurisprudence. None of the arguments for justice and ethics rely on the existence of God. In fact, God just gets in the way.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Justice basically means "things ought to be or end a certain way".

[/ QUOTE ]

That’ll work. However, without reference to God, the “ought to” is merely a matter of opinion and, in fact, a bit of a nuisance to those with the power and inclination to run roughshod all over you.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not God who keeps you safe in your bed at night. It's secular laws, secular ethics, the separation of powers, a democratic government, police with guns and the power to detain, and army with planes and bombs and tanks. You don't have to refer to God to have a civilized society with fair justice. In fact, it's usually better if you don't. Read about the history of secular ethics, philosophy and jurisprudence. None of the arguments for justice and ethics rely on the existence of God. In fact, God just gets in the way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your denial of God is in ignorance of entropy, and I mean that in the sense of the Law of the Jungle that obtains in a vacuum.

The entire notion of the Inherent Rights of man is meaningless without a jurisdiction superior to man.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Your denial of God is in ignorance of entropy, and I mean that in the sense of the Law of the Jungle that obtains in a vacuum.
The entire notion of the Inherent Rights of man is meaningless without a jurisdiction superior to man.

[/ QUOTE ]
You might want to read up on the subjects I mentioned (and the foundations of modern jurisprudence) before making sweeping statements such as the above.

P.S. Where do ant colonies fit in your "law of the jungle" world and your entropy model? How about the social behaviors of orangutans, lemurs, sloths, and so on (or do they believe in God too?)

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Where do ant colonies fit in your "law of the jungle" world and your entropy model? How about the social behaviors of orangutans, lemurs, sloths, and so on (or do they believe in God too?)

[/ QUOTE ]

The notion of belief doesn’t apply, since they are mere creatures of instinct, sometimes going extinct.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But the game itself is fair

[/ QUOTE ]
This is where your analogy fails.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, my analogy fails in the sense that life has no point. It's not counted in money or Sklansky bucks.

[ QUOTE ]
By fair I take you to mean random. Yes, life is random, but the long run is not long enough to even everything out, as it is in poker for a player's life. Also poker does not include getting dealt 2-7 every hand. Life does; look at people born with horrible handicaps.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your perspective is not broad enough. You believe humans to be something special. It's entirely possible that God created the universe with properties such that intelligent life could one day emerge, and then left it to do its own thing, like a giant Petri dish. Nothing that came out of that, not suffering, disfigured or imperfect creatures, could be considered unjust, from this sufficiently broad perspective.

Another possibility, for those that believe that we're God's chosen, is that God has designed this as some kind of test or experience for our immortal souls, and will free us from the binds of it after life. This would not be unjust. Another possibility is that he designed certain immutable physical laws for the universe and created humans within that framework. Handicaps are just a side effect of that process, and he chooses not to intervene for the greater good.

These are just examples to illustrate my point. The broader idea is that perceived injustices on an individual scale can occur in a completely fair and impartial game. The maker of such a game is not immoral or unjust; such things are actually expected even in games that are built for the greater good (think the stockmarket).

BTW, please expand on what you mean by an "essential, universally true conception of Justice", since I fear my comments are slightly off topic.

[evolvedForm]

[ QUOTE ]
It's entirely possible that God created the universe with properties such that intelligent life could one day emerge, and then left it to do its own thing, like a giant Petri dish. Nothing that came out of that, not suffering, disfigured or imperfect creatures, could be considered unjust, from this sufficiently broad perspective.




[/ QUOTE ]

Right, I think if you broaden the definition of justice, you can account for many kinds of a 'just' God. But that would be to miss the point I think, if not on a theoretical level, then at least for the purposes of argumentation.



[ QUOTE ]


BTW, please expand on what you mean by an "essential, universally true conception of Justice", since I fear my comments are slightly off topic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course we'll run into problems when trying to define a term like justice. I'm using a more precise definition; one that the west has used, more or less, for about 2500 years. I guess a decent way of defining it would be an extension of what the laws try to promote.

So, in short, I think your response was getting off topic. If we allow the kind of justice you suggested, then sure, we could admit a God who fits that model. But the God and the Justice we are concerned with is the sort that has been traditionally viewed in the west.