Jordan Peterson

[Sommerswerd]

Okay, if you don’t think justice means “righting wrongs to achieve fairness” then you’re probably acting with a totally different concept of the word than I am. Enlighten me— how would you redefine it?

Other ways of defining justice might be:
"Punishing those who break the rules."
"You get what you get and you don't get upset."
"You get what you deserve and you deserve what you get."
"The opposite of poverty."

 

[Berzerker]

only if the rules are just

 

[Ryika]

To be honest, the main problem with "justice" isn't really the definition, but rather that, whatever definition you use, in the end you have to base it on something that is inherently subjective, which in return makes justice inherently subjective as well. But if justice is subjective, then justice does not actually exist. It's one of these things that we use because it makes the world easier to maneuver, but in the end, it's just a lie.

 

[Sommerswerd]

To be honest, the main problem with "justice" isn't really the definition, but rather that, whatever definition you use, in the end you have to base it on something that is inherently subjective, which in return makes justice inherently subjective as well. But if justice is subjective, then justice does not actually exist. It's one of these things that we use because it makes the world easier to maneuver, but in the end, it's just a lie.

That's the case for most (if not all) "words." So where does that leave us?

 

[Ryika]

I don't think that's the case. With most other words, there are some problems with the definition, but if you and another person can come to an agreement on which definition to use - be it permanently, or just for the sake of having a dialog - those problems can easily be solved.

That's simply not true for concepts like Justice, even if two all people agree to agree on a definition on how to measure justice, they will never come to an agreement on what exactly is a just outcome under that definition.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I don't think that's the case. With most other words, there are some problems with the definition, but if you and another person can come to an agreement on which definition to use - be it permanently, or just for the sake of having a dialog - those problems can easily be solved.

That's simply not true for concepts like Justice, even if two all people agree to agree on a definition on how to measure justice, they will never come to an agreement on what exactly is a just outcome under that definition.

Well, yeah, some words are easier to narrow down to a specific line than others, but they are all abstract representations of <----->* that only have meaning through agreement. Justice, as a word, is obviously a very high order of abstraction and demands at least some amount of renegotiation any time it is used, where hemorrhoid is a very low order of abstraction and if I use it the <-----> that it represents is agreed upon pretty much universally, at least among English speakers. The difficulty in communication stems from wanting to take the shortcut of using high order abstractions without any negotiation, and assuming that the other person will later just accept that what they agreed to was actually what you meant.

Of course, around here we have the countering problem that people will take a stand as if it were a hill to die on arguing about what justice (the word) really is, when it really just isn't. Since all the word is is an abstraction, the only thing that matters is agreement. I don't care about some <----->, all I need is a reasonably clear understanding of what you are referring to when you use the word, and that you have a reasonably clear understanding of what I mean when I use it.






* this blank could contain the word reality, but I opted not to use the abstract representation that we may believe that we agree on much more strongly than we actually do agree

 

[Sommerswerd]

I don't think that's the case. With most other words, there are some problems with the definition, but if you and another person can come to an agreement on which definition to use - be it permanently, or just for the sake of having a dialog - those problems can easily be solved.

I don't follow your reasoning here. For example, to paraphrase you: With the word "justice", there are some problems with the definition, but if you and another person can come to an agreement on which definition to use - be it permanently, or just for the sake of having a dialog - those problems can easily be solved.

That's simply not true for concepts like Justice, even if two all people agree to agree on a definition on how to measure justice, they will never come to an agreement on what exactly is a just outcome under that definition.

Again, just paraphrasing you... If two people agree on a definition on how to measure justice, then by definition they will agree on how justice is measured, which allows them to come to an agreement on what exactly is a just outcome under that definition.

Do you see why I don't follow the argument you are trying to make?

 

[inthesomeday]

The first and second sentence of the above quote are self-contradictions, unless you are asserting that "plenty of people" never make a single evaluation on any human life in any capacity.

Okay pretend I said I value it highly

You have demonstrated that you prioritize some equality over other equality. What is "fair" is subjective, and in this context doesn't say much. Most humans value human life to some degree (those that don't are pretty uncommon outliers).

The word equality, to me, seems just as cut and dry as justice. It’s when things are equal. But I mean I guess if you guys really wanna get down to it we can try and define equality. I mean it seems easier to just say you disagree with social justice to me, right?

It is if you don't adequately demonstrate a wrong, and as a result wrong people in the name of "fairness". This is especially true if you can't come up with good reasoning for why X satisfies agreed standards better than Y.

What do you mean adequately demonstrate a wrong? Is 500 years of racism not wrong enough for you? Is dismantling the active systems that perpetrate racism “wronging people”?

However, that moral position is incoherent when accepting or even introducing inequality in order to attain other types of equality. At the "fundamental" level, objects in physical reality are not equal. When you force equalize something between human beings that is not already equal, you are necessarily introducing inequality in other aspects.

What the hell are you talking about? Racism isn’t natural or something, surely you realize this?

To be honest, the main problem with "justice" isn't really the definition, but rather that, whatever definition you use, in the end you have to base it on something that is inherently subjective, which in return makes justice inherently subjective as well. But if justice is subjective, then justice does not actually exist. It's one of these things that we use because it makes the world easier to maneuver, but in the end, it's just a lie.

Are people just scrolling past my posts? The only thing subjective about justice comes from a difference in fundamental morality, which I can’t argue against. If you straight up don’t care about racism, or think it’s justifiable or even positive, I won’t be able to argue against that.

 

[Bootstoots]

To be honest, the main problem with "justice" isn't really the definition, but rather that, whatever definition you use, in the end you have to base it on something that is inherently subjective, which in return makes justice inherently subjective as well. But if justice is subjective, then justice does not actually exist. It's one of these things that we use because it makes the world easier to maneuver, but in the end, it's just a lie.

Most things humans care about are subjective and socially constructed. That doesn't mean they don't exist or are lies, just that they're human constructs that have different meanings to different people. It would be nice if we had firm ground to stand on with most of our social beliefs, but we don't.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Are people just scrolling past my posts? The only thing subjective about justice comes from a difference in fundamental morality, which I can’t argue against. If you straight up don’t care about racism, or think it’s justifiable or even positive, I won’t be able to argue against that.

Admittedly, yes, sometimes I am. Generally, when you are clearly in a back and forth with someone else, as you are here with TMIT, and I am immersed in a conversation with someone else, I might scroll past some stuff.

However, your statement that "the only thing subjective about justice comes from a difference in fundamental morality" is totally disagreeable. You provided an example, which is fine because you chose one that supports your premise. If that difference in fundamental morality exists, then yes those people will assign 'just' or 'unjust' differently to the same actions. But there are abundant examples that do not fit.

Despite some doubts that have been introduced, I think that all of us share the same fundamental morality with regards to killing and eating the tasty people. By agreement, we declare such actions unacceptable and meriting of punishment. But what punishment is just? Some might say that the violater should be slaughtered and chopped into steaks to provide for the victims family. Some others might say that they should write fifty times on a chalkboard 'I will not eat the neighbors.' Clearly there is a discrepancy in these people's understandings of justice, even though their fundamental morality in regards to the matter at hand is the same.

 

[Ryika]

Well, yeah, some words are easier to narrow down to a specific line than others, but they are all abstract representations of <----->* that only have meaning through agreement. Justice, as a word, is obviously a very high order of abstraction and demands at least some amount of renegotiation any time it is used, where hemorrhoid is a very low order of abstraction and if I use it the <-----> that it represents is agreed upon pretty much universally, at least among English speakers. The difficulty in communication stems from wanting to take the shortcut of using high order abstractions without any negotiation, and assuming that the other person will later just accept that what they agreed to was actually what you meant.

Of course, around here we have the countering problem that people will take a stand as if it were a hill to die on arguing about what justice (the word) really is, when it really just isn't. Since all the word is is an abstraction, the only thing that matters is agreement. I don't care about some <----->, all I need is a reasonably clear understanding of what you are referring to when you use the word, and that you have a reasonably clear understanding of what I mean when I use it.

* this blank could contain the word reality, but I opted not to use the abstract representation that we may believe that we agree on much more strongly than we actually do agree

I like this post a lot!

 

[Sommerswerd]

Despite some doubts that have been introduced, I think that all of us share the same fundamental morality with regards to killing and eating the tasty people. By agreement, we declare such actions unacceptable and meriting of punishment. But what punishment is just? Some might say that the violater should be slaughtered and chopped into steaks to provide for the victims family. Some others might say that they should write fifty times on a chalkboard 'I will not eat the neighbors. Clearly there is a discrepancy in these people's understandings of justice, even though their fundamental morality in regards to the matter at hand is the same.

I disagree, but I guess only in the sense that you seem to regard the "fundamental morality" as stopping at "killing and eating the tasty people is wrong and deserving of punishment". I would lean towards extending it to "killing and eating the tasty people is one of the worst possible things you can do and worthy of the harshest punishments available" whereas "making faces at your neighbors is nominally wrong and deserving of little or no punishment".

To me "fundamental morality" shouldn't stop at simple right/wrong. There should be some basic recognition of degree of unacceptability.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I disagree, but I guess only in the sense that you seem to regard the "fundamental morality" as stopping at "killing and eating the tasty people is wrong and deserving of punishment". I would lean towards extending it to "killing and eating the tasty people is one of the worst possible things you can do and worthy of the harshest punishments available" whereas "making faces at your neighbors is nominally wrong and deserving of little or no punishment".

To me "fundamental morality" shouldn't stop at simple right/wrong. There should be some basic recognition of degree of unacceptability.

Sure, but that was my point. I was adding a level of silliness as an amusement, but even if we extend the agreed "fundamental morality" in the way you suggest we still will have variance in regards to what is a "just" punishment, as compared to an "inadequate" punishment or an "excessive" punishment. No matter where you go from the example presented I am confident that you arrive at "no, the statement that the only thing about justice that is subjective comes from a difference in fundamental reality cannot be agreed with if we are to constructively discuss the issue."

I propose that "morality" exists on a separate, though related, scale, not on the same scale as "justice." It is totally possible to agree that an action is or is not moral, while disagreeing about whether it is just, and it is possible to agree that an action is or is not just, while disagreeing about it being moral.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The word equality, to me, seems just as cut and dry as justice. It’s when things are equal. But I mean I guess if you guys really wanna get down to it we can try and define equality. I mean it seems easier to just say you disagree with social justice to me, right?

Social justice is not a "1 or 0" property. There is some that I agree with, and very likely at least some positions where you don't.

You can't have literally everything equal. That's a falsifiable and false position in reality...the sun and shrimp are different things. So too with people. Maybe you want equal treatment before the law (very likely). I find it doubtful you would support everyone having "equal jobs" (IE everyone doing literally the same thing at all times w/o exception) with today's technology limitations. Maybe you would try to make everyone equal height? Maybe not.

The problem is that in practice when you force equality in some regards you wind up removing it in others. It is important to not run from the fact that this happens. It can be a bad thing, but it doesn't have to be. What matters are the priorities.

What do you mean adequately demonstrate a wrong? Is 500 years of racism not wrong enough for you?

500 years of racism is wrong. Alleging a second generation immigrant to the USA somehow shoulders the burden of "500 of years of racism" more so than literally any other population subgroup is nonsense.

Putting consequences on said immigrant family for other peoples' racism is a wrong, yes.

What the hell are you talking about? Racism isn’t natural or something, surely you realize this?

I didn't say anything about race anywhere in the post you're quoting. There are lots of ways people differ to each other than race, and every single one of them interferes with the premise of "equal". Quite a few aren't fair. A subset of those are controllable.

 

[Kyriakos]

I don't think that's the case. With most other words, there are some problems with the definition, but if you and another person can come to an agreement on which definition to use - be it permanently, or just for the sake of having a dialog - those problems can easily be solved.

That's simply not true for concepts like Justice, even if two all people agree to agree on a definition on how to measure justice, they will never come to an agreement on what exactly is a just outcome under that definition.

There are notions which are more set (though set in some ways; not set in all ways) than others. That is pretty much the fundamental premise of Plato's works. For example, the notion of a circle is (as to the kind of shape it alludes to) in a manner "common" to all, while the notion of "large" isn't, and the notion of "justice" also isn't, despite both "large" and "justice" also being tied to some degree to an eidos/archetype which allows for some (logical to expect) traits for both. So while if person A would claim that 'just' is to live and let live, and person B that 'just' is to punish those who do great harm one would accept both views as tied to a logical claim about justice, it wouldn't be the same if person C claimed that 'just' is to kill and maim all people on sight.

Ultimately, though, all notions are internal, and therefore are the tip of the iceberg for stuff which aren't readily available as notions or objects of discussion (more complicated mental parameters which tend to not be part of consciousness in the first place)

 

[Timsup2nothin]

500 years of racism is wrong.

Just in passing, 500 years of racism is also a gross understatement. One of the tremendous difficulties in dealing with racism is that the basic differentiation of "us and them" based on visual or social cues goes to the beginning of recorded history and beyond. An expansion up to the level where "us" is recognized as "all the homo sapiens" by all the homo sapiens is difficult to the point of near impossibility. Yet we should try.

 

[Kyriakos]

Just in passing, 500 years of racism is also a gross understatement. One of the tremendous difficulties in dealing with racism is that the basic differentiation of "us and them" based on visual or social cues goes to the beginning of recorded history and beyond. An expansion up to the level where "us" is recognized as "all the homo sapiens" by all the homo sapiens is difficult to the point of near impossibility. Yet we should try.

It will be easy, once the aliens invade.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

There are notions which are more set (though set in some ways; not set in all ways) than others. That is pretty much the fundamental premise of Plato's works. For example, the notion of a circle is (as to the kind of shape it alludes to) in a manner "common" to all, while the notion of "large" isn't, and the notion of "justice" also isn't, despite both "large" and "justice" also being tied to some degree to an eidos/archetype which allows for some (logical to expect) traits for both. So while if person A would claim that 'just' is to live and let live, and person B that 'just' is to punish those who do great harm one would accept both views as tied to a logical claim about justice, it wouldn't be the same if person C claimed that 'just' is to kill and maim all people on sight.

I think my example of the universal notion, hemorrhoid, was far more stylish than yours. Also more universal. Some circles, to a person of limited visual acuity, may be perceived as a dot. Other circles, perceived from close enough range, may be perceived as a line. But a hemorrhoid is always a hemorrhoid.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It will be easy, once the aliens invade.

Bingo. Or the mutants; homo superior.

 

[Sommerswerd]

It will be easy, once the aliens invade.

Bingo. Or the mutants; homo superior.

Or when the sun starts dying.