Universal Values: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Ethics » Universal Values » Universal Values

Universal Values

Page: 1 2 3 4

Universal Values

Yahadreas
YHDRS

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 02, 2006
Location: Awesometown

Total Topics: 54
Total Posts: 1904

Posted 03/20/09 - 01:13 AM:	#31
mpoissant17 wrote: I need to know WHY Yahadreas does not believe in justice before I can properly respond to this. I take 'justice' to refer to society's punishment of wrongdoers as a form of retribution. I disagree with punishment for the sake of countering a wrong. Punishment should be used for three reasons only: 1. As a warning to future would-be criminals. 2. As a form of rehabilitation. 3. To remove from society any threats. If X does wrong, and punishing X would not deter others from doing wrong, not rehabilitate him (because his crime was a one-off) and would not remove from society a threat (because he is not a threat), then X should not be punished. An example: A man comes into my house and attacks me. I Harai Goshi him into the floor, he hits his head very hard, and ends up dying. In current society, I might end up in jail (not for murder, but perhaps for manslaughter). Punishing me would not deter would-be criminals (my actions were in self-defence, not offence) -- indeed, it might deter victims from defending themselves resulting in their own deaths --; it would not serve as rehabilition (it was a one-off 'crime' to save my own life); I am not a threat to society (I was simply potecting myself from death). Because of this, I should not be punished and just left to live out my life as if nothing had happened.
I am awesome.

mpoissant17
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 19, 2009
Location: near

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 31

Posted 03/20/09 - 11:20 AM:	#32
Yahadreas wrote: I take 'justice' to refer to society's punishment of wrongdoers as a form of retribution. I disagree with punishment for the sake of countering a wrong. Punishment should be used for three reasons only: 1. As a warning to future would-be criminals. 2. As a form of rehabilitation. 3. To remove from society any threats. If X does wrong, and punishing X would not deter others from doing wrong, not rehabilitate him (because his crime was a one-off) and would not remove from society a threat (because he is not a threat), then X should not be punished. An example: A man comes into my house and attacks me. I Harai Goshi him into the floor, he hits his head very hard, and ends up dying. In current society, I might end up in jail (not for murder, but perhaps for manslaughter). Punishing me would not deter would-be criminals (my actions were in self-defence, not offence) -- indeed, it might deter victims from defending themselves resulting in their own deaths --; it would not serve as rehabilition (it was a one-off 'crime' to save my own life); I am not a threat to society (I was simply potecting myself from death). Because of this, I should not be punished and just left to live out my life as if nothing had happened. That is your view on the concept of justice. Justice is not a concept that can be defined by society. It is subjective such as the value of happiness. People have different means of obtaining it but the fact that you want to obtain it proves that it something of value. Justice plain and simple is righting a wrong done to an innocent individual. What comes after that is subjective. You could add "to protect other individuals" or society could add "as a form of retribution". It is subjective. Just because society defines justice in one way doesn't mean it is the proper definition. Most people do add in the "as a form of retribution" part but you don't. What this signifies to me is that you place the value of security and liberty above the value of justice, which is fine because as I said before the priorities of these values are subjective, but this specific priority would most likely help to define our view on the concept of justice.
"Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality." Bertrand Russell

nanrek
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 92

Posted 03/20/09 - 04:25 PM:	#33
Here are my views on absolute values: I believe there is a plurality of ethical values which serve an absolute criterion of survival. The effectiveness of these values are determined by their success. First there are the Darwinian value dictated by natural selection with the single minded benefit of helping genes to survive into the future. Second, there are the individual values which serve to maintain the survival of the individual and his/her immediate family. Third there are the community values which serve to maintain the survival of the society. The survival values are somewhat unpredictable because they are influenced by a variety of cooperating and competing genes and memes. For example, pregnant women have both cooperative and competitive genes with those of their fetus, Values for the in-group and larger out-group may generate conflicts. Sometimes counterproductive negative values are adopted which prove detrimental, e.g., the celibacy rules of the Shakers, the self-destructive values of suicidal bombers, etc. The point I am trying to make is this: Values may represents a variety of strategies and tactic to benefit their different constituents. They may adapt to different times and places. However, they are all guided by the absolute moral mandate to accomplish their mission. The universal moral code is to be successful with your moral values whatever they may be.
bonehead

sensabile
Hungry Mogwai

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Location: Southern England

Total Topics: 132
Total Posts: 4312

Posted 03/21/09 - 11:45 AM:	#34
Yahadreas wrote: I take 'justice' to refer to society's punishment of wrongdoers as a form of retribution. Is your conception of justice limited to punishment? Would you not consider it "justice" when a man is released from prison after being incorrectly imprisoned, for example? An example: A man comes into my house and attacks me. I Harai Goshi him into the floor, he hits his head very hard, and ends up dying. In current society, I might end up in jail (not for murder, but perhaps for manslaughter). Punishing me would not deter would-be criminals (my actions were in self-defence, not offence) -- indeed, it might deter victims from defending themselves resulting in their own deaths --; it would not serve as rehabilition (it was a one-off 'crime' to save my own life); I am not a threat to society (I was simply potecting myself from death). Because of this, I should not be punished and just left to live out my life as if nothing had happened. I agree that the right to self-defense should be protected, but it's difficult to protect against excessive self-defense. In your case the death was an accident, yet even if it wasn't an accident you could still []claim[/i] that it was.
For the winner there was a big three-legged cauldron to stand over a fire - it was worth a dozen oxen by the Greek's reckoning - and for the loser he brought forward a woman thoroughly trained in domestic work whom they valued at four oxen. -Homer's The Illiad Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? -Mark 9:50

Page: 1 2 3 4

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.