Please note: because you're not logged in, you may be viewing older cached versions of pages which are served up to reduce server load.
Print Universal Values | |
|
sensabile
Tenured Poser  Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Location: Southern England Total Topics: 134 Total Posts: 4350 |
 #21
mpoissant17 wrote: The fact is that every human being wants some type of compensation for a wrong that has been done to them. What "fact" is this? If you're not going to make a case for any of your claims then you're just full of hot air. 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 |
|
Yahadreas
YHDRS  Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Mar 02, 2006 Location: Awesometown Total Topics: 16 Total Posts: 2630 |
#22
mpoissant17 wrote: That would be his opinion and interpretation of the concept of justice. The fact is that every human being wants some type of compensation for a wrong that has been done to them. Okay, a severe autistic. I don't think he would have a concept of justice. Squiloople - Just have fun! |
|
mpoissant17
Aspirant  Usergroup: Members Joined: Feb 19, 2009 Location: near Total Topics: 8 Total Posts: 32 |
#23
sensabile wrote: What "fact" is this? If you're not going to make a case for any of your claims then you're just full of hot air. Are you telling me that if someone brutally murdered your family then you would have no want for revenge? 
"Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality." Bertrand Russell |
|
mpoissant17
Aspirant Usergroup: Members Joined: Feb 19, 2009 Location: near Total Topics: 8 Total Posts: 32 |
#24
Yahadreas wrote: Okay, a severe autistic. I don't think he would have a concept of justice. He has limited social behavior. So the question that this brings about is whether justice is a socially developed value. I personally do not believe so. Even if an individual has restricted social interaction abilities their sense of justice may differ but the concept would still hold meaning. If you did an autistic person wrong then I believe that the person will still have a need for retribution. "Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality." Bertrand Russell |
|
sensabile
Tenured Poser Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Location: Southern England Total Topics: 134 Total Posts: 4350 |
#25
mpoissant17 wrote: Are you telling me that if someone brutally murdered your family then you would have no want for revenge? Are you admitting through your dire rhetoric that you haven't got a single rational reason to back up any of your claims? 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 |
|
M Locke
The Realist Usergroup: Members Joined: Mar 18, 2009 Location: In a dark room with thin paper and a black pen. Total Topics: 3 Total Posts: 10 |
#26
mpoissant17 wrote: He has limited social behavior. So the question that this brings about is whether justice is a socially developed value. I personally do not believe so. Even if an individual has restricted social interaction abilities their sense of justice may differ but the concept would still hold meaning. If you did an autistic person wrong then I believe that the person will still have a need for retribution. You are missing the point, mpoissant. He's pointing out that not every person has any idea what the concept of justice is, and not every person believes that what society calls 'justice' is necessary. A value cannot be universal if someone does not have an extent of it. A severe autistic, as he was saying, would not have a concept of justice. Let's assume the autistic is so socially inept that he treats everyone, his parents and not, exactly the same. He cannot have a concept of justice because to him, people are constantly changing and doing things which he cannot find rhyme or reason in. He would be unhappy, but he would not do anything to the person, because he is used to being helped in his life and knows by habit that he can depend on people. If he cannot grasp the concept of retribution, then justice is not a value at all to him. To Yahadreas, justice is a value that society has defined for itself. Furthermore, he does not believe in that value, because he does not in his experience believe that justice accomplishes anything practical. Please note that I may be wrong because I am speaking for someone I do not know, but I am showing you a situation to disprove your assumption that it is a universal value. And as I have stated before, it can only be considered a universal value if every person believes in it to some extent. To further emphasize what I'm saying a value is, allow values to be represented by numbers. The higher the number given to the value, the more important it is to someone. If the value is 0, then they do not use the value in their judgment. Yahadreas is stating that for him, he doesn't believe in the value. If he does not believe in the value, he does not use the value in his judgment. Therefore, the value is 0, the mathematical definition of nothing. Nothing is the same as the absence of something. In this case, the absence of a value. Therefore, he does not have the value. If he does not have the value, then the value must not be universal, because in order for the value to be universal, everyone must have the value. |
|
mpoissant17
Aspirant Usergroup: Members Joined: Feb 19, 2009 Location: near Total Topics: 8 Total Posts: 32 |
#27
M Locke wrote: You are missing the point, mpoissant. He's pointing out that not every person has any idea what the concept of justice is, and not every person believes that what society calls 'justice' is necessary. Yes but every individual has a sense of retribution, or revenge, at least for themselves. I acknowladge the fact that justice is subjective but the basic concept remains. One person may advocate the use the concept of an eye for an eye while others may be more merciful but the fact remains that these people still have the basic human concept of revenge which is the foundation for any sense of justice. It may be true that justice is not necessary for a society but people still have that primal sense of revenge. M Locke wrote: A severe autistic, as he was saying, would not have a concept of justice. Let's assume the autistic is so socially inept that he treats everyone, his parents and not, exactly the same. He cannot have a concept of justice because to him, people are constantly changing and doing things which he cannot find rhyme or reason in. He would be unhappy, but he would not do anything to the person, because he is used to being helped in his life and knows by habit that he can depend on people. If he cannot grasp the concept of retribution, then justice is not a value at all to him. I am sorry but saying that a concept is not universal to humanity because a servere autistic cannot comprehend it is like saying that colors do not truly exist because there are blind people. It is a disorder that prevents this type of comprehension such as deafness is a disorder that prevents the conception of sounds. M Locke wrote: To Yahadreas, justice is a value that society has defined for itself. Furthermore, he does not believe in that value, because he does not in his experience believe that justice accomplishes anything practical. Society has defined it but society is not the origin of its conception. The concise and specific definition for justice is subjective but the general concept of it orginates in the human want for retribution. And as I said before I would like Yahadreas to explain his beliefs on justice. M Locke wrote: To further emphasize what I'm saying a value is, allow values to be represented by numbers. The higher the number given to the value, the more important it is to someone. If the value is 0, then they do not use the value in their judgment. Yahadreas is stating that for him, he doesn't believe in the value. If he does not believe in the value, he does not use the value in his judgment. Therefore, the value is 0, the mathematical definition of nothing. Nothing is the same as the absence of something. In this case, the absence of a value. Therefore, he does not have the value. If he does not have the value, then the value must not be universal, because in order for the value to be universal, everyone must have the value. I need to know WHY Yahadreas does not believe in justice before I can properly respond to this. "Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality." Bertrand Russell |
|
M Locke
The Realist Usergroup: Members Joined: Mar 18, 2009 Location: In a dark room with thin paper and a black pen. Total Topics: 3 Total Posts: 10 |
#28
mpoissant17 wrote: Yes but every individual has a sense of retribution, or revenge, at least for themselves. I acknowladge the fact that justice is subjective but the basic concept remains. One person may advocate the use the concept of an eye for an eye while others may be more merciful but the fact remains that these people still have the basic human concept of revenge which is the foundation for any sense of justice. It may be true that justice is not necessary for a society but people still have that primal sense of revenge. I am sorry but saying that a concept is not universal to humanity because a servere autistic cannot comprehend it is like saying that colors do not truly exist because there are blind people. It is a disorder that prevents this type of comprehension such as deafness is a disorder that prevents the conception of sounds. Society has defined it but society is not the origin of its conception. The concise and specific definition for justice is subjective but the general concept of it orginates in the human want for retribution. And as I said before I would like Yahadreas to explain his beliefs on justice. I need to know WHY Yahadreas does not believe in justice before I can properly respond to this. Your comparison of the autistic scenario to blind people is not accurate. Yes, justice can be defined as a value. I have said that. But just as blind people cannot see color and yet cannot deny that it exists for others, people can not believe in justice even though they know that others do. How about this? Can you accept the following? Yes, people CAN feel wronged. But just because they feel wronged doesn't mean they believe that revenge is necessary. Sure, they recognize that they feel a primal desire for something to happen to correct the wrong, but they also recognize it is simply the primal desire for order. This isn't a human value, this is a natural instinct that everything has. If a ram surprises another ram by, well, ramming him, the surprised ram will ram back. The ram feels threatened, and the ram will feel comfortable once again after it rams the other one, because it feels like the actions have been balanced out. Animals in general do react to each other and get into fights because one gets pissed off and the other fights back. So if you are talking about the instinct, please say so, because an animal instinct and a human value are two completely different things. |
|
sensabile
Tenured Poser Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Location: Southern England Total Topics: 134 Total Posts: 4350 |
#29
mpoissant17 wrote: Yes but every individual has a sense of retribution, or revenge, at least for themselves. The only argument you've offered for this so far is that everybody would to some degree understand what justice meant if it was explained to them. So when you say: I am sorry but saying that a concept is not universal to humanity because a servere autistic cannot comprehend it is like saying that colors do not truly exist because there are blind people. It is a disorder that prevents this type of comprehension such as deafness is a disorder that prevents the conception of sounds. It is nothing but sophistry. 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 |
|
Yahadreas
YHDRS Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Mar 02, 2006 Location: Awesometown Total Topics: 16 Total Posts: 2630 |
#30
mpoissant17 wrote: I am sorry but saying that a concept is not universal to humanity because a servere autistic cannot comprehend it is like saying that colors do not truly exist because there are blind people. It is a disorder that prevents this type of comprehension such as deafness is a disorder that prevents the conception of sounds. No; saying that the concept is not real because a severe autistic cannot comprehend it is like saying that colours are not real. What was claimed was that the concept of justice is not universal -- a concept held by everyone -- just as colour is not universal; it is not a quality of experience for everyone. Squiloople - Just have fun! |
Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.