1. ## Is it just?

It is true that it is either true of false that the law just?

Originally Posted by ronburgundy
Originally Posted by Speakpigeon
It's either true or false that the law is just.
That statement is false. "Just" means "based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair". Therefore, any statement that "X is just" is a subjective moral stance to which the concept of truth or falsehood does not even apply.

It has no more truth value than "Apples are better than oranges."
It's only a matter of definition. We only need to have a proper definition.

We have the definition of the metre. It's either true or false that the speed of light is 299 792 458 m/s, even before we measure it. And indeed, independently of any actual measure.

Once we have an appropriate definition of justice, then it is either true or false that the law is just.

And irrespective of whether the speed of light is 299 792 458 m/s today, it is either true or false that it was 299 792 458 m/s even before we settled on the definition of the meter and second.

We may not be able to tell today whether the law is just, but it is either true or false that the law is just.

Thank you all to give you opinion of the particular point of whether it is true that it is either true of false that the law just.
EB

2. Originally Posted by Speakpigeon
It is true that it is either true of false that the law just?

Originally Posted by ronburgundy
Originally Posted by Speakpigeon
It's either true or false that the law is just.
That statement is false. "Just" means "based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair". Therefore, any statement that "X is just" is a subjective moral stance to which the concept of truth or falsehood does not even apply.

It has no more truth value than "Apples are better than oranges."
It's only a matter of definition. We only need to have a proper definition.

We have the definition of the metre. It's either true or false that the speed of light is 299 792 458 m/s, even before we measure it. And indeed, independently of any actual measure.

Once we have an appropriate definition of justice, then it is either true or false that the law is just.
Except that since the definition entails reference to a person's subjective values, then the statement is simultaneously true for some people and false for others. Which means the statement that "It is either true or false" is itself false, because it is both.

And irrespective of whether the speed of light is 299 792 458 m/s today, it is either true or false that it was 299 792 458 m/s even before we settled on the definition of the meter and second.

We may not be able to tell today whether the law is just, but it is either true or false that the law is just.

But that is an invalid analogy, because the speed of light has an objective state independent of and there prior to any thoughts/feelings we have about it. Justice does not. Justice is entirely a subjective feeling about something. So a thing cannot be just until we have a feeling about it, and if different people can have different feelings about it, then the thing can never be said to be "Just" or "Unjust" in general, but only in reference to particular individuals. In fact, "The law is just" is nonsensical if taken literally as though the law itself can have a property of justness. It cannot. The statement, like all moral statements, is a shorthand for "I/we/someone feels the law is just." Justness is actually a state of mind in response to a thing, not a property of the thing it refers to.

3. Originally Posted by ronburgundy
Originally Posted by Speakpigeon
Once we have an appropriate definition of justice, then it is either true or false that the law is just.
Except that since the definition entails reference to a person's subjective values, then the statement is simultaneously true for some people and false for others. Which means the statement that "It is either true or false" is itself false, because it is both.
???

What definition are you talking about?

These are the definitions I posted from three dictionaries:
just
1. Honorable and fair in one's dealings and actions: a just ruler. See Synonyms at fair.
1. a. fair or impartial in action or judgement
1. guided by reason, justice, and fairness.
There's no reference to a person's subjective values.

Originally Posted by ronburgundy
And irrespective of whether the speed of light is 299 792 458 m/s today, it is either true or false that it was 299 792 458 m/s even before we settled on the definition of the meter and second.

We may not be able to tell today whether the law is just, but it is either true or false that the law is just.
But that is an invalid analogy, because the speed of light has an objective state independent of and there prior to any thoughts/feelings we have about it. Justice does not. Justice is entirely a subjective feeling about something. So a thing cannot be just until we have a feeling about it, and if different people can have different feelings about it, then the thing can never be said to be "Just" or "Unjust" in general, but only in reference to particular individuals. In fact, "The law is just" is nonsensical if taken literally as though the law itself can have a property of justness. It cannot. The statement, like all moral statements, is a shorthand for "I/we/someone feels the law is just." Justness is actually a state of mind in response to a thing, not a property of the thing it refers to.
That's why a definition is necessary. Without a definition, there's no reference.

The dictionary definitions above provide an objective basis, a reference, for deciding if something is just or unjust.
EB

4. Was supper good?

Anna: most items were delicious, but a couple items sucked, and since the good outweighed the bad, supper was good.
Bob: most items were delicious, but a couple items sucked, and since not all items were delicious, supper was bad.
Cathy: most items were delicious, but a couple items sucked, and since at least one item was good, supper was good.

The justice system is not perfect, just like supper, yet like supper, whether it’s considered just might just hinge on the basis for their consideration.

I think we can treat this is an objective issue. But, you’re a Frenchman and I don’t know if you’re more like Anna, Bob, or Cathy. I suspect Bob whereas I’m more like Anna.

5. Originally Posted by Speakpigeon

These are the definitions I posted from three dictionaries:
just
1. Honorable and fair in one's dealings and actions: a just ruler. See Synonyms at fair.
1. a. fair or impartial in action or judgement
1. guided by reason, justice, and fairness.
There's no reference to a person's subjective values.
They all look straightforwardly subjective to me.

The dictionary definitions above provide an objective basis,
EB
I guess it depends on your definition of 'objective'.

Here's mine:

Originally Posted by Dictionary.com
5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased:

6. Originally Posted by The AntiChris
They all look straightforwardly subjective to me.
Tell the guys who wrote the definitions. They'll all have a good laugh.

Originally Posted by The AntiChris
The dictionary definitions above provide an objective basis,
I guess it depends on your definition of 'objective'. Here's mine:
Originally Posted by Dictionary.com
5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased:
Exactly, based on facts.

Can't you assess the justice of the laws based on facts.
EB

7. Originally Posted by fast
Was supper good?

Anna: most items were delicious, but a couple items sucked, and since the good outweighed the bad, supper was good.
Bob: most items were delicious, but a couple items sucked, and since not all items were delicious, supper was bad.
Cathy: most items were delicious, but a couple items sucked, and since at least one item was good, supper was good.

The justice system is not perfect, just like supper, yet like supper, whether it’s considered just might just hinge on the basis for their consideration.

I think we can treat this is an objective issue. But, you’re a Frenchman and I don’t know if you’re more like Anna, Bob, or Cathy. I suspect Bob whereas I’m more like Anna.
The applicable definition of law here is this one:
Law
2.a. The body of rules and principles governing the affairs of a community and enforced by a political authority; a legal system: international law.
As defined here, I would expect the law to be just in most democratic countries. Yep. But that's irrelevant. The question is whether it is true that it is either true or false that the law is just. So, maybe I'm wrong and that the law is not just but, either way, it's still true or false that the law is just.
EB

8. Originally Posted by Speakpigeon
Originally Posted by fast
Was supper good?

Anna: most items were delicious, but a couple items sucked, and since the good outweighed the bad, supper was good.
Bob: most items were delicious, but a couple items sucked, and since not all items were delicious, supper was bad.
Cathy: most items were delicious, but a couple items sucked, and since at least one item was good, supper was good.

The justice system is not perfect, just like supper, yet like supper, whether it’s considered just might just hinge on the basis for their consideration.

I think we can treat this is an objective issue. But, you’re a Frenchman and I don’t know if you’re more like Anna, Bob, or Cathy. I suspect Bob whereas I’m more like Anna.
The applicable definition of law here is this one:
Law
2.a. The body of rules and principles governing the affairs of a community and enforced by a political authority; a legal system: international law.
As defined here, I would expect the law to be just in most democratic countries. Yep. But that's irrelevant. The question is whether it is true that it is either true or false that the law is just. So, maybe I'm wrong and that the law is not just but, either way, it's still true or false that the law is just.
EB
If one says yes and another says no (and both speak in the same sense), it would seem to me, yes, it’s as black and white as that, rendering one correct and one incorrect; however, that’s at first glance. When two speakers, even when speaking in the same sense, look at the same data yet weigh the pleathers of elements differently, the idea of subjectivity rears it’s ugly head, giving rise to the notion that no, things are not as black and white as they seem. At third glance, I come full circle and once again side with the idea that objectively speaking, a set of collective laws are either just or unjust despite the varied weighting’s. For instance, a person that improperly weighs an element doesn’t alter the objective weight expected by a proper assessment. At forth glance, well, I haven’t done that yet.

9. Originally Posted by Speakpigeon

Tell the guys who wrote the definitions. They'll all have a good laugh.
They all reference value judgements. Value judgements are subjective.

Originally Posted by Speakpigeon
Can't you assess the justice of the laws based on facts.
EB
"reason, justice, and fairness" are all based on opinion. They're opinions (value judgements) about facts but they're still opinions.

10. Originally Posted by The AntiChris
Originally Posted by Speakpigeon

Tell the guys who wrote the definitions. They'll all have a good laugh.
They all reference value judgements. Value judgements are subjective.

Originally Posted by Speakpigeon
Can't you assess the justice of the laws based on facts.
EB
"reason, justice, and fairness" are all based on opinion. They're opinions (value judgements) about facts but they're still opinions.
You are asserting this without providing any justification.

Seems like your subjective opinion to me.
EB

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•