[Winstonm]

Jimmy,

I appreciate that you attempted an answer.

As to Mike's question, he makes an assumption by the question that man is either black or white, good or bad.

I made the simple case that man is man; gray; imperfect; fallible.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Aug 30 2007, 03:30 AM, said:

How do families get Justice for Rawanda or Dafur? For Stalin or Mao?
Where do Native Americans go for justice against invading Europeans?

I just wonder how families get Justice in a world without a Just God and a broken legal system? Not all poor immoral behavior(however you define it ) that crys out for Justice can be solved in the legal or civil courts.

Someone killed Robert Blake's wife, etc........

To say society meets out even a fraction of the Justice that immoral behavior calls for seems extreme at the least. OTOH perhaps Justice for your family just has not been an issue for some people.

Some of us recognize that this is an imperfect world, but strive to make the best of things none-the-less. ***** happens. So be it.

As for this concept of requiring "Justice for your family"....

If you're living here in the US, you don't get to extract "justice" for perceived wrong doings (at least not in any meaningful way). That power is reserved for the State. If you do resort to vigilantism, you're breaking the law and should be punished.

I agree that the legal system is far from perfect, however, I thing that we are better off as a society relying on this than any alternative that I've seen.

Perhaps you require the fiction that some all powerful being will even the score in some future life. If you take comfort in this fine. However, I find the whole notion completely incomprehensible.

[Codo]

Winstonm, on Aug 30 2007, 10:08 AM, said:

Jimmy,

I appreciate that you attempted an answer.

As to Mike's question, he makes an assumption by the question that man is either black or white, good or bad.

I made the simple case that man is man; gray; imperfect; fallible.

You should become a protestrant christian, because this is exactly what is said in the bible: We are gray. We all are gray. There is good and bad in everyone.

For the guys who don´t believe this: Read the bible and show me one man in that book who is perfect and without a sin. Even the "real heroes" like Moses and David had been described with some major faults. There is a reason for this.

[Codo]

Winstonm, on Aug 30 2007, 10:03 AM, said:

Quote

I just wonder how families get Justice?

I don't understand why anyone would want justice - it smacks of revenge.

I don't understand why anyone would think justice was some kind of right, either.

This concept of judgment to me is simply a method for the downtrodden over history to facilitate hope - a hope that someday the great avenger will come down and punish all the schoolyard bullies who pushed them around. Very much in keeping with the "opiate of the masses" concept.

So you don´t want justice? You don´t want the school bullies to have kicked sand in their face?
I doubt that this is human. I think it is very human to try to reach the best thing for themself and if they cannot get it to reach at least justice.

So yes one part of religion is to be opium for the people. But what is wrong with this? If your life is poor, but you believe that you will be rewarded in the future, you gain hopes and confidence. This must be good, not bad.

You may argue whether religion was invented for these people or whether religion was just there. But you cannot dispute the fact that religion helped and helps many people in difficult situations. (It won´t help Peter or you, but there are people there who had this experience, you cannot disagree on this point).

[helene_t]

Codo, on Aug 30 2007, 08:43 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Aug 30 2007, 10:03 AM, said:

I don't understand why anyone would want justice - it smacks of revenge.

I don't understand why anyone would think justice was some kind of right, either.

So you don´t want justice? You don´t want the school bullies to have kicked sand in their face?
I doubt that this is human. I think it is very human to try to reach the best thing for themself and if they cannot get it to reach at least justice.

Yes it's human to seek revenge, and probably that's why the Abrahamic religions have this concept of "justice" (which, to me, is an euphemism for revenge). After all, religion is human as well.

I cannot speak for Winston but personally I don't deny the revenge instinct by myself, nor do I deny that it can be practical. Locking up a criminal to prevent him from committing again is not revenge, but publicly punishing criminals in order to motivate other people not to commit crime, is revenge. I'm not necessarily against it.

But those are practical considerations. Our revenge instinct evolved because of its practical value. Religion (at least the Abrahamic ones) made the mistake of calling revenge "justice" which implies that it's an end in itself, while in fact it is a mean to an end. The distinction is of practical use to people who live in a modern society in which revenge has partly been delegated to government. Citizens in a modern society should recognize that their revenge instinct is something that evolved during a history with weak, non-existent or non-accountable governments, and now is time to learn to forgive.

To err is human, to punish is divine, to forgive is modern.

[Winstonm]

Quote

So you don´t want justice? You don´t want the school bullies to have kicked sand in their face?

No, I really don't. I outgrew the need for this type revenge. Don't get me wrong. I believe in a certain amount of security from attack, etc., but that is different than a thirst for retribution.

Quote

I doubt that this is human. I think it is very human to try to reach the best thing for themself and if they cannot get it to reach at least justice.

I have seen families of victims also argue for forgiveness of the attacker.

Quote

So yes one part of religion is to be opium for the people. But what is wrong with this? If your life is poor, but you believe that you will be rewarded in the future, you gain hopes and confidence. This must be good, not bad.

I did not say it was bad, and for some it may be necessary. It is simply interesting to me that I can see in the observations about justice the reason for the concept of opium for the masses. Not good or bad - just interesting.

Quote

You may argue whether religion was invented for these people or whether religion was just there. But you cannot dispute the fact that religion helped and helps many people in difficult situations. (It won´t help Peter or you, but there are people there who had this experience, you cannot disagree on this point).

I have no dispute with an organized religion until that religion loses its ability to be self-critical and begins to try to influence others to adopt their thinking and beliefs.

No doubt religion has helped some. There is also no doubt that guilt-driven religions have caused devastating psychological harm, as well.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Yes it's human to seek revenge, and probably that's why the Abrahamic religions have this concept of "justice" (which, to me, is an euphemism for revenge). After all, religion is human as well.

Helene:
I'm not so sure that revenge isn't a misplacement of shame. Shame is brought about by a low self-image; revenge restores that image; if the self image is sound, there is no need for this restorative process.

[helene_t]

Winstonm, on Aug 30 2007, 02:28 PM, said:

Helene:
I'm not so sure that revenge isn't a misplacement of shame. Shame is brought about by a low self-image; revenge restores that image; if the self image is sound, there is no need for this restorative process.

This could be the case sometimes. But people seek revenge for other acts than attacks on their self-image. Besides, how would it be rational to attack someone who has lowered your self-esteem? Publicly smashing someone who has deliberately done something against your interests serves an obvious purpose: you build a reputation as someone who seeks revenge, hence other people will be reluctant to act against your interests.

[Codo]

helene_t, on Aug 30 2007, 04:42 PM, said:

Yes it's human to seek revenge, and probably that's why the Abrahamic religions have this concept of "justice" (which, to me, is an euphemism for revenge). After all, religion is human as well.

I cannot speak for Winston but personally I don't deny the revenge instinct by myself, nor do I deny that it can be practical. Locking up a criminal to prevent him from committing again is not revenge, but publicly punishing criminals in order to motivate other people not to commit crime, is revenge. I'm not necessarily against it.

But those are practical considerations. Our revenge instinct evolved because of its practical value. Religion (at least the Abrahamic ones) made the mistake of calling revenge "justice" which implies that it's an end in itself, while in fact it is a mean to an end. The distinction is of practical use to people who live in a modern society in which revenge has partly been delegated to government. Citizens in a modern society should recognize that their revenge instinct is something that evolved during a history with weak, non-existent or non-accountable governments, and now is time to learn to forgive.

To err is human, to punish is divine, to forgive is modern.

Hi Helene,

not all abrahamic religions search revenge. You are clearly wrong with this.

In the old part of the bible it says: Eye for eye, tooth for tooth. This part is correctly interpreted as: You should punish an attack as strong as he attacked you.
This is revenge or "justice".

In the new part, Jesus said: "If someone strikes you on the left cheek, give him him the right cheek too."
This is the "end" of the revenge thoughts in the bible. You should not commit revenge. This is not justice. So, if you take his words serious (and christians should do so) then revenge and the old thought about the eye and the tooth are simply wrong. You should forgive. And your god will forgive you your mistakes too. So, nice to hear that this is modern.

And at least the protestant church here does not support any ideas of revenge.
Still it is human to have these thoughts. It may be an human error, but it is quite normal to have these thoughts.

[pbleighton]

Quote

In the new part, Jesus said: "If someone strikes you on the left cheek, give him him the right cheek too."
This is the "end" of the revenge thoughts in the bible. You should not commit revenge. This is not justice. So, if you take his words serious (and christians should do so) then revenge and the old thought about the eye and the tooth are simply wrong. You should forgive. And your god will forgive you your mistakes too. So, nice to hear that this is modern.

I'm aware of this, being raised Christian.

It is ironic that, at least in the U.S., the politicians who are the *most Christian*, by their definition, reach out sucessfully to similarly minded voters by preaching the politics of revenge.

Peter

[luke warm]

i don't know why so many people seem to think the words justice and revenge are synonymous, they're anything but...

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on Aug 30 2007, 05:58 PM, said:

i don't know why so many people seem to think the words justice and revenge are synonymous, they're anything but...

What is the motivator of justice? What univeral need is filled by justice? What precondition mandates justice be served? What is justice if not retribution?

[mike777]

http://www.newadvent...then/08571c.htm
Here is one definition.


retribution is an inaccurate synonym for justice.

My Thesaurus lists:
fairness, equity, impartiality, vindication, decorous, legitimate, worthy of...etc.......

[mikeh]

I do not conflate 'justice' with 'revenge'.

When I studied criminal law, in a 'western' tradition, we were taught that the purpose of state sanctioned punishment was manifold; including as objects:

1) personal deterrence (the death penalty being an extreme example of this)

2) general deterrence: others will be warned off by the prospect of being similarly punished

3) rehabilitation (the death penalty seems to be inconsistent with this): access to treatment, jobskills training, counselling etc to enable a criminal to acquire more useful skills/lessen alcohol or drug dependency, etc

4) retribution: the need to afford law-abiding members of society some assurance that any wrongdoing will be punished, and innocent victims avenged.

I see no basis for bringing any god into this situation. I do not know enough anthropology to assert, or dispute, that most, if not all, societies tolerate or promote or inculcate the desire for revenge. Certainly the Judeo-Christian world does, as clearly does the Islamic world: note I am NOT saying that revenge is, or is not, part of the religious dogma, but it is undeniable that many within these societies do value vengance as a legitimate goal when one or one's family/tribe/soccer team is injured. And I know from personal exposure that revenge is a valid emotion in the Sikh and Hindu communities, whether officially tolerated or not.

We are told, I believe, that at least some versions of the Biblical God is a vengeful God.... not something that makes me think any better of him, btw. I would think that any God would/should be above that kind of primal animalistic reaction.

And, for me, I would be more than happy to see the retribution aspect of punishment ignored. In saying that, I recognize that I would likely want, in the short term, to kill anyone who murdered my wife, as an example, but that doesn't mean that I THINK (as opposed to then feeling) that this is a good thing.

Unfortunately, there is little evidence that any of the other supposed purposes of the justice system are actually accomplished in most cases.

Part of this is the fact that many criminals are either brain-injured (fetal alcohol syndrome is a major element in our prison populations, not to mention borderline mental retardation.. the US is particularly efficient at executing these types of criminals), or addicted to various substances that inhibit any rational cause-and-effect deterrence.

Part of it is that some proportion of the criminal population is comprised of sociopaths, who, by definition, do not recognize (indeed, may not understand) societal norms

Part of it is lack of resources: instead of offering meaningful treatment or rehab, we all too often simply lock people up in a world of violence, criminal heirarchies and so on, where what is learned is anti-social behaviour, increased drug dependency and the need to affiliate with gangs in order to survive.

Part of it that the best deterrence, according to at least some studies I read about (I didn't read the studies themselves) is relative certainty of punishment, not degree or nature of punishment. Most criminals are not really strong on impulse control, and/or engage in crimes where the conviction rate is abysmally low. Heck, report a break and enter and see what the police tell you are the chances of recovery of the stolen items or conviction of the criminal: close to zero in each case. If I could feed my drug habit by stealing, and I knew that the chances of being caught were less than 1%, I don't think the fact that my jail time would be 6 months or 6 years is likely to influence me when my entire skin is itching, my mouth is dry, and I am having shooting pains due to running low. (BTW, I don't actually have a drug habit, altho I have a fondness for some single malts and I really enjoy a wide range of good reds).

So when I see the implication that we need God in order to live moral lives, or in order that we can have justice, or any of the other rationalizations.... I am forced to ask: 'why?'

I personally don't need a god for these things, and while I recognize that many individuals have real physiological/psychological deficits that make them 'need' some authority figure to keep them on the straight and narrow, I have sufficient regard for the average human that I think that the vast majority of believers would remain law-abiding, moral and just individuals if they became atheists.

And for those that need an authority figure, let it be Harvey, or Abraham Lincoln, or Winston Churchill or Lenin etc....

[mike777]

Again if you think living in a world with little Justice is not important this is just not an issue.

This is just my opinion.
If you do then where do families go with so little Justice in the world.
It just seems IMHO just as much a delusion to say this world has much Justice or living in a world with little hope ever for Justice for families is not something close to a living hell.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Aug 31 2007, 03:17 AM, said:

Again if you think living in a world with little Justice is not important this is just not an issue.

This is just my opinion.
If you do then where do families go with so little Justice in the world.
It just seems IMHO just as much a delusion to say this world has much Justice or living in a world with little hope ever for Justice for families is not something close to a living hell.

Mike:

What does religion or for that matter a church add to situation? If a local society has broken down to the extent that an organized govern can't administer a fair judicial system than I really don't think that a church is going to be able to contribute much beyond broad platitudes and the promise that the next life will be better.

I readily admit, there are some societies out there that blend the line been Church and State. For example, this happens quite often in so-called Islamic Republics. As I recall, you are one of the most vociferous critics of this type of social organization.

The sheer hypocrisy that you exhibit is amazing. Religion, morals, and justice is all fine and dandy so long as your standards are being applied. God forbid that those uppity muslims come up with their own competing system.

One of the strongest arguments against your concepts of God's law and justice is the ridiculous degree of antipathy that the Christians on this mailing list exhibit towards muslims. Mike777, Bebop Kid, and Luke Warm are probably the three most vocal Christians on this list. They are also at the forefront in preaching about the dangers posed by the Muslims and the need for a crusade.

As I noted before, doctrinally all you fundamentalists pretty much look the same. Its amazing how none of you seem to get over your petty little differences.

[pbleighton]

Quote

It just seems IMHO just as much a delusion to say this world has much Justice or living in a world with little hope ever for Justice for families is not something close to a living hell.

Let me see if I understand you. You believe in God because He will punish all of the unconvicted rapists, murderers, etc.?

Peter

[mike777]

I certainly do not advocate war or religious intolerance towards muslims or those who do not believe in a higher power. I certainly claim no moral authority over anyone, I have enough on my plate trying to improve myself.

God bless you all.

[Winstonm]

Mirian-Webster has these definitions:

Main Entry: jus·tice
Pronunciation: 'j&s-t&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French justise, from Latin justitia, from justus
1 a : the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments

Main Entry: 1re·venge
Pronunciation: ri-'venj
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): re·venged; re·veng·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French revenger, revengier, from re- + venger to avenge -- more at VENGEANCE
1 : to avenge (as oneself) usually by retaliating in kind or degree
2 : to inflict injury in return for

Main Entry: ret·ri·bu·tion
Pronunciation: "re-tr&-'byü-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English retribucioun, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin retribution-, retributio, from Latin retribuere to pay back, from re- + tribuere to pay -- more at TRIBUTE
1 : RECOMPENSE, REWARD
2 : the dispensing or receiving of reward or punishment especially in the hereafter
3 : something given or exacted in recompense; especially : PUNISHMENT

The significance (to me) is in the concept in all three of punishment of wrongs.
I would agree that retribution is more closely aligned with justice that is revenge, but there is an element of revenge in retribution, so even justice can be tainted with a degree of desire for revenge.

I am having trouble reconciling two condepts: one is the discussion of rape and murder - actions. Then there is the discussion of faith and belief - non-action.
It seems on one hand actions are judged, yet on the other hand actions are secondary to faith.

Then what justice prevails if a believer commits murder?

[mikeh]

mike777, on Aug 30 2007, 07:17 PM, said:

Again if you think living in a world with little Justice is not important this is just not an issue.

  This is just  my opinion. 

Mike, you use this expression, or one like it, many, many times.

Just who is it who has said that they think nothing or little of 'justice'?

It seems to me that what you are really saying when you write: 'if you think that (fill in your belief) is of little importance, this is not an issue', what I am now beginning to read is 'if you don't agree with me, then you're wrong but that's your problem'

Your concept of 'justice' seems to require religious faith and, in your case and that of the other fundamentalists who post here, that means a Judeo-Christian faith.

And the main problem with god-involvement is that we get to create morality crimes, rather than crimes that hurt others: see the lewd conduct conviction of that US republian senator. Convicted of, in essence, soliciting gay sex in a men's washroom. There was no victim, no crime, other than the sadness of a gay man feeling he had to be an outspoken opponent of gay rights, and to hide his own sexuality, in order to be a success in the US society. Now, i know that he still claims innocence, and maybe he is, but if he isn't, then his moral sin is his hyprocrisy, and that deserves neither state nor church punishment.

Other than that, on crimes against the person or property, I suspect that our views of what constitutes justice largely overlap, and I neither need nor want to invoke a fictional god-concept in order to recognize right from wrong.