Clarification/Follow-up by tonyrey on 08/17/08 4:05 pm:
server

Laws are based on socially accepted rules but what determines whether a law is unjust?

Clarification/Follow-up by tonyrey on 08/18/08 2:28 am:
Jim,

If the sole reason for speaking of rights as being above the current set of laws is to avoid tyranny by the majority belief in justice becomes a matter of expediency. If not why is a law considered unjust?

Clarification/Follow-up by server on 08/18/08 6:16 am:
tonyrey,

Consensus. It may vary in different countries due to difference in culture, custom and religion.

Clarification/Follow-up by Jim.McGinness on 08/18/08 9:49 am:
Tony,

I don't follow your line of reasoning. When people look at both a law and how it is applied, they may recognize the result as unjust. What we perceive as just or unjust or as fair or unfair is based on both our socialization and on study.

Here's one example: many people who were once satisfied with having a death penalty for crimes such as murder have been led to revise their opinion by the surprising number of cases where DNA evidence has been able to exonerate convicted murderers. It forces a recognition that the way our legal system operates is not necessarily the same as finding truth, even if it was the best approach we then had available.

Clarification/Follow-up by tonyrey on 08/18/08 10:22 am:
server

So you believe justice is the will of the majority?

Clarification/Follow-up by tonyrey on 08/18/08 10:36 am:
Jim
Do you mean that our perception of justice is determined by the way we have been socialized?
Murder is still regarded as a crime even though views have changed about the death penalty. Could the law against murder ever be changed?

Clarification/Follow-up by Jim.McGinness on 08/18/08 12:33 pm:
Tony,

Determined? I wouldn't have used that word. Our socialization certainly affects our perception of justice but we can, through consideration and study, come to different conclusions than our parents or our social group.

You started out talking about killing and are now talking about murder. One definition of murder is an unlawful killing. That allows for the possibility that some killings are lawful or are, at least, not murder. And would it not be a change to the law against murder if the death penalty were to be removed?

Clarification/Follow-up by server on 08/18/08 12:40 pm:
tonyrey,

Of course. Don't you? But then justice is in the hands of the judge/jury.

Clarification/Follow-up by tonyrey on 08/18/08 5:42 pm:
server,

I certainly don't believe justice is the will of the majority because that would mean might is right. Moreover the majority have been mistaken on so many issues it is highly unlikely that their views on justice are sound.

Nor are judges infallible. With juries the will of the majority again prevails...

Clarification/Follow-up by tonyrey on 08/18/08 6:12 pm:
Jim,

Consideration and study imply that there are objective, rational criteria by which justice is distinguished from injustice. Otherwise one opinion is just as good as another.

To remove the death penalty does not alter the gravity of the crime. It is motivated by awareness of the risk of executing an innocent person and aversion to killing anyone except in self-defence.

Clarification/Follow-up by Jim.McGinness on 08/18/08 10:12 pm:
Tony,

Wouldn't it be convenient if there were simple objective rational criteria that could distinguish justice from injustice? In the real world legal scholars from different backgrounds use different bases for coming to their not-always-compatible conclusions. We may assign the task of ultimately resolving differences to a Supreme Court, but it's possible for a majority of five Supreme Court justices to set aside the precedent established by an earlier Supreme Court.

Can we confidently assert that such changes reflect an ever closer approach to true justice? I'm not so sure, since a lot of politics gets involved in attempting to influence who is appointed to the Supreme Court, with a goal of overturning past decisions or establishing new lasting precedents in favor of one interpretation of justice over another.

Clarification/Follow-up by tonyrey on 08/19/08 3:07 am:
Jim,

I share your cynicism regarding politicians and lawyers but their machinations do not alter the facts. Nor does legal trickery dispose of the fundamental right to life. If there were no objective rational criteria how would we recognize corruption or the superiority of one legal system over another?

Clarification/Follow-up by server on 08/19/08 9:38 am:
tonyrey,

If you don't believe justice is the will of the majority, then you must believe it is the will of the minority, namely those powerful people who hold high positions.

Clarification/Follow-up by keenu on 08/19/08 10:53 am:
My yes was that it is the belief of the majority that there is a "right to life", something "ordained" by some "god". I believe that there is no "god" given anything.
I cannot validate my position through scripture! I do not believe in scripture!
Religion is probably the only reason we have these certain beliefs.

Clarification/Follow-up by server on 08/19/08 1:25 pm:
We are talking about the annihilating of the physical existence of people, not their spirits.

Clarification/Follow-up by server on 08/19/08 1:25 pm:
We are talking about the annihilating of the physical existence of people, not their spirits.

Clarification/Follow-up by tonyrey on 08/20/08 2:30 am:
server

It is a false dilemma to ascribe justice either to the will of the majority or the will of the minority. Neither truth nor justice depends on human beliefs or decisions. Facts and rights exist whether or not anyone recognizes them! A unanimous vote that gravitation is an illusion would not alter its reality any more than a unanimous vote would take away the right to life...

Clarification/Follow-up by server on 08/20/08 9:56 am:
tonyrey,

Unfortunately, nobody would know the absolute justice if it does exist. We live in an imperfect world, and we need institutions to instantiate ideals of justice. Otherwise, the world would be in chaos.

Clarification/Follow-up by keenu on 08/20/08 5:06 pm:
If everyone took responsibility for their own actions there would be no need for "justice" and chaos would not necessarily reign. I don't believe in chaos either.

Clarification/Follow-up by tonyrey on 08/20/08 5:31 pm:
server

I agree that imperfect beings cannot know absolute justice and that we need institutions to instantiate ideals of justice but we can recognize, condemn and do our best to prevent or rectify flagrant injustice. As you pointed out, doing harm to others should be penalized. It is not a matter of opinion that some one is seriously harmed by being tortured or murdered but an incontestable fact. The reality of injustice stems from the negation of a person's intrinsic value.

Clarification/Follow-up by server on 08/21/08 5:22 am:
keenu,



Yes, but it will never happen as the world and its people are far from perfect.That's why there are crimes in every country, every race, every field, etc.

Clarification/Follow-up by server on 08/21/08 5:37 am:
tonyrey,

" but we can recognize, condemn and do our best to prevent or rectify flagrant injustice. "

Right. People do that every day especially when some serious crimes happen.

Clarification/Follow-up by keenu on 08/23/08 3:56 pm:
If people could understand that they literally create their own realities they would no longer be "victims" of "god's will".
"And the truth will set you free!"