Hello Joker:
— And what is the background of authority?
O- The piece of autobiography you wrote.
— Not all exchanges are fair or mutual.
O- Does not matter. Ideally they are meant to be. Of course they are not and this leads to the creation of means to order= State or minimal states breed if for no other reason than protection from swindlers.
— Competition breeds inequality and violence is a result.
O- Again, this does not affect the premises I present or the logical consequences they demand. It is implied within the argument.
— I don’t see any reason to support narrow conceptualized forms of justice.
O- Hey, YOU asked me. It isn’t “support”…you can make an argument for the side you oppose…that does not mean you agree with it but it could mean that you are fair and objective. Without making a charitable case for the opposite view, it is not evident within your argument that their argument is indeed “narrow” or whether your view is.
— Our imagination nonetheless isolates us from the rest of nature.
O- What do you understand as our “imagination”?
— Even if you go for the naturalistic fallacy approach in that all things are natural and therefore are necessary
O- That is not what I am doing. I did not say that the state is “necessary” because it is “natural”. But you have to understand it’s presense from within nature because our nature is a part of nature, not something alien to nature.
— that would mean everything on the polar opposite of justice is natural too where judgement would not be necessary at all.
O- What is “polar opposite of justice”? The road to hell is paved with good intentions…People like to think that what they do is justified…therefore there is no actual polar opposite to justice other than in the eye of the beholder…judgement is necessary in either case because it is natural to man to judge… we disagree on our judgements about a certain course of action, but that does not mean that one is rational the other irrational or one natural and the other unnatural.
— If man is a predatory animal we must then conclude his predatory actions against other members of his own species is just as natural and if that is the case why should we have justice or judgement against such natural inclinations at all in the first place if everything is so seemingly natural?
O- Man is a wolf to other men because at some level (from his subjective immagination) they are NOT his “fellow” men. Man eats his enemies, not his so-considered “friends”. “His own” he leaves in peace, or even helps along as he would help himself, but “his own” is sharpened by the contrast provided by the “stranger” or the “not mine”. His predation on these is very natural and very much justified by some form of reasoning…man will attack with “noble” or “justified” motives. Something demarcates between himself or group and the other man or group, in his/their mind.
All this is natural. Not all of this is necessarly “just”. Justice is a judgment about an ideal of fairness shared by a majority.
There is extra-group conflict and intra-group conflict. Extra-group conflict is ususally expressed by war between civil societies. Intra-group conflict is expressed by legal litigations (done without irrational violence in a court of law. The Court’s judgment is what amounts to “measured” violence.) between memeber of a common civil society: neighbors…ideally “friends”. The framers of Laws take as a given conflict of interest but also imply a commonality of interests. “Interests” are diverse and conflict with one another, but when this happens reason interferes to present a hiearchy of interests. Let me give an example.
You have a King of a realm, who has many subjects and wonderful lands, but there are enemies outside of the realm but also within the realm. There is a group of nobles who want what he has. They want his crown. If he could, he would get them killed, but he needs their help to protect his realm from outside forces, so he tolerates their possibly subversive existence because it is bad to have them but worse not to have them. These kinds of binds are the origin of tacit agreements between those who might otherwise agree on nothing about what they can and cannot do.
— Which makes more room for a dozen illusions, delusions,ignorances, and hallucinations of ourselves or others in the universe.
O- Exactly. “Humanity” is nothing but a “delusion”…but you put a negative spin on it which I don’t because we live by “faith”, as the saying goes, not by sight. Can you really say what “reality” is? Is not the idea of a “self” but an illusion? We are finite and fallible beings, so what did you expect from us but illusions, delusions, ignorance and hallucinations? This includes you of course.
— Which makes more room for folly, hubris, and self destruction.
O- But also for ideas of “Justice”, “Nation” and “We” or even “Them”.
— Explain.
O- Some say, and I agree, that the clumsiest attempts at a form of justice is the principle of the Golden Rule. “Do unto others…” or “An eye for an eye”. This is the idea of fair exchange which is impossible without some understanding of proportion.
— If nothing is absolute what is common to the species I can destroy.
O- What is “common” need not be “absolute” at the same time. “Commonly” men are between 5’5" and 6’5", let’s just say, but not “absolutely” so because there will be some men who are shorter or taller than what is the “common” height.
— What I go through is real so how can it be distorted?
O- Real as it is it is not common. Just because you are 4’3" instead of 6’3" does not make your height the common height for the species.
— When I describe the hypocrisy and failure of morality or even justice how can it be distorted when I observe such things realistically through my own life along with other people?
O- Because of the hubris involved in thinking that your experiences sets the nrom, that your life is the exemplary life, that just because something has not worked for you it cannot work at all. You just lack perspective that is all I am saying. You cannot or will not, step outside your life (which I call a form of vanity) to take stock of things more objectively.
— Interesting considering that in my eyes public justice only enhances selfish retribution institutionally.
O- Not at all because selfishly, I would not stop in my vendetta until my selfish wishes were met while in a court of law my vendetta must stop at the Court’s judgment. If they say that the man I accuse of a crime is innocent, I cannot pursue my vendetta. If they find him guilty, they might condemn him to a lesser penalty than the one I selfishly wanted, so there is no homogenity between the institution and my selfishness.
— Which is interpreted through bias of course.
O- Of course, but not through my bias. The jury is a jury of peers, not the jury of the victims of the crime.
— Which leans more towards those with power
O- No. Some with power are made to pay the weak individual.
— or towards the super identity that society imposes on all individuals.
O- No again, or not always. Judgements are passed against the idea of society, as when the govt is made to pay. It isn’t the governor that has to pay from his pocket but the cofers of state which means what everybody pays.
— The cosmos is sporadic with balance being a fleeting dream of man that as of yet has been unattainable and most likely will always be so.
O- It is not not the actuality but the potentiality that drives us.
— Ideally perhaps but in actuality it isn’t so balanced.
O- The standard used to rule on this unbalance is the assertion of an ideal of balance. You cannot critique justice without believing in justice. You see that right now the scales are not balanced because you have the idea of what a set of balanced scales would be like.
— Equality might be a constructed fantasy that people allude to whole societies but in actuality there is no equality beyond the over abundance of inequality.
O- No one has said that society is actually equal. An ideal might be a fantasy but we feed off of it. We live better by it. And we cannot help it either. Civil society is an illusion, a powerful one, in which man recognizes a familiarity to another man. Whether this man is in fact his “friend” or “ally” he cannot actually know, because he cannot read minds, but he treats that other man as his friend and ally, as his equal in a civil society. The equality of a society is that “me” becomes “us”.
— Often what is considered ideal never at all realistically pertains to existence.
O- That is correct, but again we are fallible beings who are predisposed by our nature to project order, real or mere fantasy, into the chaos of random individual events. Society is such a projection of the “I” or ego, into a former stranger. It is no accident that the earliest society was blood affiliated because it required less projection as the familiarity was build through a shared upbringing.
— Through bias of course.
O- Though not the selfish bias. It hopes, through the used of objective jurors, to eliminate the bias and render an objectively measured and deserved punishment. The criminal then can pay his debt to society…oh I should not have to mention that a criminal offends the whole by offending a part and that is why a whole takes up the defense of a part and represents itself, including the victim who suffered the injury, by the jury process.
— I thought you said everything was natural. Why does this action of a man warrant attention or judgement?
O- Did I say that everything is just so long as it is natural? It is natural to feel rage and anger. But what you do is what matters. Is it fair for that man to kill another man because he was dating his stranged wife? Oh it is natural to kill, but it is also natural not to kill, is it not? To restrain one’s anger and calculate that it is not in my best interest to simply followed the most natural of my qualities? Because we have been naturally endowed with passions which lead us to kill, but also, and through nature, endowed with reason, which may oppose, and overcome the passions when we choose not to kill. Justice is the affirmation of our reason as our highest gift, our best self, but justice also recognizes the conflict between our lowest and our highest gifts of nature and concedes that in some cases our passions win and in others our reason should have won. Law is ideally about reason and calculation; about taking the merits of the whole situation for and against and determining a measured course of action. Naturally we don’t always do this but also naturally we sometimes do.
In the eyes of Justice, the father was owed 20 years of the killers life but not his very life.
— Why should a man owe 20 years of his life to the state for murder?
O- Because he killed a man when he had no necessity to do so.
— There are plenty of marine vetrans who kill in war all the time.
O- A marine will not be tried for murder because he necessarly kills an enemy of his state, but he will or ought to be, tried for the unnecessary murder of unarmed civilians.
— There are plenty of police men who kill deviants when they refuse to give up their freedoms.
O- Give me an example.
— Whether the retribution is carried out by the father, the state or the court it is selfish retribution.
O- You make no distinction, but the father did not get what he wanted so how can it be the exact same?
— Whether retribution is carried out by a individual, collective or a society it is still nonetheless selfish retribution.
O- Again, if it is the same then the state court and the victim should agree on what to do with the court being just a means to the victims ends, which in this case was the same as the killer’s death. The court failed to served as the tool for the father’s vendetta or selfish retribution by giving the killer 20 years rather than the death penalty which thus puts in question whether the courts can carry out effectively my selfish idea of retribution.
— Class stratifications litigated by corporations, institutions and governments which then creates classism or underclasses.
O- You call this an example? Give me names and descriptions of the case.
— So if I sue the government hard enough I can end world poverty? Give me a break…
O- If this what it is all about? World poverty!!! How did the US become responsible for the entire world and it’s ailments? Is the US the whole cause of all poverty in the world? Now, YOU GIVE ME A FREAKING BREAK!!! Now, if you are an american citizen, and you’re poor, not because you are not trying but because the goverment has opposed your attempts to achieve success then I say to sue.
— That’s the catch isn’t it? Bias interpretation of the court…
O- Are you claiming to be without your own bias, Joker? All have our biases, our individual ideas and that is why you have laws which try to give all of us an objective sort of bias. The courts present nothing but another bias but it is a bias applicable to all comers unlike your bias which is applicable to all but yourself=selfishness.
— If society as a whole doesn’t owe me anything where I’m not benefitting from anything why should I care about society?
O- You may not know it, but just by living in a society you benefit from that society in some form and some way. If indeed I am wrong and you are right in that the society benefits you in no way shape or form then I say “What’s keeping you here?” Is your selfishness somehow defective? Is america the only place where you can find your best life?!!! Leave! Go to Europe, go to Canada, go somewhere and pursue your best life, but take responsibility for your life and don’t blame everybody but yourself for the shitty life you maybe living.
!
