Let's make clear what we're talking about. There IS a meaning of justice with which I have no issue: the justice that demands that people be not be treated wrongly. I.e., a "just" trial, "justice" for those who were enslaved, etc. This is what I'll call "positive justice": at it's core is the assertion that those who have been dealt pain deserve to be given pleasure. But there is also "negative justice", which is the type of justice I wish to discuss: the assertion that those who have dealt pain deserve to have pain dealt to them. Now, it could also be argued that this form of justice is positive in the sense that it gives pleasure to those who have been dealt pain to know that the person who dealt them pain suffer. This assertion has two difficulties:
- Justice implies "rightness", and it is not always true that what we want is "right". We can't be true that people's desire for pain to be caused to those who caused them pain is "right".
- Imagine we could take, say, Hitler, and, without expending any effort or money, have him taken care of at a luxury resort. However, we tell the world that he is being cruelly punished, and it is somehow absolutely impossible that anyone will ever find out the truth. Therefore, everyone gets the pleasure of knowing that he is suffering (ref. Bertrand Russel). Chances are, considering this hypothetical situation, most people's immediate reaction is that justice has not been served.
However, at its fundamentals, this type of justice is absolutely identical to revenge: A caused pain, therefore A deserves to be dealt pain. The only difference is that justice is assumed to be enacted by or in regards to some authority or principle (the Law, God, Karma, Moral Accounting, etc.). This makes it "right".
I don't see how such a sentiment can be a good thing.
Posts
12 comments:
So we have a being who has committed mass murder. With malice aforethought. There was nothing accidental involved. Mass murder was the intent from the beginning. This individual brought about the needless deaths of 270 innocent people whose only mistake was to be on that flight. This being has never, to my knowledge, admitted wrongdoing, nor even apologized. Shall we grant him rights he willfully denied others. Actually by granting him a fair trial, and life imprisonment, as opposed to summary execution, we have shown him considerably more consideration and tolerance than he has shown for other beings to date. And the recidivism rate for terrorists is rather high.
So what, exactly, shall we do with these individuals.
The Devils Advocate
I certainly FEEL like such people should be punished. I just don't see any real justification for those feelings. The question, to put it more tritely, is do two wrongs make a right?
That person should be killed, you see the Bible is a great source of morals, and it says in Genesis
"Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man” (Genesis 9:6).
This means that this person who killed these people should be sentenced to death.
The Bible also says:
"You've heard they were told, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I tell you, never set yourself against a man who wrongs you" and "Love your enemies" (don't have the citations readily available, sorry).
Well actually the verses you use are meant for the Christian believer, whereas the verses I used in Genesis pertain to the government. The government is SUPPOSED to punish man or woman that hurt another.
Jesus came back to not CHANGE scripture but to fulfill it. So his words are meant for his people to follow. I find it interesting that you study the scriptures and yet you are not a Christian. A person cannot fully rasp the true of the scriptures without having the Holy Spirit, but I like talking with you about it.
That makes sense. However, shouldn't there also be an onus on the Christian believer to try to prevent said government from punishing the one who wronged them?
Either way, this is one of my problems with religion, in that it can be used to condone causing pain, can even allow one to claim that God endorses such pain (and, conversely, it says that certain types of pleasures that harm nobody are sinful). I find this idea distasteful, although obviously if it's true my distaste has no relevence.
"A person cannot fully rasp the true of the scriptures without having the Holy Spirit, but I like talking with you about it": doesn't that bring about a "begging the question" situation, though? (By the way, same here on the last part of your statement :) .)
i can see what you mean! I lot of people have problems with religion because of this! Some Chrisians use religion to condemn and persecute others. Christianity is not supposed to be a religion, it is simply a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Well at least to me it is....
And to answer the first question, I think there are Christians that have stopped past governments from punishing a killer ( at least I like to think there were : )).
But I think it is the duty of the governement to protect its people. It shouldn't let a dangerous indivisual go free.
And what do you mean by "begging the question" I am not as smart as you lol.
But Christians are supossed to show mercy and love as Jesus did to everyone. I don't like it when peopl use CHristianity as a TOOL to punish people.
"Begging the question" is when you assume what you're seeking to prove: basically, circular argument. A classic example would be this conversation:
"I believe the Bible is the Word of God because it says so."
"Why should you believe the Bible?"
"Because it's the Word of God!"
So, in a way, in order to have the Holy Spirit, I have to believe in the Bible. And I can't understand the truth of the Bible without having the Holy Spirit. Do you see where this could turn into a circular argument?
yeah i see what u mean lol
You can accept the HOly Spirit without the Bible!
Well I can't really accept the Holy Spirit anyway since supposedly it's God's decision whether to send it to me or not.
true but if u want it he will give it to you
Post a Comment