British Expatriate Network

Moo @ Sat 03 Dec, 2005 11:48 pm Wrote:

Has anybody read John Rawls' Theory of Justice?

How can anyone have an opinion on this topic without reading this seminal work????????

what makes his justice any better than Thrasymachus, Socrates, Plato, Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, The Bible, or Stanford's philosophy department (among many others)?

There are many people who have a view on what is justice and how it relates to humans and life in general. Having to just read one person's justice doesn't give a balanced view, does it? :wink:

monster @ Sat 03 Dec, 2005 11:57 pm Wrote:

...after all, it was started by one. 8)

:roll: :lol:

Moo, just because someone wrote a book on a topic, does not make his this understanding of a topic any less than anybody else's.

I tend to read a large number of books written by various people, but the same topic. All have very different answers to the same question. Just because someone has read a book does not suddenly make him an expert on the matter, especially when it come to gray area's where there is no real correct answer.

Ben @ Fri Dec 02, 2005 5:45 pm Wrote:

Londonsquare - where did I bring religion or sin into this :???: I never have and never would force my religious views on your or anyone else!!!! What on earth made you say that I was? where have I brought my religious beliefs into this?

As far as morality and justice are concerned - one dictionary definition of justice is the 'principle of moral rightness'. In this context, is it saying that justice tries to be morally right. If so, where did religion come in to it?

All I'm suggesting is that maybe the use of the words moral and justice are being used just as incorrectly as justice and revenge.

I have totally lost you on ritual killings etc. Are you at all suggesting that I do agree with this! :???:

I'm sorry Ben, I said that our points of view were so far apart that we would have a problem communicating.

What I was trying to say was that:
I can find no basis for morality unless I accept the idea of sin.
But sin is a religious concept and I am an atheist, so morality doesn't exist for me.
Without the concept of morality, the concept of justice doesn't exist.

I believe that secular law should represent societies wishes for balancing the rights of individuals whenever they conflict with the rights of other members of society.

That is why I believe that any laws based on "morality", represent the imposition of religious beliefs. There will be many instances where the laws would be the same in both systems, but many where they would be different.

I take the position that an execution is a ritual killing, if it was performed by anyone other than government, it would be so described.

londonsquare @ Mon 05 Dec, 2005 10:09 pm Wrote:

I can find no basis for morality unless I accept the idea of sin.
But sin is a religious concept and I am an atheist, so morality doesn't exist for me.
Without the concept of morality, the concept of justice doesn't exist.

What rot!

Morality concerns right and wrong. You don't have to believe that someone or something other than yourself is judging your behaviour to believe that not all behaviours are right.

londonsquare @ Mon 05 Dec, 2005 9:09 pm Wrote:

Ben @ Fri Dec 02, 2005 5:45 pm Wrote:

Londonsquare - where did I bring religion or sin into this :???: I never have and never would force my religious views on your or anyone else!!!! What on earth made you say that I was? where have I brought my religious beliefs into this?

As far as morality and justice are concerned - one dictionary definition of justice is the 'principle of moral rightness'. In this context, is it saying that justice tries to be morally right. If so, where did religion come in to it?

All I'm suggesting is that maybe the use of the words moral and justice are being used just as incorrectly as justice and revenge.

I have totally lost you on ritual killings etc. Are you at all suggesting that I do agree with this! :???:

I'm sorry Ben, I said that our points of view were so far apart that we would have a problem communicating.

What I was trying to say was that:
I can find no basis for morality unless I accept the idea of sin.
But sin is a religious concept and I am an atheist, so morality doesn't exist for me.
Without the concept of morality, the concept of justice doesn't exist.

I believe that secular law should represent societies wishes for balancing the rights of individuals whenever they conflict with the rights of other members of society.

That is why I believe that any laws based on "morality", represent the imposition of religious beliefs. There will be many instances where the laws would be the same in both systems, but many where they would be different.

I take the position that an execution is a ritual killing, if it was performed by anyone other than government, it would be so described.

the problem with this is that our laws began with religion. the idea that there is nothing higher than humanity and life is a modern conception. for centuries people have believed in something beyond everyday existence and so laws were based on this. It's only in recent times that laws have changed and come away from religion as the foundation. And for me, I believe that the laws of our land have become more moral based. Therefore, if you took that at face value, surely morality is trying to perfect the injustices religions have placed in our justice system?

Ben

Ben

Goose3

londonsquare

monster

Ben