Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Ultimate Justice vs. Real Justice

Rate this topic


Styles2112
 Share

Recommended Posts

As one can imagine, I'm engrossed in a theological debate with a chaplain on a military forum. I've held my own so far (as, obviously, he doesn't have any NEW arguments for god), as he's trying to establish both a probability (propensity?) for god and also a need (one to correlate the other). Anyhoo, among his arguments for a 'need' for god is an Ultimate Justice, since he views our current justice model to be irreplacably flawed. His main example throughout ALL the debates has been Hitler and his crimes (I tried to explain to him Godwin's Law, but he's just not getting it). His view is such that because Hitler killed himself prior to us being able to do anything to him, that justice is not served (thus a god is needed to ressurect him and torture him eternally... :) ). His view states, that since death occurs to us all, it is not a punishment, nor justice. However, I'm having a hard time rebutting this particular argument.

I've tried establishing:

-It's not that you die, it's how you die (i.e. a happiness angle)

- Justice is only measured through the victims (i.e. unless he is a direct/indirect victim of Hitler, why does HE need justice from it)

- The fact that his name and face and history is stated to make him the most evil man to have walked the earth.

These are, clearly, weak arguments and I'm not sure how to attack this particular angle. If anyone has any suggestions, insights, I'd be very grateful. He's fairly arrogant against the atheists he attacks (attaching Moral Relativity bombs at us every chance he gets).

Anyways, Thanks for the help.

(Also, if this happens to be in the wrong section, or has already been answered recently, please feel free to move or merge it, but I didn't see anything, and I thought this pertained to ethics.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can understand how someone could point to a bad guy, claim they went unpunished, and use that to make the case for predation. However, it's not clear how he is relating this to the case for God. Even if one were to grant his (incorrect) premise that Hitler got away with injustice, and that it would be nice if some super-powerful God would send him to hell, how does he use that to claim that God exists? In other words, how does he go from "I wish God and Hell existed" to "God and Hell exist"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, if you put a link in, we could better see what this dude is arguing, and thus be better able to assist.

-It's not that you die, it's how you die (i.e. a happiness angle)
Totally wrong. Who cares how you die? What really counts is how you live. Don't buy into the assumptions of the death-worshippers. Life matters, work to live, not to die pleasantly. Start over. What does a life-based ethic tell you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can understand how someone could point to a bad guy, claim they went unpunished, and use that to make the case for predation. However, it's not clear how he is relating this to the case for God. Even if one were to grant his (incorrect) premise that Hitler got away with injustice, and that it would be nice if some super-powerful God would send him to hell, how does he use that to claim that God exists? In other words, how does he go from "I wish God and Hell existed" to "God and Hell exist"?

Well, he's playing tricks by saying god 'may or may not exist' (though, he clearly believes it does). What he's trying to do is establish a NEED for a god/Ultimate Justice. What we're trying to do (there are several atheists arguing with him) is establish two things; 1. the Justice he advocates is as flawed as the earthly one 2. That there is no NEED for a god (while I find much of it obvious, I have a MUCH harder time putting into words.

He like to use intentional miscommunication (or wordsmithing) to connect ideas. Such as, accusing atheists of not being open to ideas via his "We should be open to all ideas and believe in the things that provide sufficient evidence." However, in that case, I've been trying to establish that you don't base one's philosophy/life on things that may or may not exist, but purely on the things that DO exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, if you put a link in, we could better see what this dude is arguing, and thus be better able to assist.

I can't link you to the argument, as it's an army forum (meaning only army personell, or AKO users can access it). His personal website (which lists his beliefs as a 'truthseeker') is www.truthseekersfellowship.com

Totally wrong. Who cares how you die? What really counts is how you live. Don't buy into the assumptions of the death-worshippers. Life matters, work to live, not to die pleasantly. Start over. What does a life-based ethic tell you?

Well, right. But what about in terms of justice for murder? I mean, I understand the point about living, but I'm not sure how that addresses the subject of justice (especially in terms of injustice. i.e. when someone dies before justice can be brought to them). Or is the issue that I'm trying to win the argument on his playing field?

Here is a poor segment of the argument (which has dissolved a bit into ad hominems from both sides) I bolded his statements for clarification.

""What are you going to get out of Hitler being viciously murdered millions of times?" Justice"

What justice? How would you know? Have you been personally tormented by Hitler that YOU (Grover Hughes) NEED justice? Because you feel a need to know that those YOU consider bad people (like us atheists) will recieve eternal torture? That makes YOU FEEL GOOD? And you don't think that's sick, twisted and EVIL?

""Is that, honestly, going to be much consolation to the Jews who are already dead and to their families?" As opposed to what? Is the fact that "Hitler's dead and can't commit those attrocities anymore" any consolation?"

That's EXACTLY the point. You're not doing anything more for them. To put a dead man through further torture is pointless, and certainly lacking in your "all-loving" dept. Maybe you're just starting to show your true colors, Grover, but the way you present this stuff is scary.

"Why is my PR unjust? The key is "true repentance"; God cannot be mocked; a person reaps what he sows. One cannot pretend to repent. No empty bottle--if you repent--and it is free."

Which is bogus, to us. You throw all this eternal torture stuff, but it can all be changed, just by saying the magic words. That's not Justice, Grover, and you know it. Now, those mass murderers are all sipping wine with god, while many of their victims lay in eternal torture in hell (for either not believing in god, or believing in the 'wrong' god). But, hey, this is your Justice and it's JUST.

"You've NOT already established flaws in my "PR, EL &UJ."; you arbitrarily choose to ignore the flaws in your own, beginning with the statement "IT DOESN'T EVEN EXIST", which is NOT a proven fact, thus rendering the point relevant."

I haven't ignored anything. I recognize certain flaws in our justice, and we continually work to towards real world solutions for those issues. We work with the best we have at the moment. Since YOUR ultimate justice is not proven to exist (and there's no evidence to the such) it is functionally non-existant, and therefor useless. You said yourself, it renders it moot. Making the only thing we HAVE to work with our current justice system.

Also, thank you for taking the time to help me address this. I appreciate it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what about in terms of justice for murder? I mean, I understand the point about living, but I'm not sure how that addresses the subject of justice (especially in terms of injustice. i.e. when someone dies before justice can be brought to them). Or is the issue that I'm trying to win the argument on his playing field?
Why would anyone care about justice? The Xers view of justice is thanato-centric; I'm suggesting that you look at the very question of justice not as some divine retribution thing, but as having a relationship to life. Justice is a virtue because it harmonizes reality and man's ultimate goal -- to exist. Justice is part of what makes it possible for man to exist, qua man. You have to start with the fundamental fact, that a man cannot exist denying his nature -- he is a man. Being a man implies something about how you exist -- it means that you are not an animal, it means that you have a mind and are capable of reason and acting in a civilized way. If and when a homo sapiens behaves like sus scrofa or some other animal, then that behavior calls for "equality", that is, recognition of reality, and cause-and-effect relations. The good should be rewarded with good; the bad should be likewise rewarded. That is what justice means: receiving that which you have earned, be it good or bad.

Justice is about the living, and Hitler is dead. Since he (presumably) killed himself, issues of justive are kind of moot -- I'd say that he simply realized, finally what the consequence of his actions wold be. Any further discussion of Hitler is pointless, IMO. Focus, instead, on the consequences of the concept "justice" for the actions of the living. The ludicrous idea of punish by god is not worth your attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IWell, right. But what about in terms of justice for murder? I mean, I understand the point about living, but I'm not sure how that addresses the subject of justice (especially in terms of injustice. i.e. when someone dies before justice can be brought to them). Or is the issue that I'm trying to win the argument on his playing field?

You're accepting his definition of what justice is. Justice isn't something inflicted on you by other men, it is a fact of reality and is "inflicted" upon you by reality. Injustice is, actually, the construct of men because it is possible (although not long-term) for a man to stand between you and justice and take the damage or benefit that you would normally, naturally accrue. Justice doesn't require the existence of god . . . injustice requires the existence of other men.

"Justice" as men practice it (legal justice, I mean) is an attempt to rectify man-made injustice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...