Siegfried von Walheim Posted June 15, 2018 Posted June 15, 2018 Issue: why should all people exert a similar or same amount of effort? What's wrong with deliberately doing just enough or deliberately going above and beyond? "Justice" as defined as of opportunity is a new one, as I always thought justice meant "equality under the law" (as in one law that applies equally to everyone). It is impossible to have total equality of opportunity just like it's impossible to have equality of outcome--unless you slash the knees and make everybody equally helpless or poor. Or, in the case of effort, force everybody to be equally lazy or exhausted.
ofd Posted June 15, 2018 Posted June 15, 2018 Quote "Creative justice is the equality of effort, which is the action of morality. I have no idea what this means. You have to elaborate to make yourself clear.
barn Posted June 15, 2018 Posted June 15, 2018 Hi @Ancient Aryan Welcome to posting on the board... What you've put forward assumed that the reader already agreed and was in possession of the 'groundwork' of your proposed ideas... For me, that's not true. To avoid speaking to imaginary contents and having a 'connected' dialogue, I think it was beneficial if you defined, provided examples & zero arguments (that which describes the standard for 'disprovability' for your argument(s) ) Here's where I'm stuck: i. e. ° What is and who gets to define "justice"? ° What is "creative" in your proposed context? (is it analogous to 'free-interpretation') ° Isn't "equality of effort" a redundant term, when it can be just as easily described with 'free-will'? ° "which is the action of morality" - Are you putting forward this as in: 'Is -> Ought' (subjective moral arbitration <- as you'd have to argue the meaning of the 'Is' first, nevertheless elect consequence(s) and if you just observed, in that case, that's basically adherence to others' chosen actions... again subjective...) {as a side note, that's why I prefer 'negatives' and open endedness, freedom to debate/choose the most preferable always.} ° What value is there in your proposed "Trinary option" over the existing ones; either what you referenced and what people currently practice? What's in it for me or others? Barnsley
barn Posted June 16, 2018 Posted June 16, 2018 4 minutes ago, Ancient Aryan said: Thank you for your responses, you have some great questions about the "Words" that I have chosen to use, they are not my main concern as yet, please look at it as my poetic license. Here is that diagram I promised, as you can see it is version #1, and the accompanying text and explanations are only in my chapter, I won't be presenting it here. I wanted to present some of my work on a forum that could at least appreciate my symbolic logic. You should be able derive most of what I am putting forward from this diagram alone, I will be adjusting any necessary parameters to complete this work and updates will be forthcoming. Regards Arto. Ah, ok. "Poetic license", sure. I'm out, but thanks for sharing. Good luck with the book sales! I read the reviews for one of your work, the "Talking to the Birds" here
Siegfried von Walheim Posted June 16, 2018 Posted June 16, 2018 How is "creative justice"--which is neither defined nor explained-- any different from "social justice"? And why would anyone want equality of outcome? I am extremely skeptical about your moral intents.
Siegfried von Walheim Posted June 19, 2018 Posted June 19, 2018 22 hours ago, Ancient Aryan said: Hi Graf , it is defined at the top left of the diagram - "Creative Justice"(symbolic term) meaning Innovation, shared utility, historic invention, where the idea of improving mans means and diminishing suffering by creating such things as the wheel, where justice is served by diminishing mankind's burden of survival. How is it just to "reduce mankind's burden of survival"? What does that even mean? Theoretically if justice meant reduction of pain, you could do that very easily through universal genocide. No man, no pain. Obviously, for sane people at least, this is not desirable because anyone who is currently alive and not attempting suicide prefers life over death because they get more than they lose. Your goals sound very Socialist as their ends are about "reducing pain" and they have a love of manipulating and twisting language as well. 22 hours ago, Ancient Aryan said: While I need to add more text, Morality here means good behavior What is good behavior? Good for who? 22 hours ago, Ancient Aryan said: and the intent is about Action of Morality(symbolic term) meaning as described by Charity, good will, free sharing, ethical code of conduct. Why are these things "good" and what is this "ethical code of conduct"? In the Middle East, it is considered ethical to stone folks who tarnish the name of the Koran. 22 hours ago, Ancient Aryan said: This whole symbolic diagram is about our Existence not our political ideology, where these come into conflict is when an ideology destroys our existence, Venezuela is a simple example. Effort here implies the means to do actual physical activity by the action of a well behaved and good intended work, to plow that field not wait for handouts(negative morality- symbolic term), a solution to the food crisis in Venezuela. The abundance of "symbolic terms" only obfuscates your own ideological and moral intents. Without any context besides the chart and what is said, there is little difference between "Social Justice" and "Creative Justice". Why not simply "Justice"? 22 hours ago, Ancient Aryan said: This one diagram is a brief of a long and lived considerations, not to be found in books or any where else, it is an interpretation and simplification of only one level of humanity based on the problems of understanding and resolving of inequality, without undue burden to those who are capable. Why is there a desire to "resolve inequality"? I don't think inequality is even a problem. All creatures are naturally unequal. And thanks to the intellectual, moral, and physical titans of yore it is us who get to live and bask in the Sun of Utopia rather than live in a swamp or desert eating only what we can catch or graft, and disposing of our wastes into ditches. 22 hours ago, Ancient Aryan said: As an artist this is like a pencil sketch of an idea that can be used to simplify reams of text, as an avid reader I understand the problems of how words can be twisted and interpreted to mean just about anything, this is why I was looking for a graphical and symbolic way of not letting well versed rhetoric hide the meaning, this is version #1, regards Arto. I, as a novelist, am extremely skeptical of artists. Given the solipsistic nature of our similar professions, a whole lot is required to justify the formation of ideology formulated by folks like us because most of us are talkers and thinkers rather than doers. Meaning we don't do much and have little experience yet we like to talk about and write about the folks that do and occasionally some of us arrogantly think our revolutionary ideals are the next great leap forward and every now and then one writer/artist out of a hundred thousand actually succeed in putting theory into practice. Some like John Locke or Milton Friedmon actually save and improve lives, others like Marx or Lenin take millions and inspire the rising of even greater evils. And what the bad ones have in common is obscure language, lack of concrete definitions, and the belief that their ideas make perfect sense so why doesn't everyone just do it already? I am not saying you have evil intents, but I am saying the gravitas of your proposal is quite huge and you have to be able to answer at least my basic questions or else you're just another sophist preaching for yet another fool's idol.
Recommended Posts