Question for Atheists: about your view of the world

[Just_me_Mike]

Originally Posted by Just_me_Mike
If justice has to do with an individual, what makes one nations agreed upon rules any better or worse then the next?

Humans must make their own justice.

How their rules most benefit all of their citizens and how their standards compare when it comes to rights, freedom and equality.

So which one is it Father Heathen? We can make our own up? Or is it we must compare the benefits to right, freedom and equality?

I would hardly call using rights, freedom and equality as a "standard" and in the same breath state human "must" make their own justice as being the same thing. :areyoucra

 

[YmirGF]

If you were asked, and you are right now, do you feel the natural world or all that you know and experience operates on a fundamental that nothing is particularly fair. In other words the world is naturally an unjust place.

Could you please comment? Thanks...

In my world view, there is no justice and life is not fair. I have no problem with that. It is helpful being aware of this however as I tend to not get lost in delusional expectations.

 

[bobhikes]

If justice has to do with an individual, what makes one nations agreed upon rules any better or worse then the next?
Do you never look at a nation and say, this one is better or worse than that one?
I suspect you don't if you really feel there is no real justice.

Your opinion is all that makes anything better than the next and I and you can have an opinion.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

I don't think it is.

I fail to see why "not universal" is somehow supposed to imply "not important" or "not real".

A mothers love is important and real, but certainly not always universal. So I never said something not universal couldn't be real and important.

However, I can show how justice in the sense of human decency is not something we can wish away or reduce with semantics (though we often do) to be something that is just "important" or "real", but in fact exists as a truth no different than any other law.

In the OP, I ask about an Atheists view of justice in the world, because I am interested in the particular arguments that they might have to suggest justice or human decency is subjective.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

In my world view, there is no justice and live is not fair. I have no problem with that. It is helpful being aware of this however as I tend to not get lost in delusional expectations.

Does this also apply to human beings, there is no true justice or human decency? Or are we different than the universe?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Your opinion is all that makes anything better than the next and I and you can have an opinion.

If it was a matter of opinion, than I would agree one sense of decency would be just as good as another. However, that is not what we experience in reality is it? Morals have progressed. Since they progress there has to be a standard by which the get "better"
Do you assert morals have not improved over time from one nation to the next? Though we often fail at maintaining them, surely you won't say morals have not progressed will you?

 

[Caladan]

If you were asked, and you are right now, do you feel the natural world or all that you know and experience operates on a fundamental that nothing is particularly fair. In other words the world is naturally an unjust place.

Could you please comment? Thanks...

Justice is a scarce commodity, and has always been. a few gods might be just, but even they get crucified in the real world, so even the gods deserve no justice.

 

[Father Heathen]

Originally Posted by Just_me_Mike
If justice has to do with an individual, what makes one nations agreed upon rules any better or worse then the next?





So which one is it Father Heathen? We can make our own up? Or is it we must compare the benefits to right, freedom and equality?

I would hardly call using rights, freedom and equality as a "standard" and in the same breath state human "must" make their own justice as being the same thing. :areyoucra

Where exactly do you see the inconsistency? Societies consist of humans, we create competing values and ideals, the bad ones fade with time while the good ones spread and improve with time. I'm saying that the values and ideals that embody rights, freedom and equality for all (as values and ideals derived using logic and innate compassion naturally will) have proven to be superior to values and ideals that do not. And by humans making their own justice I meant that nature or an invisible sky daddy isn't going to provide it for them. If you look at the abrahamic portrayal of god, it's an absolutely horrible example of justice and decency.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A mothers love is important and real, but certainly not always universal. So I never said something not universal couldn't be real and important.

So then why did you tell Wandered Off that for him, there is no "real sense of justice"?

However, I can show how justice in the sense of human decency is not something we can wish away or reduce with semantics (though we often do) to be something that is just "important" or "real", but in fact exists as a truth no different than any other law.

In what way?

In the OP, I ask about an Atheists view of justice in the world, because I am interested in the particular arguments that they might have to suggest justice or human decency is subjective.

But again: why atheists? When it comes right down to it, theists don't have any other objective sources of justice than atheists do. As I said before, God is not a source of objective morality.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Justice is a scarce commodity, and has always been. a few gods might be just, but even they get crucified in the real world, so even the gods deserve no justice.

This may be true, but the question is does your worldview allow for a universal justice, and so I am not confusing people I am referring to a law of human decency that exists, that we all use to advance our sense of morality.

 

[YmirGF]

Does this also apply to human beings, there is no true justice or human decency? Or are we different than the universe?

It would apply to the world in general and all its inhabitants. Justice is the human animal's creation, designed to affirm its sense of morality. Why does so-called "justice" have anything to do with "human decency"? You are simply talking about value judgment and there is no universal set of values to judge by... in my opinion.

Lastly, your final statement would seem to imply that there is a form of "justice" in the universe itself. Is that so or are you just seeing the universe through rose-tinted glasses?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Where exactly do you see the inconsistency? Societies consist of humans, we create competing values and ideals, the bad ones fade with time while the good ones spread and improve with time. I'm saying that the values and ideals that embody rights, freedom and equality for all (as values and ideals derived using logic and innate compassion naturally will) have proven to be superior to values and ideals that do not. And by humans making their own justice I meant that nature or an invisible sky daddy isn't going to provide it for them.

I havent brought up God at all. Please clarify innate compassion. What is that and where does it come from? You wield that as if it means something and is universal in meaning. Please explain.

 

[Caladan]

This may be true, but the question is does your worldview allow for a universal justice, and so I am not confusing people I am referring to a law of human decency that exists, that we all use to advance our sense of morality.

Its healthy to have a good sense of justice, but its just as healthy not to expect too much justice in the 'real world', and absolutely not to expect lofty ideas of 'universal justice' which is a fairy tale, most of the world population lives in harsh circumstances and expects no justice, hopes of justice will only tear these people apart more.

 

[bobhikes]

If it was a matter of opinion, than I would agree one sense of decency would be just as good as another. However, that is not what we experience in reality is it? Morals have progressed. Since they progress there has to be a standard by which the get "better"
Do you assert morals have not improved over time from one nation to the next? Though we often fail at maintaining them, surely you won't say morals have not progressed will you?

I have been asked this before and the simple answer is what are the morals you speak of. No person let alone a country has the same morals.

As to have they progressed is Drinking moral. Prohibition was a pretty strong moral value we no longer have. Is using drugs moral it sure looks like California is going to allow it. Is homosexuality moral(not even going to try and discuss).

No I believe the moral state of the world is stable and always will be. I do believe the moral state of the US is falling, but then I am using my moral standards.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

So then why did you tell Wandered Off that for him, there is no "real sense of justice"?

If one ascribes to no "real justice" than one in reality is just as good as the other. We may favor one or the other, but in a real sense, it doesn't matter because there is no real standard to measure anything by.

In what way?

I'll reply to this in a separate post...

But again: why atheists? When it comes right down to it, theists don't have any other objective sources of justice than atheists do. As I said before, God is not a source of objective morality.

I am not bringing God into this... Theists tend to already believe in some greater right or wrong, (Pantheism sometimes the exception, as well as Hindu sometimes the exception), so the reason I ask, is it is more directed towards atheist. Though I admit, there are plenty of Atheist that believe in a universal moral law, Msizer was one, and there are many others. If that is you, than this thread is not for you.

 

[Magic Man]

"Fair" and "unjust" are labels we personally superimpose. The universe is neither inherently, IMO.

This.

 

[Father Heathen]

I havent brought up God at all. Please clarify innate compassion. What is that and where does it come from? You wield that as if it means something and is universal in meaning. Please explain.

Humans are a social animal, and a psychologically healthy individual has a natural empathy for others. Caring for one another is a survival trait that's both mutually beneficial and a rational self-interest, and also good for emotional health. It's instinctual, but it also gives depth and meaning to our lives. And even though you didn't bring up god, you implied that belief in such was by addressing atheists in particular.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

It would apply to the world in general and all its inhabitants. Justice is the human animal's creation, designed to affirm its sense of morality. Why does so-called "justice" have anything to do with "human decency"? You are simply talking about value judgment and there is no universal set of values to judge by... in my opinion.

Lastly, your final statement would seem to imply that there is a form of "justice" in the universe itself. Is that so or are you just seeing the universe through rose-tinted glasses?

Justice as far as I can tell would apply to human beings that are consciously aware of injustice and the like.
I suppose for the OP I asked it in the way I did, because if you are an atheist, and you see the world as unjust, I can't see how one could develop any human decency if there is no real sense of justice or decency. As soon as we say this is not fair, or that is not right, we are in fact implying some standard we believe in. It is a tricky conversation to be had, IMO.
To advance the conversation, ultimately I believe this line of thinking can lead one to only conclude human beings uniquely possess the ability interact with moral law, or the law of human decency, or law of nature as it used to be called.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

This.

So, if we use multiplication in our daily lives, is that something we invented or is it simply a truth we understood and now use?
If fair and justice are words we superimpose onto things, does than must mean we invented them?
Take for example, if I try to multiply 3x4 and I say it equals 32, does that reduce the multiplication to error and human construct or simply human error. Point being we do in fact superimpose the words fair and justice, just as we use numbers correctly and incorrectly, but we would never think numbers are not true and standard.
What I am saying is just because we can point to the fact humans have subjectively used the terms fair and justice, can not automatically reduce them to human inventions. What it can do, is show that humans err...
Is this not a fair line of reasoning?

 

[Magic Man]

So to you there is non real sense of justice.
When I consider that position, I cant help but think of Nazi values, and why we migt view them as inferior to our views if in fact we felt no real sense of justice.
Is that not a fair question?

This is an entirely different question than the OP. There is no inherent justice in the universe, or sense of morality. Those are things created by humans. If there was no living thing in the universe, the concepts of justice and morality would have absolutely no meaning at all. They only have meaning because of us.