Is a thing or action or fact unjust if it came to be through injustice?

[Aimless]

We have on this forum some slightly different takes on/approaches to questions of morality and justice. I'd appreciate some help with probing/exploring one such question:

Is a thing or action or fact unjust if it came to be through injustice?

Put another way, is it possible to do something just by doing something unjust? Do unjust means corrupt the ends? If you believe they do, a follow-up question: do you believe that only holds for proximal causes or is the taint of injustice inherited down the chain like original sin? If the former, is injustice cancelled out or is it diluted or what happens to it?

Feel free to develop or expand on the questions if you feel they're too limited, tricksy etc. or if you have a special point you'd like to make that the questions don't directly touch on

[Aimless]

Just so we're clear, I'm not asking if the ends can justify the means; rather, I'm asking if the means unjustify the ends.

[Loki]

Pretty much anything that exists in this world was at one point acquired unjustly.

[Aimless]

Naturally, and I'm asking what the significance of that may be, eg. if that means that everything in the world today is unjust. If that's not the case, what happens to the injustice?

[Loki]

If everything is unjust, doesn't that negate the value of justice? Just like happiness would have no meaning if either everyone or no one was happy.

[ar81]

Put another way, is it possible to do something just by doing something unjust? Do unjust means corrupt the ends? If you believe they do, a follow-up question: do you believe that only holds for proximal causes or is the taint of injustice inherited down the chain like original sin? If the former, is injustice cancelled out or is it diluted or what happens to it?

Two wrongs can't make a right, but three lefts will do.

[LittleFuzzy]

Two wrongs can't make a right, but three lefts will do.

Only if it amounts to all three being exactly 90 degress. If you end up only changing direction 177 degrees over the course of the three lefts than you're only mostly right.

[Veldan Rath]

How close is that to mostly dead?

[Dreadnaught]

Just so we're clear, I'm not asking if the ends can justify the means; rather, I'm asking if the means unjustify the ends.

Interesting. Is it really that strong of a distinction? I get the distinction you're trying to make, but I'm not sure it's particularly different from an ends-vs-means argument.

I mean, sure you can retroactively say that a goal was reached unjustly if you later find out that it was accomplished via something horrible. But that final calculation still seems to rely on a "does reaching this goal justify the means" kind of balancing.

[Wraith]

What kind of justice are we talking about? Criminal justice, karmic justice, what? There are different flavors.

[Aimless]

Interesting. Is it really that strong of a distinction? I get the distinction you're trying to make, but I'm not sure it's particularly different from an ends-vs-means argument.

I mean, sure you can retroactively say that a goal was reached unjustly if you later find out that it was accomplished via something horrible. But that final calculation still seems to rely on a "does reaching this goal justify the means" kind of balancing.

I posed the question in such a way as to directly get to the point Loki raised:

If everything is unjust, doesn't that negate the value of justice? Just like happiness would have no meaning if either everyone or no one was happy.

If injustice is inherited, then I think this would be the inevitable consequence. I think that may be problematic, for reasons of practicality if nothing else.

I can think of several ways to resolve the problem:

1. Agree that injustice isn't inherited, ie. that the ends must be viewed separately from the means
2. Let the ends justify the means and clean things up retroactively
3. Agree that only proximal injustice matters ie. that injustice can be inherited from one step to the next but not further. The injustice-meter is reset, and the new starting point is treated as a neutral fact.
4. Assert that injustice is more diluted the further you get along the chain of events from an unjust act or thing.
5. Conflate injustice with morality and avoid the problem altogether by saying that we can only look at the moral worth of free and direct interactions between moral agents. This can still be complicated by questioning the moral worth or justness of disregarding everything but the two or more moral agents involved in a specific moral interaction, and it also requires a consensus on limiting ourselves to this limited take on justice.

There are no doubt other ways around the problem but I can't for the life of me think of a single practical and sound solution that doesn't require an approach to justice that is conventional--or based on consensus--and relative/situational... rather than being universal and absolute. My intuition tells me that there should be arguments from the latter position but I'm not sure what those arguments are and it's possible that I can't think of them because my own views and values are so thoroughly entrenched.

What kind of justice are we talking about? Criminal justice, karmic justice, what? There are different flavors.

More karmic than anything else, I think. Justice outside of law?

[LittleFuzzy]

I posed the question in such a way as to directly get to the point Loki raised:



If injustice is inherited, then I think this would be the inevitable consequence. I think that may be problematic, for reasons of practicality if nothing else.

I can think of several ways to resolve the problem:

1. Agree that injustice isn't inherited, ie. that the ends must be viewed separately from the means
2. Let the ends justify the means and clean things up retroactively
3. Agree that only proximal injustice matters ie. that injustice can be inherited from one step to the next but not further. The injustice-meter is reset, and the new starting point is treated as a neutral fact.
4. Assert that injustice is more diluted the further you get along the chain of events from an unjust act or thing.
5. Conflate injustice with morality and avoid the problem altogether by saying that we can only look at the moral worth of free and direct interactions between moral agents. This can still be complicated by questioning the moral worth or justness of disregarding everything but the two or more moral agents involved in a specific moral interaction, and it also requires a consensus on limiting ourselves to this limited take on justice.

There are no doubt other ways around the problem but I can't for the life of me think of a single practical and sound solution that doesn't require an approach to justice that is conventional--or based on consensus--and relative/situational... rather than being universal and absolute. My intuition tells me that there should be arguments from the latter position but I'm not sure what those arguments are and it's possible that I can't think of them because my own views and values are so thoroughly entrenched.



More karmic than anything else, I think. Justice outside of law?

I guess I would mostly go with 4 but. . . the I'm a bit weirded out because it kinda seems like you're trying to construct justice in a semi-mathematical system where it can be balanced, shifted around, treated as some sort of semi-concrete thing. It's not, it's a sort of guideline concept to help choose current or future actions or evaluate their immediate results.

[Wraith]

More karmic than anything else, I think. Justice outside of law?

In that case, I'm going to go with no. Since we're basically talking about whether somebody deserves what they got, that can be determined in a vacuum. How it happened is independent of whether they deserve it.

Just don't try to extend this out to something like criminal justice, where there are more issues at play.

[Aimless]

In that case, I'm going to go with no. Since we're basically talking about whether somebody deserves what they got, that can be determined in a vacuum. How it happened is independent of whether they deserve it.

Hmmm as in approach no. 5 wherein justice is exclusively considered in the sense of moral desert?

[Wraith]

More like #1. What's the point of all this, though? The path you seem to be going down seems largely meaningless.

[Aimless]

The point is to find an approach to solving this problem that is consistent with a practical view of justice as being a property that is universal and absolute rather than being entirely defined by convention, consensus, context.

[Illusions]

practical view of justice as being a property that is universal and absolute

Justice is a philosophical human concept, not a concrete one like red.

[Loki]

The point is to find an approach to solving this problem that is consistent with a practical view of justice as being a property that is universal and absolute rather than being entirely defined by convention, consensus, context.

Read Rawls or Hayek. Both lay out a universal idea of justice.

[Illusions]

Read Rawls or Hayek. Both lay out a universal idea of justice.

Wouldn't this still be a concept of justice as defined by consensus? Aimless seems to be looking for a concept of justice that is universal and absolute, like gravity.

[Loki]

Wouldn't this still be a concept of justice as defined by consensus? Aimless seems to be looking for a concept of justice that is universal and absolute, like gravity.

He said the exact opposite in his last post. For something to be universally just doesn't mean that everyone must consider it just. Most pedophiles don't consider child molestation to be unjust. The Saudis don't consider child marriages to be unjust. Slavery was unjust 300 years ago, even if everyone supported it.

[Aimless]

Read Rawls

The enemy

[Illusions]

Slavery was unjust 300 years ago, even if everyone supported it.

...because the consensus now is that slavery is unjust, and we have the ability to look back at our history. If the world fell into a totalitarian dictatorship that endorsed slavery, then what happened 300+ years ago would be considered just by them. Of course we'd consider their view to be unjust, but thats because right now, at this very second, the common consensus among us humans discussing this idea is that it is unjust. It is not scrawled or woven into the fabric of the universe. It is an opinion, held by humans.

[Enoch the Red]

...because the consensus now is that slavery is unjust, and we have the ability to look back at our history. If the world fell into a totalitarian dictatorship that endorsed slavery, then what happened 300+ years ago would be considered just by them. Of course we'd consider their view to be unjust, but thats because right now, at this very second, the common consensus among us humans discussing this idea is that it is unjust. It is not scrawled or woven into the fabric of the universe. It is an opinion, held by humans.

Which is only true if you view society as the sole arbiter of what is or isn't moral.

[GGT]

Yes, minx, the concept of moral relativity is real and has merit.

And to Enoch....you'd be hard pressed to untangle social values, and morality, with the times in which they were conceived.

[Illusions]

Which is only true if you view society as the sole arbiter of what is or isn't moral.

Who, other than people, determine what is or isn't moral?

[Enoch the Red]

Who, other than people, determine what is or isn't moral?

Without people, would there still be a universal gravitational constant? Rational inquiry can, and has determined certain underlying facets of morality that are not unique to any given culture, and in fact are almost ubiquitous across the human experience. Now, those fundamental principles can be warped and twisted by cultures for any number of reasons, but the foundational structure of nearly every human society is based on simple and universal truths. Whether or not those truths have been instilled by a Creator, an invisible Pink Unicorn, or natural selection I will leave to you to decide, dear reader.

[Illusions]

Without people, would there still be a universal gravitational constant?

Without any sentient or living entity there still would be gravity. Without these same entities morality would not.

The foundational structure of nearly every human society is based on simple and universal truths. Whether or not those truths have been instilled by a Creator, an invisible Pink Unicorn, or natural selection I will leave to you to decide, dear reader.

I thought society wasn't the sole arbiter or what is or isn't moral? You're still having people coming up with morality, and your argument boils down to societies finding common consensus on what is or isn't moral, and that these morals always tend towards a similar set of morals. This seems logical, simply because people like security and liberty, so of course they'd eventually agree that randomly and wantonly murdering each other might not be good, or that stealing should be punished, etc. because you cannot have a functional society where its individual members live in fear of each other everyday. You are conflating optimal with universal. Consider the absurd hypothetical society that believes its amoral to ever have children*. Its views on the morality of having children are not shared with modern societies, and their society will fail, not because their morality isn't universal, but because its not optimal for the continuation of their society.



*This society could possibly flourish if they also adopted the ideas that its morally pertinent and necessary to steal children from other societies, while also still allowing that other society to flourish, however I find it doubtful that the society that is having its children stolen would sit idly by and allow the continued existence of these kidnappers.

[Enoch the Red]

I thought society wasn't the sole arbiter or what is or isn't moral?

They aren't, but they are reflections, albeit imperfect ones, of the universal moral constant.

You're still having people coming up with morality, and your argument boils down to societies finding common consensus on what is or isn't moral, and that these morals always tend towards a similar set of morals. This seems logical, simply because people like security and liberty, so of course they'd eventually agree that randomly and wantonly murdering each other might not be good, or that stealing should be punished, etc. because you cannot have a functional society where its individual members live in fear of each other everyday. You are conflating optimal with universal.

Why do people like security and liberty?

[LittleFuzzy]

I thought society wasn't the sole arbiter or what is or isn't moral? You're still having people coming up with morality, and your argument boils down to societies finding common consensus on what is or isn't moral, and that these morals always tend towards a similar set of morals.

Well if, for instance, these more-or-less universal rules arise from evolutionary psych then it's actually got nothing to do with society however much society appears central to them. Society becomes nothing more than the wall these platonic shadows are displayed on. The walls and the shadow appear to have a relationship, the latter appear and dance around on the former but it's an illusion, the wall is just a viewing surface.

[Illusions]

They aren't, but they are reflections, albeit imperfect ones, of the universal moral constant.

You've yet to raise a convincing argument for why a universal moral constant exists. You keep implying there is, and I keep trying to re-iterate its only a consensus of the current crop of humans. We've either killed, imprisoned, or ostracized the outliers, or they've done it to themselves.

Why do people like security and liberty?

Are you going to argue that avoiding pain/death and seeking pleasure are universal moral constants?