As per the OP, justice is equality in treatment among all humans (not falling for that one again).

So if your personal moral sense demands to seek justice and avoids injustice, and that justice is objective, then you follow a morality that is objective, even if you believe that the original moral sense is itself subjective.

No, it's merely a means to an end, the end being the benefit, not the equality itself. — BlueBanana

What then is the benefit, if not the equality?

If you could give 1€ to two poor people each, or 5€ for one of them, it'd be just to give 1€ to both but (imo) morally right to give 5€ to one. — BlueBanana

This depends on the foreseeable results. For clarity, let's inflate this example to the extremes. (1) What if we could give 1€ to two poor people each, or 1 000 000€ to only one of them? In that case, even the one that gets nothing would still likely agree that the second choice is better, as 1€ does not result in much anyways. As such, this choice seems morally good, but also just, because it does not break the golden rule. (2) What if we could give 500€ to two poor people each, or 501€ to only one of them? Now the first choice seems more just, and also morally good. Your example is less clear and may fall closer to (1) or closer to (2), depending on the foreseeable results; but I think in either case, the justice does not conflict with the morality.

People disagree on morality, and if justice is objective, someone's opinion must contradict it. For example, let's take abortions. What's the just way to act? Whichever it is, there are people who disagree. — BlueBanana

People disagree only on matters on fact, not on the moral sense in theory. In the case of abortion, the main disagreement is about the fact of whether fetuses are human beings or not. If they are, then abortion is infanticide, which I believe everyone agrees to be wrong. If not, then it is merely a group of cells, and then abortion is not morally wrong, inasmuch as it is not wrong to cut your own hair.

I'm certain there are people out there that would, being found guilty, be willing to suffer a punishment that they wouldn't want to suffer. — BlueBanana

If they were rightfully found guilty, then being punished is just. If they were wrongfully found guilty, then being punished is unjust; but then would anyone accept the punishment out of duty?

My rejoinder here is that the same can be said for the golden rule you propose. "Do unto others as you would have done unto you" leads to a contradiction -- because what you want may not be what someone else wants, especially if the standard is necessity. — Moliere

This is odd, because I would say when it comes to necessity, all men want the same thing: food, shelter, clothing, and health. What else would you mean by necessity?

The platinum rule is odd. Either we want the same things (primarily) or we don't. If we don't, then how can I know what everyone wants at all time, to abide to the rule? If we do, then it is simpler to go back to the golden rule.

Even so, I would also say that justice isn't about pleasing others at all. Justice is about fairness. It's different from moral goodness, as I see it. They are actually very often in conflict with one another. — Moliere

I would not use the word 'pleasure' because this sounds like it includes tastes (like in movies and music), which are subjective. But aside from tastes, we all 'want' the same things like honesty, respect, safety and health. I think justice is indeed synonymous to fairness. Would you have an example where justice and moral goodness are in conflict?

My long term strategy here is to explore one of the main arguments for moral nihilism -- the argument of diversity in ethical commitments leading to a reasonable inference that there is nothing objective about them. — Moliere

As per above, aside from tastes, I claim that all men want the same things: we all want food, shelter, health, honesty, respect, and pleasure, and all avoid starvation, homelessness, diseases, dishonesty, disrespect, and pain. This is because we all have the same human nature. Men are men and not plants. This is why the golden rule is adequate for moral acts from man to man.

even if you come up with something that sounds universally agreeable, that we only do so by abstracting moral norms to a point that they say virtually nothing about proper conduct. — Moliere

I think I see your point here. We need to differentiate between innate desire and sense of duty. While we all have the innate desire of the things listed above for ourselves, we do not necessarily have that same desire for others. This is where the sense of duty comes in; to remind us to not only take care of ourselves but others too, as all have the same nature or ontological value.

Hello.
I agree that intention is a necessary ingredient to a moral act (i.e., if unintentional, then the act is neither moral or immoral, but amoral), and that intention is a power possessed only by subjects. That said, to be morally good, the intention is to be directed towards justice, which itself is objective.

how do you define objective morality? [...] what does objective morality mean, if it means anything? what does it mean to say "morality exists"? — Pollywalls

Morality is the science of duty or what one ought to do. With that definition, morality must be objective or else does not exist; because if subjective, then the person is free to choose the object of duty and change their mind, which renders the duty worthless. If objective, then we can think of morality as a law to follow, because like a law, it is above us to judge us, and can be broken.

even if there were some "moral truths", there would be no reason to be morally correct or incorrect or anything. even if you were supposed to do something, there would be no reason to do what is supposed to be done. why should you be happy, why should you be good? — Pollywalls

Let's expand on that question. Why do we do anything? Either because it is a means to an end which is good, or it is its own end which is good (if not truly, then at least perceived to be). If morality is objective, then the moral good is an objective good, and is therefore its own end. Why should we choose the moral good over other goods like pleasure? By its own definition, which is again, the science of duty or what one ought to do. Not that the moral good is necessarily in conflict with pleasure or other goods, but the moral good takes priority over other goods if they are ever in conflict.

People can honestly believe that thieves truly deserve to get their hands chopped off and agree for it to happen to them under a similar situation, until they are in that situation. Similarly, one can think it is moral for thieves to go behind bars and that one should themselves be put behind bars should they become a thief, yet when actually in that situation, not willingly want to go behind bars. — SonJnana

The difference between the hands-chopped-off case and the jail case is that some people may willingly go to jail out of a "change of heart" or sense of duty, but no one can willingly accept getting their hands chopped off out of duty.

If the law makers aren't drug addicts, it's entirely possible that because of their values they truly believe drug addicts deserve to go to jail, including themselves, while at the same time believing they will never end up that way. And if they do at some point become a drug addict, they may then change their minds and find that rehabilitation makes more sense. — SonJnana

Unless I misunderstand you, it sounds like you agree, that on the basis of the golden rule, the jail decision is a mistake, while the rehabilitation decision is the correct one.

Even if we have disagreements about the specific examples above, surely you must still acknowledge that individual people, and even more so different cultures, have different values. Natural inclinations are a huge factor of course, however people and cultures can come to different conclusions about what is justice because they have different wants. And they do all the time in the real world. What is justice will then vary between individuals and probably more so between cultures. — SonJnana

Those different values you speak of, called subjective, are secondary to the values all men have in common, called objective. Subjective values are tastes, such as different art styles, music, fashion and food. Objective values are (1) physical values; e.g., we all seek health and avoid diseases; and (2) moral values; e.g., we all seek to be treated as equal and not lesser individuals. Now objective values are primary to subjective values because we want clothes before fashion, food before taste, and equality before any subjective tastes. Based on those primary objective values, we can achieve one universal justice system (which, mind you, should allow room for secondary subjective differences).

Also, even if theoretically everyone had the same wants and values, and miraculously somehow all were in agreement about how justice should be served, their justice would then still be dependent on their wants and values by your own definition of the Golden Rule. — SonJnana

That seems correct. If somehow our natural inclinations were to fluctuate back and forth, say from food to starvation, from health to sickness, and from pleasure to pain, then justice would be impossible in practice. We conclude that an achievable justice implies a common and unchanging human nature.

True, I'll rephrase that as "demanding justice for the sake of it". — BlueBanana

I agree with this new claim. Demanding a thing for its own sake and not as a means to another end like pleasure, is to say that the thing is good. But to seek something good despite it not necessarily resulting in pleasure is also called 'duty', or 'moral good'. So it seems that everyone has the same moral sense.

No, I base it on intended results, which in that example happened to be the same as the results. — BlueBanana

Yes I agree. And the intended result must be good for the act to be judged as good. And the criteria for this good result in this case is justice, because this is what Martin Luther King Jr. intended to bring.

No, I only believe that to be my subjective opinion. — BlueBanana

It seems from our discussions that your moral system follows the criteria of justice, which itself is determined objectively. You believe that this justice-based moral system is itself a subjective choice, and although we disagree on this, we would come to agree about moral judgements in practice, as these would be based on justice. It's a start.

Now, the justice criteria for moral goodness is objective if, for every subject, the moral sense agrees with justice at all times. And this appear to be the case, unless we can come up with a case where the moral sense runs in opposition to justice.

I think "eye for an eye" is about as just as it gets. — BlueBanana

Recall that justice is defined as 'equality in treatment among all men'. From this, it follows that if, for a given situation, you want to be treated a certain way, then you ought to treat others in the same way; aka the Golden Rule. Now in some cases, the 'eye for an eye' treatment follows the Golden Rule, and in some case, it does not. E.g., if I murder your spouse, murdering mine in return would follow the 'eye for an eye' treatment, but violate the Golden Rule. Therefore the 'eye for an eye' treatment is not always just.

In theory we could all be born of stem cells. women would still be needed to gestate the foetus. — charleton

Yeah I actually don't know much about this biology thing so I'll give you that one.

I stand on a platform which insists that morality is subjective. My personal position is not relevant. I've only to demonstrate that there are DIFFERENT positions which are based on preferences that are cultural, social and personal. — charleton

I would still like your opinion on the matter. Do you not seek justice and avoid injustice, at least to yourself, if not to others too?

No. His work resulted in net gain. — BlueBanana

A few comments: (1) This does not seem to follow from what you said earlier, that the only rational reason to demand justice is out of selfishness (maybe you changed your mind; and I am just clarifying). (2) So your judgement of people's acts is based on results, not intentions? If the same acts had not resulted in a net gain, then would he have been judged as selfish? One is fully in control of intentions, but not necessarily of outcomes. (3) It seems that you too believe in morality being objective, since you speak of a "net gain" which sounds like an objective judgement. Now, what is your criteria to determine a gain vs a loss, if it does not involve justice?

I would use neither of those definitions. I'd maybe define mercy as an act or decision of not punishing (even if the punishment is just). Unless prisons are made inherently uncomfortable or dangerous for the inmates, I don't call imprisonment punishment. — BlueBanana

Alright. I find this 'prison is not punishment' to be an odd judgement, but I'll roll with it. Now can you find a case where justice demands for a punishment that exceeds prison time? I admit I cannot find one, and without it, your point that, sometimes morality is separate from justice, is incomplete.

[...] I don't think you have a basis for saying that majority of people in a culture can't exist that honestly believes that thieves truly do deserve to get their hand chopped off — SonJnana

People cannot honestly believe that thieves truly deserve to get their hands chopped off unless they agree for it to happen to them under a similar situation. And I am fairly sure that no one in history has ever willingly got their hand chopped off.

[...] there is no objective standard for presupposed values that we are aware of that transcends human thought. — SonJnana

What about the Golden Rule: do onto others as you want them to do onto you? This practical rule is objective, and is derived directly from the concept of justice as defined in the OP. Let's apply it to the aforementioned examples:

Thieves example: It is possible for ex-thieves to have a "change of heart" and decide to repay their debts to society. In which case, they may not mind jail time or money compensation (even with interests); however, no one would choose to get their hands chopped off in the name of 'justice'. Not even the makers of these laws.

Drug addict example: Should drug addicts go to jail, or get rehabilitated? Well, if the law makers were drug addicts, and through not fault of theirs (which can happen), then surely they would want to get rehabilitated, and not go to jail. As such, only rehabilitation passes the Golden Rule, and is therefore just.

I did not respond to all your objections to keep the post short, but I think this is a good start.

For the rest of us not so magically endowed perhaps you could explain exactly what it was about the context that lead you to uncover Samuel's secrect misogynist agenda. — Pseudonym

While I am secretly a misogynist, I am nevertheless offended that this was presumed from my use of words in the OP. :shade:

I think women are more important than men since men are incapable of giving birth. — charleton

Women are incapable of giving birth without men. :cool:

Different roles in society require different treatment. — charleton

I thought your position was equality in treatment in men and women. Now you argue for different level of treatment? I am not sure where you stand.

To some degree we all have to treat ourselves before others since we would be incapable of working for others were we to not first look after ourselves. If you were to stay hungry before ensuring the rest of humanity were properly fed, then you'd be dead before you got very far. — charleton

I agree with you on that one. But if the act of helping yourself first is only intended as a means to the end of helping others too, then the act is not defined as selfish. Selfishness would be helping yourself only, with no intention of equal treatment for others down the road.

I think I have already addressed this, but I will try again. "Equality in treatment in all men" means that, for a given situation, the treatment you choose must apply to yourself, and to others, and from yourself, and from others. With this, the treatment "do as you please, and only as you please" cannot be just, because what pleases you does not necessarily please others. So there is a contradiction, both when you apply the treatment to others, and when others apply the treatment to you.

Because the only rational reason to demand for justice is the fear of being the one that is in the worse situation. If one wants altruistic good, they'll prioritize the good and not its equal distribution. — BlueBanana

In your view, does it follow that such persons as Martin Luther King Jr. were selfish? I cannot agree. If one acts to restore equality in treatment, even if it is because they are situated on the worse end, as long as they do not go overboard so as to be unjust the other way, then the act cannot be called selfish.

I can't agree with that, for the reasons stated before. The concept of mercy just doesn't apply to means of crime prevention. — BlueBanana

I am not sure what you mean here. Let's take a step back to the definition of mercy. If mercy is defined as "never harming anyone ever", then it does not follow that mercy is always morally good, because it is sometimes necessary to harm, such as when defending a victim from a bully. If on the other hand, mercy is defined as "not being cruel" or "not giving a punishment that exceeds the crime", then mercy can indeed always be morally good, but also just.

Hello.
In theory, your example indeed poses a problem. However, in practice, I claim that your culture A cannot exist. From experience, we know that nobody wants a degree of punishment that exceeds the degree of the crime. The punishment in culture A is clearly such a case, and so nobody would want to endure it. Not the citizens; not the law enforcers.

Alongside the principle of justice, human nature contains natural inclinations that apply to all, such as the fact that nobody wants unnecessary pain. As such, the principle of justice which may at first seem to be a mere equation without substance, is populated with inclinations from human nature, and this results in one single ethical system that would apply universally (in theory, if followed at all times).

If morality is objective, there there are moral truths or morally right acts, such as following the Golden Rule. If not, then not. So what is your reason for believing that morality is subjective?

2) Analogies as to the facts of physical reality are not relevant. Morals are about how people feel. People feel differently about various things. Morals are value judgements, not facts. — charleton

Once again, either refute my arguments or back up your own position with a reason. As it stands, you have not done either, and as such, there is nothing here for me to either defend or refute.

Can you prove that the round earth is good or bad? You can demonstrate that the sun appears circular. You can even make 'circle' as defining by the shape of the sun. But can you demonstrate that the sun is evil or good? Morals are not factual. The closest you can get to objective morality is Law. — charleton

Neither the earth's shape nor the sun are either morally good or bad. An essential component of morality is intentions or voluntariness, and neither the earth nor the sun have that.

Yes, for those who don't know better, man-made laws are good starting points to moral judgement. This assumes that the laws are good, which is for the most part the case in developed countries. Now if we speak of laws being good or bad, then this implies a higher morality which serves as the criteria to judge man-made laws.

Meaning equal punishments, but also that everyone lives in equal circumstances? [...] Because otherwise we would be punishing an act of theft by a starving person the same way as an act of theft by a greedy one. — Londoner

As per example (2) in the OP, justice is equality in treatment, but relative to the situation. It is reasonable to not punish theft motivated from starvation, because health and safety are objective values. Greed, or desire, is not. So the factor that determines the punishment is rational. Then justice is preserved if, under the same situation (whether starvation or greed), we give everyone the same treatment.

Mercy is part of the Golden Rule in that we would like others to extend the same understanding to us, because we can imagine circumstances where we might also act the same way. [...] — Londoner

Agreed. But this does not opposes my position, because the Golden is derived from the same concept of justice.

[...] We would like to think that if we had been born a German in the same epoch as Hitler and the others we would have not gone along with the Nazis. However the chances are that we would. Born earlier we would probably have seen nothing wrong with slavery, or beating wives, either. It is only the 'moral luck' of having been born later that means we do not share the guilt for such things. — Londoner

The behaviour from the nazis breaks the Golden Rule, because they would not want to be treated as they treated their victims. Thus the behaviour is unjust.

Theory bites the dust as soon as morality is proved to be separate from justice. — Thrifclyfe

My view is that it just so happens that most acts we consider to be moral are just, but this isn't a given. I therefore disagree with your assumption that this is the way one ought to distinguish between morally good and bad acts. — Kenshin

You may be right that, in theory, we cannot prove that morality is about justice. But I think we can in practice. Morality is about "what-ought-to-be", or in other words, duty. I mean here real duty from conscience, not legal duty from your country, as in during the nazi regime. In practice, no one can experience a sense of duty in accomplishing an act that they believe to be unjust. One may experience pleasure doing injustice (in a twisted way), but not duty.

In order to validate the claim that morality is separate from justice, we would need to bring up an example where duty from conscience demands for injustice. Note, it may be futile to bring external examples like Hitler, because we cannot conclude from his acts if he was motivated from duty or something else like pleasure. I am instead asking for your own personal experience here.

"But selfishness is unjust." Your prejudice is showing. — Vaskane

Justice: equality in treatment in all men.
Selfishness: treating yourself above others.
Therefore, by definition, selfishness is unjust.

If they are both derived from the golden rule then then golden rule would differ from justice. In which case I'd be back to your original definition -- — Moliere

Not quite. Both the golden rule and the Just War Theory are derived from justice. The golden rule differs from justice inasmuch as an effect differs from its cause, but they are directly linked.

In which case I'd say that my principle is derived from your notion of justice. [...] — Moliere

As mentioned above, the golden rule is directly linked to justice; so much so that one cannot be followed without the other. Your behaviour of "treating everyone as some sort of means to whatever happens to please me" clearly breaks the golden rule because you would not want this behaviour from others onto you. And if the golden rule is broken, then the behaviour is unjust.

Hello. You post is merely an opinion or position. It needs to be backed up by reason to be a complete argument.

Why would you believe morality is not subjective? — creativesoul

As per the OP.

That's not what I am saying. I am saying that the fact that you think there is a god, prejudices you to the disposition of objective morality. — charleton

For the sake of argument, suppose that what you say is true, that my belief in God prejudices me. So what? It would not change the validity of the argument in the OP, and you would still have to refute it. Suppose that Einstein was a nazi and discovered the formula "E = mc^2" for evil purposes. It does not follow that the formula is false.

[...] You cannot make a single moral statement that can get an agreement of all people and remain constant after they walk away. — charleton

Not everybody agrees that the Earth is round (surprisingly). Does it follow that the shape of the Earth is subjective? Furthermore, I do not know a single person that likes injustice done to them, and so it is universally perceived as bad when done to us. It's a start.

No of course not. The "net gain" criteria is closer to a last resort, not the first. Equality in treatment, or justice is the first.
— Samuel Lacrampe
Why? The only reason I can see for that is one's selfishness resulting in that they don't want to be the one in the worse situation. — BlueBanana

How can the demand for justice rise from selfishness? And if injustice is present, then what becomes the measure of the net gain?

Mercy is an expression of love towards another person, and love has an intrinsic value. Alternatively, moral intuition. Moral theories should be made to fit the applications, not another way around. — BlueBanana

Let's take the example of mercy to the extreme. Out of mercy, we set Hitler free over and over again, and each time, he kills more and more jews, and yet we continue to set him free regardless. This act is no doubt merciful, according to your definition; yet, would you still judge such an act to be morally good? I take it you are an extreme pacifist, since this consists in mercy towards everyone and under all situations.

Morality is about how people emotionally respond to social interaction.
Emotions are about feelings and that means subjective values are brought to bear on ALL moral situations. — charleton

Suppose that it is true that some emotional feelings are in regards to morality. E.g., anger is triggered upon experiencing injustice. It does not follow that morality is subjective, just because the emotional feeling belongs to a subject. The sense of sight always belongs to a subject, and yet it does not follow that the object seen is not objectively real.

But selfishness is unjust. Therefore objective morality, in which justice is the criteria, cannot come from the selfish desire of survival. Not that survival is incompatible with morality, mind you.

Indeed, no. Your assumption that god exists makes you think morality must be objective. — charleton

It may be so that the existence of God and objective morality are directly linked. I.e., no God, then no objective morality, and vice versa. This seems to be your view since you brought up the topic of God in the discussion. However, my argument for an objective morality in the OP does not mention God at all, and so I am not using the existence of God to demonstrate that morality is objective. You are barking up the wrong tree.

And as this "net gain" criteria is objective, it is compatible with an objective morality.
— Samuel Lacrampe
Even if it's unjust? — BlueBanana

No of course not. The "net gain" criteria is closer to a last resort, not the first. Equality in treatment, or justice is the first. Then in the rare case when we stubble upon a situation where two choices have the same level of justice, then we may look into the net gain. Such is the case in the Trolley Problem. I would think however that such cases are rare, and so the net gain criteria is not often required.

I wouldn't call the minimal action done to only prevent further crimes a punishment, but if that is done, what about not killing Hitler, instead putting him in jail? That's merciful, but arguably unjust. — BlueBanana

For the sake of argument, let's assume that such an act is indeed unjust. It is also no doubt merciful. How do you now judge the merciful act to be morally good?

What about dragging the moral agents into all this? Is killing other animals for food immoral? (I think it is but as >90% of people are not vegetarians I think it's a safe bet to ask this rhetorical question.) What about non-conscious things? Do they deserve equal treatment? — BlueBanana

As stated in the OP, I would like to keep the discussion to the morality of men towards men only. I can however point you to another discussion called In defence of the Great Chain of Being, which talks about morality of all beings, and should provide some answers. If you have any enquiries about it, I can see you there.

No, I argued that treating others the way they want to be treated leads to contradictions. You can't take people's desires into account with golden rule in a way that doesn't lead to contradictions. — BlueBanana

I agree. Desires are not always just, and so should not be considered to determine the moral value of an act. (I admit I forget what the dispute was about on this one. Maybe we resolved it?)

Thought experiment: If you were the only person alive, what would you separate into GOOD/BAD categories? Most likely that which you divy into these categories are for survival purposes. Morality is merely 'mans' attempt at survival. — Vaskane

Hello. There is an error in category. What pertains to survival, or more generally speaking health, is indeed a type of objective value (good/bad); but it is a physical value, not a moral one. Morality pertains to the interaction among beings, and for this discussion, I have limited the topic to the actions of man towards man. With that, there is no morality to speak of when there is a single person left in the world.

We choose to participate in moral actions hoping for equality, the fact is equality doesn't exist. — Vaskane

Even if you are right that equality does not exist, it does not follow that it cannot or should not exist.

If the existence of God logically follows from the rest of the argument,
— Samuel Lacrampe
It does not. You have it backwards. — charleton

So if the existence of God does not follow from my position that morality is objective, then why did you bring it up in the first place?

Nature has no integers or equivalents.
There are no straight lines, circles, geometric shapes, in nature.
Maths relies on all these fictions including irrational numbers. — charleton

And yet planes fly, houses stand, and you are using a computer to respond to these posts. But more importantly, if you do not believe that math is objective, then by extension you do not believe that logic is objective. And in which case, there is no common ground for you and I to have a coherent discussion.

Please state the "laws" of morality! — charleton

In general, since morality is the science of "what ought to be", this "ought" implies a law. Specifically in my objective morality, the law is justice, that is, equality in treatment under similar situations, or by extension, the golden rule.

It'd not be immoral to not give him a death sentence and instead put him in jail. The jail sentence doesn't exist for the sake of punishing criminals but simply to prevent the criminals from repeating the crimes, and therefore mercy doesn't apply to that situation. — BlueBanana

I agree with this. But I thought you were presenting an example where the act can be morally good yet unjust, when you said here "Having mercy is never immoral, while any punishment can be just as long as the same law is applied equally to all criminals." But now, you say it is merciful to put him in jail; which to me is a form of punishment. Long story short, we have yet to find a case where an act is morally good yet unjust, or vice versa.

Sure the golden rule can be interpreted that way but that leads to contradictions. I want to be treated the way I want to be treated -> treat others the way they want to be treated, which can directly contradict the way you want to be treated. — BlueBanana

It now sounds like we are arguing about the same position, namely, that the act of "imposing my desires on others (and no other reasons)" cannot pass the golden rule without contradictions. As such, this act cannot be just.

But say that it does not result in a greater good, or a net gain, but rather a net loss.
— Samuel Lacrampe
That's of course another situation, which is treated differently from one where it leads to a net gain. — BlueBanana

I didn't attempt to generalize it. I claimed that the opposite can't be generalized. — BlueBanana

Perhaps a misunderstanding once again, because I agree that for some situations, the net gain is a reasonable criteria for a morally good act. And as this "net gain" criteria is objective, it is compatible with an objective morality.

I am reading the "Commentary on the Book of Job" by Thomas Aquinas right now. If I get some new insight, I will post it here. It's a long commentary (like 50 lines of commentary for every 10 lines in the book) so don't hold your breath.

Having mercy is never immoral, while any punishment can be just as long as the same law is applied equally to all criminals. — BlueBanana

Why do you claim that mercy is never immoral? Is it not immoral to pardon Hitler over and over again, such that each time you set him free, he kills more and more jews?

the act of "imposing others' desires against my will" cannot be accepted, by definition.
— Samuel Lacrampe
Accepting something based on rational reasoning dodsn't make it your will. — BlueBanana

Either I misunderstand you, or misunderstood me. Regardless, the treatment of "imposing others' desires against my will" clearly breaks the golden rule of ethics, and the golden rule is directly derived from justice. As such, this treatment is necessarily unjust.

I'd think about the situation objectively and try to not be selfish, and accept my situation as a just sacrifice for a greater good. — BlueBanana

But say that it does not result in a greater good, or a net gain, but rather a net loss. In which case, unequal happiness is not better than equal misery. As such, we cannot generalize that "unequal happiness is always better than equal misery".

Only if you believe in the god delusion. — charleton

If the existence of God logically follows from the rest of the argument, then it does. Don't run away from the laws of reason just because you don't like the conclusions that follow. :wink:

Incorrect. You believe the mathematical laws to be objective, don't you?
— Samuel Lacrampe
No, why? — charleton

No? The formula 2+2=4 is not objective, but man-made? What about the laws of logic then? After all, mathematics is just logic applied to numbers.

Say, 1500 years ago slavery, misogyny, stoning, mistreating animals, etc might just have been common everyday stuff of no particular consequence/interest, whereas today they're considered immoral or criminal. I guess the contemporary political correctness movement exemplifies emerging morals or moral awareness. — jorndoe

You here speak of changes in the legal system, not changes in the moral point of view. Nobody wants to be a slave; not the masters, not the slaves. And nobody wants to be the victim of misogyny or stoning; not now, not then. Similarly to today, those victims surely would have wanted to revolt on the grounds of injustice. In general, we cannot discover a morality from historical facts, because morality is about "what-ought-to-be", not about "what-is".

Either way, not all situations are (readily/necessarily) morally decidable, as shown by the Trolley problem. — jorndoe

The trolley problem is not a moral issue but merely a rational one. I did not mention this in the OP, but one necessary component of a moral/immoral (as opposed to amoral) act is intentions. If you never intended to kill anyone, as is the case in the trolley problem, then the accidental killing of people is not immoral. At worst, you made the wrong judgement resulting in an honest mistake.

Nah, the nazis forfeit their rights.
violation of the above may entail forfeiture of some or all of them — jorndoe

That's a good answer. It agrees well with your morality.

Suppose we wanted to reduce morals to something. What might this something then be? What would acceptable "moral atoms" look like? Self-interest alone doesn't do it for me (like some rules seem to suggest), but maybe that's just me. — jorndoe

Golden Rule. It is a great practical way to determine if justice was intended or not.

"Do unto others as you would have done unto you" does not just automatically lead one to just war theory. [...] And even then I don't see how, of all doctrines, just war theory somehow naturally flows from the golden rule. You'd have to, at the very least, argue the case. — Moliere

They are connected, because both are derived from justice. Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have done unto you" is the only way to preserve equality in treatment when interacting with others. Just War Theory: how to conduct a war while preserving justice. If you are in conflict with a neighbouring country, how would you want to them to behave towards you in order to resolve the conflict? E.g., you would likely want them to first use peaceful acts before resorting to force. As such, to preserve justice, you ought to behave the same way towards them. Thus the Just War Theory is related to the Golden Rule.

but if you can accept those terms, then I don't see how you would be able to dissent from the example I used earlier. — Moliere

I forget what example you are referring to.

I must say, you touch on what I believe is the one weak point of my argument. But I will try my best to answer it.

As per point (1) in the OP, if the act is just, then it is morally good, and if unjust, then morally bad. It is nonsense to speak of an act which is morally good yet unjust, or morally bad yet just.

Now you ask "why be morally good"? For no other reason that it is morally good. Morality is not a means to another end, but an end in and of itself. "Why should I do x if I don't want to?" Because it is morally good. "Why should I not do y even if I want to?" Because it is morally bad.

If by 'revenge' you mean "a desire for justice (and nothing beyond it)", then it is not immoral.
— Samuel Lacrampe
Circular reasoning. — BlueBanana

My point was that 'revenge', once clearly defined, cannot be just, while at the same time immoral. But we can work on a concrete example if desired.

How? How is imposing everyone's desires on everyone against their will not equal? — BlueBanana

"Equality in treatment" means that for a given situation, whatever act you choose, you must also accept it from others under a similar situation. Now, the act of "imposing others' desires against my will" cannot be accepted, by definition. As such, it is an unjust act.

So equal misery is better than unequal happiness? — BlueBanana

This depends once again on the net result, but for the most part, yes. What if you were on the bad end of that unequal happiness situation? Would you not wish for that slightly better equal happiness?

How does the golden rule deal with injustice? [...] So the other failing of the golden rule is it does not adjudicate between actually lived conflicting principles. It doesn't tell us how to deal with enemies. — Moliere

Actually it does. See for example the Just War Theory: how to conduct war in accordance with justice (and by extension, the golden rule). To name a few criteria, a war is just if:

• It is reactive and not proactive.
• All peaceful alternative actions have first been exhausted.
• The physical evil inflicted on the enemy must not exceed the physical evil caused by the enemy (i.e., do not overreact).

The practice of the golden rule does not lead to extreme pacifism. Self-Defence and enforcement of laws are actions that are compatible with it.

The reason that this had to be declared was that morality does not definitively entail it. — charleton

Quite the opposite. Unless you believe the content was purely arbitrary, then it is reasonable to suggest it was inspired by real morality.

If morality had included this, the declaration would not be necessary. — charleton

Incorrect. You believe the mathematical laws to be objective, don't you? And yet, math is taught at school. We can all rediscover mathematical laws on our own, but it is better to teach it in order to speed up the learning process and avoid errors along the way. The same goes for the laws of morality.