yes

I will second Tim Wood. Yes.

I would argue that one MUST exclude god to have any grounds for justice.

Does it require other people? Probably. It's hard to believe that if there were only one living human, they would give much thought to justice.

I would argue that one MUST exclude god to have any grounds for justice. — Pro Hominem

Well that's just silly.

However, OP, yes. It is possible to define justice as an atheist. Now, is there any reason to abide by it when nobody is looking and/or you're sure you could get away with it? Not so much.

Edit: I forgot to realize people conflate God with man-made religion and its doctrines regularly. In fact, most do I believe. Huge, huge difference. Replace the word 'god' with 'man-made religion and its doctrines' and we're on the same page.

Well that's just silly. — Outlander

No, it's not, and if we argue about it, I'll win.

However, OP, yes. It is possible to define justice as an atheist. Now, is there any reason to abide by it when nobody is looking and/or you're sure you could get away with it? Not so much. — Outlander

You clearly don't understand what justice is. Paying attention to it whether or not anyone is watching is kind of the point.

Edit: I forgot to realize people conflate God with man-made religion and its doctrines regularly. In fact, most do I believe. Huge, huge difference. Replace the word 'god' with 'man-made religion and its doctrines' and we're on the same page. — Outlander

Um, yes, that is actually the prevailing customary use of the word. I also believe it is the usage intended by the OP. If you would like to use it some other way, the burden lies with you to explain yourself.

However, OP, yes. It is possible to define justice as an atheist. Now, is there any reason to abide by it when nobody is looking and/or you're sure you could get away with it? Not so much. — Outlander

The reason would obviously be that it's justice.

I would argue that one MUST exclude god to have any grounds for justice. — Pro Hominem

I second this.

I would argue that one MUST exclude god to have any grounds for justice. — Pro Hominem

I just have to push you down this rabbit-hole - is that an injustice? You ought to be able to make your case in a brief paragraph, yes? I'll be an interested reader. I suspect I won't be alone. It's one thing to be able to do something, it's another to be categorically constrained to doing it a particular way. So, why must one exclude god to have any grounds for justice?

Edit: @JerseyFlight, you're invited too.

I just have to push you down this rabbit-hole - is that an injustice? You ought to be able to make your case in a brief paragraph, yes? I'll be an interested reader. I suspect I won't be alone. It's one thing to be able to do something, it's another to be categorically constrained to doing it a particular way. So, why must one exclude god to have any grounds for justice? — tim wood

I'm not being evasive, and I invite this discussion, but that's not achievable in a paragraph. It's much easier to demonstrate with a case study. Would you be willing to throw out a definition of justice or three and we can see how the existence of one (or maybe many for the polytheists out there) participant in a system who isn't required to follow any of that system's rules is inherently unjust?

So, why must one exclude god to have any grounds for justice? — tim wood

Ignoring a few of the problems with your reply, by definition and social reality, the idea of justice that proceeds from the idea of God is taken to be a finality, complete in itself (unless one is talking about Whitehead). Further, this justice can only be said to proceed from experience in the most negative and unconscious way, which cannot be considered an intelligent approach to the construction of principles of justice. It is reactionary and emotive, it does not take human action into account within the complex systems that human action arises, and neither does it examine its principles in terms of their intelligence within an existential context, therefore it cannot be an answer to an honest question, "how do we make more intelligent principles," the justice of God is an authoritarian idealism projected onto man as though it were an infallible Eternal Code and map for human conduct.

No, it's not, and if we argue about it, I'll win. — Pro Hominem

See edit. You big winner, you.

You clearly don't understand what justice is. Paying attention to it whether or not anyone is watching is kind of the point. — Pro Hominem

The question was can it be defined sans theological background. Nothing more.

Perception of justice =/= justice. You're told Group A invaded Group B's lands and slaughtered women and children. It was Group C who told you this, and you believe them, so you do the same or otherwise punish Group A. Now say in reality it was Group C who actually did what they said Group A did and you remain unaware. In your mind, and that of everyone else who believes what you believe, this is justice. Is it really?

Um, yes, that is actually the prevailing customary use of the word. I also believe it is the usage intended by the OP. If you would like to use it some other way, the burden lies with you to explain yourself. — Pro Hominem

I don't need to explain myself, it lies in the definitions. God is God. Religious doctrines are man's attempts/efforts/dogmas to explain God and what is asked or required of us. If most of the world calls a spade a rake, is it? Well... perhaps. But let's use a real historic example. If most of the world says the Sun revolves around the Earth, does it? Not really.

how the existence of one (or maybe many for the polytheists out there) participant in a system who isn't required to follow any of that system's rules is inherently unjust? — Pro Hominem

It isn't clear to me that justice is (such) a set of rules, or that anyone has to follow them. So you've already started your paragraph. Mend as you go, or finish and then mend?

See edit. You big winner, you. — Outlander

I did see it. It doesn't change your inability to prove (or apparently even make) your point.

The question was can it be defined sans theological background. Nothing more.

Perception of justice =/= justice. You're told Group A invaded Group B's lands and slaughtered women and children. It was Group C who told you this, and you believe them, so you do the same or otherwise punish Group A. Now say in reality it was Group C who actually did what they said Group A did and you remain unaware. In your mind, and that of everyone else who believes what you believe, this is justice. Is it really? — Outlander

This entire passage is so fraught with fallacies, I don't even know where to begin.

Your initial sentence seems to be the best. Let's start over. The question is "can we define a system of justice without (g)God?" My response is yes, and further that the addition of (g)God would violate the system and make it unjust. You appear to not like my answer, but have not yet articulated anything I can make sense of in response. Trying to put words in my mouth in the form of an incoherent straw man is not actually effectual. Try stating your own opinion as clearly as you can, or discussing something I have said using my actual words.

I don't need to explain myself, it lies in the definitions. God is God. Religious doctrines are man's attempts/efforts/dogmas to explain God and what is asked or required of us. If most of the world calls a spade a rake, is it? Well... perhaps. But let's use a real historic example. If most of the world says the Sun revolves around the Earth, does it? Not really. — Outlander

Er, ok.... Um, let's try: please provide your definition of the word "God" since you claim to have a different one than the rest of us do.

please provide your definition of the word "God" — Pro Hominem

This is exactly where the burden of proof lies.

It isn't clear to me that justice is (such) a set of rules, or that anyone has to follow them. So you've already started your paragraph. Mend as you go, or finish and then mend? — tim wood

And it isn't clear to me what you think justice is, or might be. You will provide another side to this conversation, or it won't happen.

A “sense of justice” is found in chimps, who will protest if they learn others receive more for the same work. Whether you call it nature, God, or what have you, justice is primary to any formal declarations.

the idea of justice that proceeds from the idea of God — JerseyFlight

But this isn't the issue. It may be an issue, but not the issue here. That is laid out in this: "one MUST exclude god to have any grounds for justice." Further:

the idea of justice that proceeds from the idea of God is taken to be a finality, complete in itself — JerseyFlight

Why? How? You're talking about an idea-of that "proceeds" from an idea-of. What could be final about that?

Finally, "Ignoring a few of the problems with your reply." This implies many problems - I must have outdone myself. Please. what are some of them?

I was specifically expounding on the reason why the idea of God negates justice. I didn't have to do this, I did it because it 1) helps to move the conversation forward for serious thinkers by providing clarifying content and 2) is the harder thing to do, instead of simply throwing the ball back into your court.

You're talking about an idea-of that "proceeds" from an idea-of. — tim wood

I can barely comprehend what you are asking and saying here.

what are some of them? — tim wood

Pro Hominem already mentioned one, you tried to imply of space standard for the reply, this is a typical trick of sophists. Reality doesn't work that way, if truth is complex, but you don't like it, all this means is that you will never comprehend it.

And it isn't clear to me what you think justice is, or might be. You will provide another side to this conversation, or it won't happen. — Pro Hominem

I would argue that one MUST exclude god to have any grounds for justice. — Pro Hominem

You will neither, then, mend nor finish what you started? You will not offer understanding, clarity, or definition when asked? You will not educate but instead threaten? Do you know what this site is, is for? At the moment you appear to reveal yourself as an empty shell. I have to dismiss you, a kind of Hitchen's razor. I trust others will do the same, until and unless you improve.

You will neither, then, mend nor finish what you started? — tim wood

You are already sunk, the burden of proof lies with the original question, "Can justice be defined without taking god and others into account?" That depends, what do you mean by god? While I admit, it could be claimed that stating god negates justice seems to jump the gun, it doesn't matter, to make the charge would be useless posturing, you end and begin at the exact same place, with the question, what do you mean by god?

You will neither, then, mend nor finish what you started? You will not offer understanding, clarity, or definition when asked? You will not educate but instead threaten? Do you know what this site is, is for? At the moment you appear to reveal yourself as an empty shell. I have to dismiss you, a kind of Hitchen's razor. I trust others will do the same, until and unless you improve. — tim wood

Are you aware that you are doing exactly that which you accuse me of doing?

You have been asked (explicitly) for your understanding, or a definition, or some clarity, and you have not provided any. Why not? Perhaps you are an empty shell?

You say I do not educate, but threaten. In fact, I have threatened nothing. I have stated that I do not wish to participate in a cross-examination, but would be interested in a discussion - an exchanging of information. Again, you seem averse, as you will only ask, but not answer questions. If you actually have nothing to say, then I will not really lose anything if you refuse to talk to me.

As for educating, I am doing it right now.

Sir, I may be new to this site, but I am not new.

I was specifically expounding on the reason why the idea of God negates justice. — JerseyFlight

I'm thinking you're mixed up. Where and when did you do this?

You're talking about an idea-of that "proceeds" from an idea-of.
— tim wood
I can barely comprehend what you are asking and saying here. — JerseyFlight

What is "barely" comprehend? the idea is that you refer to ideas of things as if they were the things themselves. They're not.

Pro Hominem already mentioned one, you tried to imply of space standard for the reply, — JerseyFlight

No. He made a categorical claim. I invited him to clarify/explicate it. Nothing sophistic at all about that. And for reference, this is what I wrote:

I just have to push you down this rabbit-hole - is that an injustice? You ought to be able to make your case in a brief paragraph, yes? I'll be an interested reader. I suspect I won't be alone. It's one thing to be able to do something, it's another to be categorically constrained to doing it a particular way. So, why must one exclude god to have any grounds for justice? — tim wood

I suggest you review the thread. You appear to be more than a little confused about its content.

the idea is that you refer to ideas of things as if they were the things themselves. They're not. — tim wood

My position is the exact opposite of what you imply here, nevertheless, I can see your struggle, poor fellow, you desperately want to be able to proceed as though your notion of god was more than an idea.

You posted a categorical proposition. You were asked to clarify, and so far you have refused. In brief for summary,

I would argue that one MUST exclude god to have any grounds for justice. — Pro Hominem

So, why must one exclude god to have any grounds for justice? — tim wood

And your threat:

You will provide another side to this conversation, or it won't happen. — Pro Hominem

My definition or understanding of justice is not at the moment relevant. Yours may be. But whatever it is, the question is how or why "one must exclude god"? That's your claim, make the argument. And fyi, this is The Philosophy Forum, not The Claim Forum. In trust you know the difference.

My position is the exact opposite of what you imply here, nevertheless, I can see your struggle, poor fellow, you desperately want to be able to proceed as though your notion of god was more than an idea. — JerseyFlight

Actually, I do not. The question to you is do you know the difference between the idea of a thing and the thing itself? The question arises out your explicit usage.

My definition or understanding of justice is not at the moment relevant. Yours may be. But whatever it is, the question is how or why "one must exclude god"? That's your claim, make the argument. And fyi, this is The Philosophy Forum, not The Claim Forum. In trust you know the difference. — tim wood

I see you are the type to avoid taking responsibility for the tone or the content of your words (although there is precious little content thus far). One might describe you as a bully, which is particularly interesting in a conversation that is meant to concern justice.

I will provide a little more information for anyone else who might be reading this and is actually interested in the thought as opposed to just acting like a pedantic tool. Since you are neither respectful nor considerate, I don't feel I owe you any respect or consideration.

Good luck.

I would argue that one MUST exclude god to have any grounds for justice. — Pro Hominem

Most Western conceptions of justice invoke ideas such as fairness, equality (of opportunity if not outcome), people getting their due, etc. In modern times, ideas such as liberty, freedom, dignity, and human rights are also present.

In contrast, Western conceptions of God describe a creator/created, master/slave, owner/property arrangement that is entirely inconsistent with these "justice adjacent" concepts. Being coerced into behavior that one does not wish to participate in through the threat of social or physical harm is not just, yet it is the foundation of most God-centered enterprises.

If you subscribe to some other version of "God", then you may say this doesn't apply to you. If that deity has a creator role, then this same criticism applies. If you have some non-deific formulation of things, then there is no "God" to discuss, so perhaps this doesn't apply to you.

I did see it. It doesn't change your inability to prove (or apparently even make) your point. — Pro Hominem

My point is I think you're wrong and you don't. That's it- we're done.

This entire passage is so fraught with fallacies, I don't even know where to begin. — Pro Hominem

Name one thing that's wrong. Dare ya. Someone commits an atrocity toward one group because they believe they deserve it and is justice, when as a matter of fact, they did nothing and this perceived idea of justice is really injustice. Do you agree or disagree? Define justice. Right being made wrong or people believing right was made wrong?

Er, ok.... Um, let's try: please provide your definition of the word "God" since you claim to have a different one than the rest of us do. — Pro Hominem

You know what God is, ok. I'm merely saying that books are books and some may not even be worth the paper they're printed on.

Edit: wrong being made right.. lol