[...] How can you say one is more objectively right than the other when people of both opposing views see their own view as just via Golden rule? — SonJnana

If the golden rule criteria is met, then the disagreement must be about facts about the event, or else about the purpose of a punishment. As previously stated, the goal of the punishment is to pay for the harm done, if any, and then to prevent the defendant from doing the crime again. The first goal restores justice, and the second goal prevents further injustice or harm to oneself. If the judges agree on the goals and the facts that meet those goals, then I see no other reasons for a disagreement.

Your viewpoint is that if it is unjust, then it must also be immoral. How can you say that it is not unjust but it is immoral? — SonJnana

For criteria other than justice in the case of sex. I can only think of religious reasons at the moment, like Christianity that commands against adultery.

[...] So how can premarital sex itself be just or unjust? It depends on the viewpoint of the person. [...] I agree justice is necessary and that it is not sufficient. That is because justice requires presupposed values. One's Golden rule is based off of their values. [...] As you've now acknowledged, people can have different values and therefore different different judgements about what is just via Golden rule. [...] And that is what I believe people mean when they say morality is subjective — SonJnana

Human justice and the golden rule are indeed relative to human values. But aside from subjective tastes, all men have the same values. E.g., we all want respect, honesty and health. The exception to this rule seems to be sex; which moral judgement seems to come from religion. But that is an exception rather than the rule. I honestly don't think we can find another exception.

I think it makes more sense to just say that an action is moral if it is just according to the criteria. — SonJnana

No, because this does not fit the case about sexual acts which may be deemed immoral even if the person committing it passes the golden rule.

When judging something, that is dependent on the criteria you are using. The criteria itself is constructed. And my point is that since people differ on the criteria they are using when they use the word morality - they have different values - that is why you can't just say something is objectively morally right. If everyone were to use the Golden rule in a situation, everyone wouldn't always come to the same judgements about what is just or unjust. — SonJnana

I still claim that the only objective value that creates a disagreement is about sex. All other objective values (i.e., not subjective tastes) are virtually universally agreed upon. So if the case is not about sex, then the disagreement in judgement must come from a disagreement of facts, not values.

The path of justice would have him pay you back. The path of mercy wouldn't. — Moliere

Something doesn't add. Being merciful sounds morally good only if he is penitent. And if he is sincerely penitent, then he would intend to pay you back when he can. If he can but refuses to pay, then there is no real penitence, and so mercy does not sound morally good here. Or else, declining to receive the money back sounds like irrational mercy, and thus also not morally good.

It seems the morally good mercy would be, after showing sincere penitence and intending to pay back when possible, you choose to keep sheltering him and retain the trust without further retribution. And this would not be unjust.

[...] But it would just be one contender among many for what counts as moral goodness -- one rule among many to follow. In what way could we select this kind of rule such that it is not merely a matter of taste, with a little more emotional "umph", just like sanctions against certain sexual acts appear to be? — Moliere

Since the moral judgements of sexual acts appear to go beyond the criteria of justice, I can only deduce it comes from religions, like Christianity, where the bible says that marriage is the union between a single man and woman (thus disapproving of homosexuality and polygamy), and commands against adultery (thus disapproving of premarital and extramarital sex).

If Christianity is true, then the moral commands posited in the bible would be true. But since not everyone has heard of or believes in Christianity or other religions positing these commands, not everyone will agree to follow these, even if they were true. So I think that, in practice, there may always be moral disagreements about sexual acts.

Free will does not mean we have freedom in every way. We seem to not be free to choose to abide to the laws of physics, and we are certainly not free from the laws of logic. Rather, free will means freedom of intentions, and acts that follow the intentions, insofar that the acts abide to the laws of logic and physics. As far as I can tell, we cannot prove that we do not have freedom of intentions.

I agree that what is objective is found either because the property is necessary, or because we observe it empirically. I also agree that we can find what is necessary from definitions, or essence of things; although we do not create essences, we discover them.

I disagree that all that is empirical is material. To observe an inner sense of moral duty is empirical, though the sense is not necessarily material. And if we all have the same inner moral sense of duty to seek justice and avoid injustice, then this justice-based morality is objective because justice is objective.

The original example was simply if someone has a drug addiction. [...] — SonJnana

I guess I was not very clear. My bad.

Do you think a person intentionally going out of their way to do drugs and become an addict - do you think jail exceeds that crime or not? — SonJnana

The correct answer is: it depends on the facts. First, is the defend truly at fault, that is, was the crime intentional and foreseeable? If not, then no punishment is deserved. If yes, then was someone else harmed, either physically, financially, etc? If yes, then the defendant must pay for the harm done. If not, then what punishment can be done with the end to prevent the defendant from doing the crime again? If it can be done with a mere warning, then so be it. If not, then the punishment would be raised so as to meet that end. At the extreme, if a criminal keeps escaping from prison and killing everyone, then the capital punishment may be adequate at that point.

I am not saying any of the above facts are easy to uncover; but they remain objective facts nonetheless.

Whether or not it is unjust depends on an individual's views. [...] My point this whole time has been to say that justice is dependent on presupposed values. — SonJnana

Not 'unjust'; 'immoral'. As defined in the OP, 'justice' is objective; and even when it comes to sex, justice is easy to determine by applying the golden rule. E.g., if I have premarital sex but am intolerant of my spouse having done it, then I am unjust.

[...] However, so many other variables like culture, parents, etc. can influence what people consider just in other situations, such as whether premarital sex is immoral or not. People may have the same presupposed values for extreme cases via Golden rule, but that doesn't mean it applies to every case. — SonJnana

Even in the case of sex, justice is a necessary criteria for morality, even though it is not a sufficient criteria. Note, this does not exclude the possibility that other criteria to determine morality are also objective. But I concede that justice alone is not sufficient in all cases. Can we agree to this: If just, then it is not necessarily moral, but if unjust, then it is necessarily immoral.

What is the criteria of whether or not a 15 y/o is old enough to make those decisions? You could look at the facts about brain development in 15 year olds. Some would argue that development is sufficient at 15 while others would say it is not - both views via Golden rule after looking at the same facts. — SonJnana

Whether or not the criteria is easily found, it does not make it less objective. Would anyone disagree that a 15 y/o is better suited to make this decision, than a 5 y/o? If no one, then the property of "being suited to make this decision" is objective.

Conventionally, objectivity means that the property described is part of the object of thought, independent of the subject of thought. Objective properties may be either necessary or contingent. To say "the Earth is flat" is an objective statement, because the Earth is either flat or not, independent of the subject saying it. It is also a contingent property because it could logically be not flat (like round if you can imagine). Speaking about morality, I use the term "objective" in the conventional sense (notwithstanding the possibility that it can be necessary too, but this is besides the point).

It is true that without free will, then there can be no moral acts. But why think there is no free will? Most people believe in free will, and it sure feels like we have free will upon self reflection. As such, the onus of proof is on the other side.

By "necessity" I just meant true or felt for all. So while "Do as you want" may lead to contradiction in desire as people compete over fulfilling desires which negate one another, the same would be said of the golden rule "Do unto others as you would have done unto you" -- so if you acted by said maxim you would still fall into conflict with the desires of others. — Moliere

Got it. This is what I have been calling "primary values": What all consider to be good or bad. But I don't think this it leads to competitions. Primary values such as honesty, respect, safety and health can be received as well as given without competition. Situations like the Trolley problem are more challenging, but as discussed a few times in this thread, it can be resolved.

[...] We can come up with other examples of mercy -- but mercy is the virtue I'm citing to give a clear delineation between moral goodness and justice. — Moliere

We should come up with another example, not so much because I disagree with your interpretation of the story of Jesus, but because it is about justice from God to man, which is not as clear as justice from man to man. I still think that mercy cannot be morally good if unjust, but we can test specific examples.

We may all have some needs. But we also want more than we need. [...] — Moliere

This is why I prefer the term "primary value" over "need". Need sounds more like what is necessary for survival. As such, values like honesty, respect, and equality do not fit the category of need; and yet are considered good, and their opposites bad, by all. I have not met you, but I would still bet you do not want to be lied to, disrespected, or discriminated against.

As for homosexuality, it is true that this does not fall under the criteria of justice or the golden rule, and I am not sure where I stand on this. I briefly talk here about sexual acts and show that it does not harm the claim that morality is objective, but this may not be what you are looking for.

hrm? I feel like this kind of came out of left field. Not that it's unrelated, only that I wasn't talking about duty -- only that agreeable moral maxims tend to say very little about what to actually do. — Moliere

You were talking about "proper conduct" and "what to do". Duty is defined as "what we ought to do", and so I think you are talking about duty even if you did not call it that. Since what is pleasurable and what is just is not always in agreement, this is where duty is needed: to have a sense to do what is just even when the act is not pleasurable.

The economy only has an instrumental value. If the economic net gain also resulted in net gain in the happiness of people, slavery would then be morally right, but I don't see how that could be possible. In the hypothetical world where slavery didn't cause any kind of suffering to the slaves, I'd have nothing against it. — BlueBanana

Your position still sounds like it is for justice, dressed in different words. One more try: Your spouse cheats on you but you never find out. Your spouse is happy; you are happy. I see no net loss other than in justice. Do you find this act immoral or not?

Why? This goes against that morality is based on equality. — BlueBanana

This is a misunderstanding of my position (which, granted, was not explicit in the OP). Morality is the intention for justice. Sometimes, justice is not easily achievable or straight up impossible. But the intent can remain, and in which case the person is not immoral.

People making different decisions in that situation proves that people disagree not only on the facts but moral sense as well. How is the decision to not pull the lever just? — BlueBanana

Why both the facts and moral sense? Why not just the facts? The decision to not pull the lever may come from the belief that all choices result in the same amount of gain/loss. This belief is of facts, not of moral sense.

How can a nihilist believe in morality based on equality if they don't believe in morality in the first place? If they believe there is no moral or immoral way to act in any situation, how can the actions they believe to be the moral ones be considered just? — BlueBanana

This depends on why they are nihilists in the first place. Are they nihilists because they perceive no moral sense, or do they perceive no moral sense because they are nihilists?

If the former, then it may be possible to have a reduced moral sense, inasmuch as blind people have a reduced sense of vision. This does not entail that the moral law is not real, inasmuch as the visible object is not unreal. Note also that if there is no moral sense, then there is no moral sense against justice either.

If the latter, then it could be they choose to ignore the moral sense on the grounds that it is a false perception, based on nihilism.

If those people are deemed immoral because morality is based on equality and their god is unjust, that's circular reasoning. — BlueBanana

:brow: I see nothing circular here. Only since the Abrahamic religions did people associate moral goodness with god. Before and outside these religions, one can speak of an immoral god. And if we judge a god to be immoral, the criteria for judgement must be separate from the will of god.

How so? Do not people do things out of duty because they believe it's morally right to do so? If not, why then? — BlueBanana

I should clarify. Duty just means obligation, and is not necessarily for moral reasons. One may have a sense of duty for its country, and not for the belief that the country is always morally right. It could be other reasons like mere tradition, or feeling of belonging, or simply "somebody said so".

Do you mean "to commit injustice" or "to do things that are unjust"? To the former, no, to the latter, yes. I think some unjust actions are morally right, but I don't think injustice in itself is morally right. — BlueBanana

The only difference I think I see between your first and second quote is about intentions. In which case, I agree. One's action may results in injustice without being immoral, if the intention was not unjust. Conversely, one may not intend injustice without being immoral.

[...] people don't always agree on a punishment for a crime. Where I'm losing you is that you are suggesting everyone agrees that for a crime, a certain punishment is acceptable via Golden rule because of natural inclinations. [...] Do you really believe that there are not differences between individuals and cultures of what they think fits a crime via Golden rule? — SonJnana

I don't believe the challenge in finding the fitting punishment lies in the difference in primary values. Rather, I believe the challenge lies in the facts surrounding the crime. Was the criminal's act intentional, was the outcome foreseeable, etc. See below for examples.

In the case of going out of your way to get drugs without coercion, then become addicted - many people would say that is immoral. While others disagree. — SonJnana

The example changed. The original example was about people who got addicted through not fault of theirs. In this new example, the people intentionally broke the law before becoming addicted. This deserves a punishment of some sort. Note, I am not saying it is easy to separate the sincere from the insincere addicts, but the acts should aim to achieve justice as best as we can.

I meant sex without getting married, like virgin till marriage — SonJnana

Sex outside marriage is not necessarily cheating. One could have an open relationship. — BlueBanana

Yep, you got me there. Sex seems to be a morally grey area. Some call premarital or extramarital sex immoral, others don't; and the act is not necessarily unjust. Notice however that if the act is unjust, e.g. nonconsensual, then virtually everybody would judge it to be immoral. My point is that, while justice may not be the only criteria for morality, it is nevertheless a necessary criteria. Morality may therefore be more than justice, but not less.

Some would say the 30 year old is being immoral because they're doing something with someone not old enough to make such important decisions. While others disagree and think they are old enough so the 30 year old is not immoral. This is the difference of values that I've speaking of. — SonJnana

Your example points to disagreement on facts: whether a 15 y/o can make such important decisions or not; not a difference of values. It seems if people were to agree on the fact, then they would agree on the moral judgement, as per your reasoning.

what do you mean by duty? — Pollywalls

Obligation; but we still have the freedom to go for or against it.

theoretically, morality does not even exist, because it is a concept. does your definition of objective define the laws of this universe as objective? — Pollywalls

Of course. Laws of physics are discovered, not man-made; and therefore objective. As it is for physical laws, so it could be with the moral law.

Depends on the case. Could be anything. Well-being, happiness, money, health, etc. etc. — BlueBanana

So anything like as stated above but not justice. So to clarify, if there is a net gain, say in the economy of a state, but for this slavery was introduced, you would find this good? Conversely, if justice was gained by abolishing slavery, but there was no net gain in anything else (also no net loss), then you would not find this to be good?

But the distribution of money isn't equal. I see how the outcome can be argued to be equal but that's merely a subjective interpretation of the situation.[...] — BlueBanana

Morality is intending for equality in treatment, but one still looks to reason on the foreseeable outcome to make the reasonable choice. If two persons had deadly allergic reactions and you had one EpiPen, and knowing that a whole shot is needed to be effective, it would be absurd to give half the shot to one and half the shot to the other, just to "preserve equality". The same goes for the money example. If the 1€ is expected to save lives, then that is the reasonable choice. But if the money is not critical and one of the poor can wait for the next donation, then that becomes the reasonable choice, and we can balance out the share next time.

Another extreme case is the Trolley problem, where equality in treatment is impossible, but that does not mean the person making the choice is immoral, because the intention for equal treatment remains.

What about nihilism? Or religious fundamentalists that believe the will of their deity is the absolute law? Or the trolley problem? — BlueBanana

I am not sure what you mean about nihilism. Could you expand on it? As for the will of a deity, you are here using the word 'duty' ambiguously. If the god is unjust, then a religious person may obey it "out of duty", but this "duty" is similar in meaning to how the nazis were carrying out their acts "out of duty", which has nothing to do with moral duty. In that case, we actually speak of an immoral god.

I wouldn't draw any generalizations out of 8 billion humans. — BlueBanana

8 billion already?! We're gonna fall off the edge soon.

Alright, we can remain skeptics on this. But then to be fair, neither can we assert that there exist people that commit injustice out of moral duty. The only data we can be certain of are from you and me. I have no sense of moral duty to commit an injustice. Do you?

Morality is subjective because it is a view taken by (a) person/s. It not only CAN be a view but it without exception has always been and will be a view. — Seastar

Your reasoning is circular. I would deny the premise that morality is only a view, and hence also the conclusion that it is subjective.

Hello.

Definitions a, b, and c: Notice how these definitions are circular because they contain the word 'justice' or 'just' in them.

Definition (2): It can indeed also mean "conforming to a principle or law", but this is not the meaning I am looking for here, because I would question whether these principles and laws are themselves just, that is, providing equal treatment to all.

Definition 3: "conforming to truth". Different meaning again.

Definition 2a: "Impartial". This is very close to my definition, because impartial is defined as "treating all rivals or disputants equally".

The dictionary is a good starting point to find the essence of concepts; although sometimes it is not perfect, as shown in definitions a, b, and c above. I like to use the good old socratic method of starting with real life examples where the concept is properly used, and arriving at the essential properties through induction.

What I meant is that yes, the law makers might change their minds when they are actually in that situation. But majority of them won't ever end up in that situation. So in their minds they may have no problem with truly believing that they should go to prison should they become drug addicts because they think the addicts are bad people and that they'll never end up as one. — SonJnana

But they still break the golden rule, even if they don't see it, from not thinking the treatment all the way through.

Also, it's even possible that if the law makers do become drug addicts, they may
may willingly go to jail out of a "change of heart" or sense of duty
— Samuel Lacrampe
while others want rehabilitation. — SonJnana

Hey! Don't quote me out of context :wink: . While it is possible out of duty to accept a punishment that fits the crime, no one would accept a punishment that exceeds the crime, even out of duty. Going to jail for stealing may fit the crime. Going to jail for a drug addiction, especially one that came through not fault of ours, clearly exceeds the "crime".

Person A thinks justice for drug addicts is rehabilitation. Person B truly thinks it is wrong and they should go to prison for sense of duty. Do you not think this is possible? — SonJnana

As described above, person B has not found true justice because that treatment breaks the golden rule.

Some people think having sex outside of marriage for everyone is immoral. Some people think it's okay to have as much consensual sex as you want. — SonJnana

By "sex outside of marriage", do you mean "extramarital sex"? I am fairly sure that nobody wants to be cheated on, and as such, this act clearly breaks the golden rule.

Some think it is immoral for a 30 year old to get involved with younger than 18 year old. Yet in other cultures, they truly think it's acceptable for a 15 year old to be with a 30 year old. — SonJnana

While I agree that this behaviour is frowned upon and illegal in some places, I think the reason is not really a moral one. Instead, I think it is either because it is thought that people younger than 18 are not old enough to make such important decisions, inasmuch as it is not permitted to quit school before a certain age, or it could be because of health concerns.

Hello.
Morality is the science of duty, not of facts; the science of 'what ought to be', not of 'what is'. If we are not treating each other equally, then it is our duty to change our behaviour to reach equality. If we already are treating each other equally, then it is no less our duty to preserve equality.

Criteria, evaluation, and value are subjective (i.e. occurring in minds only). — numberjohnny5

That doesn't sound right. Criteria is defined as: The factors that determine the validity of a judgement or proposition. These factors are not always chosen subjectively. E.g.: The criteria to determine if an object is a triangle is for it to be a 'flat surface' with '3 straight sides'. These factors are not chosen subjectively.

Same goes for some values, such as physical values. What is physically good or bad or us is not chosen subjectively. This is why medicine is a science.

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.