Talk:Justice

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• BLIND YET NO SHUT-EYE.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Messenger003

First of all, justice, an existing entry, admits at the beginning that it is a topic of constant debate and thinking, which shows that there is no conclusion! Then it should be acceptable for me to re-edit and propose a new definition. Justice is the top-level entry on Wikipedia, which means it has a huge impact on human society and should be the code of conduct for all human beings. Then it should be simple and clear enough for most people to understand at a glance. I think the content of the existing entries is just a pile of various discussions and speculations, without giving a simple and clear definition that people can understand at a glance. The current entry is not worthy of a C-level entry in terms of content. The top-level entry must be simple and clear.

My definition: To protect the freedom of other beings and oneself is justice, and the rest is evil! The existing item is followed by the discussion of distribution. In my justice, there is no distribution problem anymore, because first of all, you have to protect the freedom of others to use their own legitimate interests. There is no distribution, and it is evil to distribute the interests of others. Maintaining the freedom of others eliminates factors that affect interests other than abilities and efforts. Therefore, the weak will not covet the interests of the strong and do not need to distribute; based on the same reasoning, the strong will naturally help those who really need help.

The existing entry goes on to say that justice is a virtue, and it is! But even the notion of justice is unclear, and neither is this virtue.

The existing article also mentions the issue of abolition of the death penalty. According to my definition, abolition of the death penalty is unjust from the perspective of safeguarding the life and freedom of victims.

Understanding of fairness and justice: Existing entries still do not have a clear answer. My definition includes all good and rejects all evil.

The existing entry regards justice as social harmony, which is wrong! My justice is not social harmony, but a necessary and sufficient condition for social harmony!

See justice as a divine command: Yes, my definition comes from the will of the Creator, and it is a simple and clear definition given by Him. Messenger003 (talk) 02:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

no conclusion

Yep, justice is a complicated issue.

propose a new definition

Wikipedia limits itself to things that notable other people have said (WP:VERIFIABLE) expressed with some balance WP:DUE... so you can't really propose your own definition. You *can* find your ideas in the literature (billions of people think lots of things) and ensure that they are expressed with as much weight as it should have and no less. Wikipedia sucks for valuable original thought (WP:OR), we can however it make it as easy as possible for others to engage in oringal thought, the process of editing wikipedia will stimulate thought, and the ideas produced while editing could be profitable added to a blog, tweet, youtube video, or paper (should you have the willpower to get it published).

should be the code of conduct for all human beings

I imagine it may act in this way... just the pillars of wikipedia WP:PILLARS trump that because ... it's wikipedia. By all means you can be motivated to make the lead as clear and succinct as possible, provided its not at odds with wikipedia's other aims.

In my justice, there is no distribution problem anymore

It sounds like you are interested in negative and not positive rights.

which is wrong

I'm sure many scholars and schools of thoughts agree with them. You can endeavor to ensure that these ideas are well as expressed as possible. Talpedia (talk) 10:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

This user has a long history of adding personal essays to this article and its talk page. Other users (see [1]) have tried to engage them in discussion, but the behavior continues. I've put a level 2 warning on the user talk page and suggest this escalate until the disruptive editing stops or the user is blocked. Oblivy (talk) 03:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the editing behavior started on the article space, then moved to the talk page. Here are the diffs [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]Oblivy (talk) 04:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

@Talpedia Thank you very much for your reply. In fact, I have never known how to reply to you. I did not respond to that reply. I found out recently, and it has been too long. Feel sorry! Regarding your questions, I have rewritten an article. If you are free, please move to my personal talk page, and I may be able to answer some questions! Thank you again!Messenger003 (talk) 14:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Big picture issues with article

I have made a substantial set of edits to this article, to improve the lead a bit so it reflects the article as a whole, to make some copyedits (for example, Plato wouldn't be talking about the Abrahamic God, but rather the gods), and generally to try to impose a bit of organizational consistency to the article. It needs a lot of work, and I won't suggest my edits are perfect but they were needed

As it stood, and as large parts of it still stand, the article breaks up theoretical frameworks into multiple pieces. For example, divine command and other religious theories of justice were broken into two pieces and I've put them in one place.

Big issues remain. The section on Theories needs to be cleaned up and probably belongs up at the top, maybe as a replacement for History (some text can be kept). I'm done for now and hope to come back later. This is an important article and it needs some TLC. Oblivy (talk) 01:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

"Plato wouldn't be talking about the Abrahamic God, but rather the gods" Rather unlikely for Plato to speak of multiple gods. Like other Greek philosophers, he apparently believed in a single creator deity. Per the main article on monotheism:

• • "Also from the 6th century BCE, Thales (followed by other Monists, such as Anaximander, Anaximenes, Heraclitus, Parmenides) proposed that nature can be explained by reference to a single unitary principle that pervades everything. Numerous ancient Greek philosophers, including Xenophanes of Colophon and Antisthenes, believed in a similar polytheistic monism that bore some similarities to monotheism. The first known reference to a unitary God is Plato's Demiurge (divine Craftsman), followed by Aristotle's unmoved mover, both of which would profoundly influence Jewish and Christian theology. " Dimadick (talk) 07:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  Fair enough, and thanks for the input. What I found was that the discussion was the capitalized God, which implied to me the Abrahamic God. It seemed odd to have it capitalized like that, but I'll have a look at the sources the next time I'm ready to work on it and make a call (unless you want to fix it up according to your understanding!). Oblivy (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  OK, I've had a some time to look at this and I think it's correct the way it is. I'm by no means an expert on Plato but I had a look at Euthyphro dilemma and the usage there is "gods" as well. The quote is more or less the same (including plural gods) as in the Euthyphro Dilemma article. The introduction of capitalized singular "God" is in the context of later commentators.

  The link to the Wells article is broken. Try this[8]. In that, Wells, does say that Plato sees a single creator, but I'm not sure how to square that with later references to the Pantheon.

  I happen to have a copy of Plato's Laws (Thomas Pangle Trans.) which was his last dialogue and it talks a bit about the gods (but see my definitely-not-false-humility comment about lack of expert knowledge).

  If someone with greater knowledge wants to make changes, I have no objection other than to say I think the Abrahamic "G" is not appropriate when talking about Plato's own body of work. Oblivy (talk) 06:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Socrates as a character?

Perhaps my philosophy isn't at a PhD level. But this article pretty explicitly describes Socrates as a "character". It kind of reads like a punch in the face.

Surely we can't just make the argument that Socrates was merely a construct of Plato's right here in the Wikipedia article for "Justice"? 2607:FEA8:7A4:7C00:5D:E975:C76B:421D (talk) 03:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure he'll be fine. Remsense ‥ 论 04:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)