- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: How did the framers understand or define justice?
Posted on 7/21/26 at 9:16 am to CleverUserName
Posted on 7/21/26 at 9:16 am to CleverUserName
quote:
If everyone hasn't figured out her shtick, it's deflect, divert, and selectively ignore. That's why her threads go on for 40 plus pages.
he's been following me from thread to thread since April of last year because I lumped Trayvon Martin in with unjustified police killings. 15 months of his schtick and you're complaining about me. 
3
Posted on 7/21/26 at 9:17 am to 4cubbies
quote:
Access is justice.
quote:
Wheelchair ramps are not merely the removal of an injustice— wheelchair ramps are a form of justice.
For whom? For one to seek justice, then there must be an assailant. Who is the assailant? Are you suggesting that any business without wheelchair ramps is guilty of a crime?
quote:
proponents of Affirmative Action also view that as removing barriers/injustice.
Which is why AA fails as a moral argument. For one to believe this, one must also believe that all non-beneficiaries of affirmative action are guilty of perpetuating an injustice. Which is absurd on so many levels.
quote:
Advocates of nearly every conception of justice believe they’re remedying an injustice. The disagreement isn’t between ‘promoting justice’ and ‘preventing injustice’; it’s over what justice actually entails.
Are you seeking justice or vengeance? What is YOUR defintition of justice?
Posted on 7/21/26 at 9:18 am to 4cubbies
quote:
4cubbies
FWIW, i think you are confusing justice with vengeance and /or restitution.
Posted on 7/21/26 at 9:22 am to 4cubbies
quote:
I lumped Trayvon Martin in with unjustified police killings
So should you even be discussing "justice" then? Let me guess... you are on the edge of your seat waiting for an arrest in the latest Al sharpton and Ben Crump hustle.
quote:
15 months of his schtick and you're complaining about me.
That wasn't a complaint. That is simply a statement about a repeated observation.
This post was edited on 7/21/26 at 9:25 am
Posted on 7/21/26 at 9:33 am to 4cubbies
quote:
Wheelchair ramps are not merely the removal of an injustice— wheelchair ramps are a form of justice
Posted on 7/21/26 at 9:44 am to BugAC
quote:
Equal application of the law. It's not hard.
Justice only applies to criminal activity. There can be no justice or injustice unless laws are involved?
Posted on 7/21/26 at 9:44 am to BugAC
quote:
FWIW, i think you are confusing justice with vengeance and /or restitution.
Why?
I view justice in a much broader sense than limiting it to our penal or legal system.
ETA fair elections are a form of justice. actually abiding by the outcomes of elections are a form of justice. I think justice is respecting rights and ensuring people can meaningfully participate in society. Access.
This post was edited on 7/21/26 at 9:49 am
Posted on 7/21/26 at 9:52 am to VOR
quote:
Lou Rawls?
John Rawls.
Posted on 7/21/26 at 9:57 am to 4cubbies
quote:It gets muddled when outcome becomes a consideration, worse yet when outcome trumps equal opportunity.
I think that only happens because there’s no consensus on what justice is. Or what purpose the pursuit of justice should serve
Posted on 7/21/26 at 9:59 am to 4cubbies
quote:
and ensuring people can meaningfully participate in society. Access.
Examples?
Posted on 7/21/26 at 10:13 am to 4cubbies
quote:
No social responsibility beyond the responsibility to respect other people and their stuff? Dystopian. There’s no cooperation or community in that model.
Hahaha, people leaving me alone is not what I consider dystopian. I consider that heaven.
Seriously though, freedom of association, at least to me, leads to cooperation and a feeling of community. Without the "respect for others and their stuff", the community is a low trust community and no one wants that. We all want a safe, high trust community.
quote:
People can still feel good and moral because they pay taxes and some taxes help the poor.
Eh, let's agree to disagree on this. I just do not see it that way. Too much disconnect there.
This post was edited on 7/21/26 at 10:14 am
Posted on 7/21/26 at 10:28 am to BuckeyeGoon
quote:
Examples?
Wheelchair ramps, sidewalks, public transportation, public schools...
Posted on 7/21/26 at 10:32 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
It gets muddled when outcome becomes a consideration, worse yet when outcome trumps equal opportunity.
Justice as equal treatment under the rules vs Justice as correcting historical or structural disadvantages
do you think justice can ever justify differential treatment in order to achieve fair participation?
Posted on 7/21/26 at 10:38 am to 4cubbies
quote:
Wheelchair ramps, sidewalks, public transportation, public schools...
So is your opinion that the framers would have been in favor of that kind of stuff, keeping in mind we know exactly how they felt about taxation and individual property rights?
Its obvious what you're trying to do- you want to take their use of the word "justice" and thread the needle to the conclusion that the founders actually supported socialism, which just isnt the case given everything we know about how they viewed government. They didnt in any way believe the government had a "social responsibility" to take care of the populace.
Posted on 7/21/26 at 10:41 am to UtahCajun
quote:
Seriously though, freedom of association, at least to me, leads to cooperation and a feeling of community. Without the "respect for others and their stuff", the community is a low trust community and no one wants that. We all want a safe, high trust community.
I agree, but I think our social responsibility extends beyond simply leaving people (and their stuff) alone.
For example, I recently saw my neighbor's dog wandering the neighborhood without a leash. My neighbor has a right to be left alone, but did I have any social responsibility to try to catch the dog and return him safely? I think most people would say yes.
Posted on 7/21/26 at 10:44 am to 4cubbies
quote:
do you think justice can ever justify differential treatment in order to achieve fair participation?
Absolutely not. Who determines what "fair participation" means? Its whatever person or group is in charge at the time, so "fair" would just mean whatever that person or group says it is. This is one of the basic pitfalls of socialism/communism.
Posted on 7/21/26 at 10:45 am to BuckeyeGoon
quote:
So is your opinion that the framers would have been in favor of that kind of stuff, keeping in mind we know exactly how they felt about taxation and individual property rights?
I don't know. I'm more interested in whether the principles they articulated can be applied to circumstances they couldn't have anticipated, rather than what policy positions they would have taken on modern institutions.
quote:I'm just trying to have a discussion about justice. I don't have any secret conclusions that I'm hiding until a big reveal on page 35.
Its obvious what you're trying to do-
Posted on 7/21/26 at 10:50 am to BuckeyeGoon
quote:
Absolutely not. Who determines what "fair participation" means?
Having an ASL interpreter at presidential addresses would be an example of differential treatment to ensure fair participation. Handicap restrooms would be another.
Posted on 7/21/26 at 10:52 am to 4cubbies
quote:
For example, I recently saw my neighbor's dog wandering the neighborhood without a leash. My neighbor has a right to be left alone, but did I have any social responsibility to try to catch the dog and return him safely? I think most people would say yes.
What breed?
Was is crapping in my yard?
Is it cute?
Is it friendly?
Does it shed a lot?
All questions that matter
j/k
Yes, you are right. We do want that. That is exactly freedom of association and high trust.
Posted on 7/21/26 at 10:54 am to 4cubbies
quote:
defines justice . . . "in defining the appropriate division of social advantages."
This is at least one place I think most, if not all, Founders would disagree with Rawls.
Rawls conception of economic justice focuses on the economic distribution of wealth at any given moment in time. Given this, there would be an ideal distribution of wealth - this is what justice demands. Here is where I think the Founders would disagree: to maintain such a "just distribution" would require some sort of authoritative power disrupting people's ability to freely choose how to spend their money and/or forcibly confiscating money/wealth from others.
The famous example in recent philosophy for this is Nozick's Wilt Chamberlain example: If you start with a society perfectly in tune with Rawls' idea of economic justice. At that point, 1 million people pay a dollar to watch Wilt Chamberlain pay basketball. At that point Wilt has $1 million, which is a good bit more than everyone else.
Rawls' idea of justice would demand one of 2 things: a. force Wilt to play for free, which is slavery - something that instinctively goes against our idea of justice, or b. forbid people from spending their money in that way, again which seems to go against our basic concept of justice.
Very simply put, the Founders would largely or unanimously reject the notion that justice demands some sort of fixed outcome. Rather, I think their conception of justice would focus more on make government, at least centralized power that could command such a pattern of economic justice, incapable of enforcing any economic pattern at all (or at a minimum, far less than what is necessary to achieve a Rawlsian pattern that reflect his conept of justice)
Page 8 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News