Justice vs. Compassion
Posted on: August 6, 2007 - 7:13pm
Offline
Justice vs. Compassion
Justice Versus compassion.
Both are good. But which one should take precedence (priority) when they collide.
Justice: Regardless of sex, race, religion, national origin, reward (or punish) individuals, group of people, businesses, nations proportional to their contribution to the welfare of mankind.
Compassion: Help the needy.
You can make up a case study of your own to think on that.
- Login to post comments
Justice should be the priority. Compassion is subjective and based on emotion and therefore is impossible to distribute fairly.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
I would say that justice would have to take precedence over compassion. However, justice is subjective as well. After all, we would consider burying a woman up to her neck and chucking rocks at her to be horrifically barbaric but the good ol' Muslims in some of the Middle East countries see absolutely nothing wrong with it.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
With justics they'd all get the same treatment, barbaric as it is. With compassion a few would be randomly spared, making it less fair for the ones that aren't.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
Absolutely right. I was being a bit ethnocentric on that one.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
It depends on the situation and is subjective.
I'd put compassion first, but Justice a close 2nd by these definitions.
Pariah, you are most beguiling. I smelled the stench of jihadism on this post as well.
I am pleased to see Tim has stepped away from forcing discussions of definitions before debating the real issue. He has, however, begun to show his true colors, and I have been putting the pieces together.
I will do so here because "justice" is ostensibly the point of discussion in this thread. Justice, interestingly, is synonymous with Nemesis. I shall don her cloak as I lay forth my proofs.
When Timf1234 began to post here, I found many of his claims to be questionable. In particular, he claimed to be weak in English and an atheist. In fact, he would decry others as "theists" if a point struck too closely to him. I was among those so denounced.
So, I stopped interacting with him directly. I started to watch his turn of phrase and began to look for patterns. They arose. I will provide a more in depth analysis to the particulars later, once the truth has been revealed.
His verb placement and usage of adjectives was not of a Western European language pattern. In fact, I sent them to a friend of mine who is an expert in these matters. She found them to be devoid of European langauge base, in aggregate.
Next, I turned to the issues Tim seemed most concerned about. These issues are primarily the issues examined by modern scholars of the Qu'ran, not Biblical scholars. So, again, I was drawn to the notion that he was not Western European.
I began to search other boards. Now, I began to find interesting results. I was, in fact, beSOTTed with what I found. There was an individual arguing for radical, islamic jihad with a different avatar and name that our Timf1234 but with some other identification that was astonishingly clear.
So, I will leave room for the possibility that I have made errors. I am also willing to provide my sources of proof (the other sites in question). I guess I would just ask why a jihadist would attempt to cloak himself as an atheist on the board.
Have you any answers Tim? What is your true view?
"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer
I agree with paranoid. Consistancy in treatment, justice, would be preferable over compasionate favoritism.
Nero, it sounds like you're on to something but I don't know if this rant is on topic?
Understood. I will leave it to the Moderators to decide where this particular trial should occur. I chose this thread because of its clear connection to Jihadist thought. Trust me, marcus, it does appear as a rant at the moment. If you will indulge me with your patience, all will be clear soon. Timf1234 must respond to these issues, and I will be providing my sources and proofs.
"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer
You're absolutely right and I was out of turn for commenting on it (not sarcasm, it really wasn't my place to get onto you).
While I believe most everything is situational, I'm a big fan of compassion.
Compassion isn't just helping the needy. Compassion is also how we treat each other, sometimes with small kindnesses and sometimes with large kindnesses.
Compassion, for instance, would be that someone with mental problems can be convicted of a crime, but "sentenced" to get help, rather than sent to prison. The definition of justice in this case wouldn't work because in my opinion, it would not be justice if the person cannot understand the actions or consequences of those actions.
I am against the death penalty, but I'd be the first one to send a drug dealer to prison for selling to children.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Give me an example when justice and compasion collide. I couldn't think of anything to serve as a global example to answer this question.
There is far reaching implication of Justice Vs. Compassion in politics, economics, and civilization.
To clarify a little bit better.
Let’s say, one person with his/her hard and smart work using his/her own stuff, have caught a lot of fishes. There is another person who is not that smart and did not catch any fish. This is happening almost every day. Instead of two people, you can now make it two groups. One group catches a lot of fishes other group consistently catches very few or none someday.
Would you vote to pass a law so that people with a lot of fish must give up certain percentage (25% or so) of his/her fish to the incompetent group?
Or would you just request the smart group to give some fish for charity and wouldn’t force them to give up their hard earned fishes.
Remember Justice is: Regardless of sex, race, religion, national origin, reward (or punish) individuals, group of people, businesses, nations proportional to their contribution to the welfare of mankind.
Nero,
It sounds like I got under your skin.
First some of you accused me of theist.
When that did not work, you started name calling.
Some of you had no counter argument against my powerful argument for "No Free Will".
You admit it or not, I was able to give you the glimpse of the truth. But It was so bitter you couldn't swallow it. It hurt you so bad. Obviously, many of you started hating me.
Now, you took me so seriously that you have started to research on the internet about me. I must be getting your attention.
Why are you so frustrated? Is it because you couldn't swallow the truths I showed you?
Now you are accusing me of being Jihadist.
Did you read my post at this link: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/freethinking_anonymous/9270
Specially pay attention to the first and last 3 paragraphs in that post.
The only people I just can't stand are the one who cannot reason.
You want my views on the world politics? I will post some, later.
Tim,
You didn't get under my skin. I just realized that what you say does not conform with certain lines of argumentation and the verbiage you use. I could smell something was amiss and poked around to see whether you would just admit that you are a wolf's head is sheep's clothing.
You did not, however. So, I did the research mentioned in my previous post and looked for attachments of your address to other sites specializing in religion or atheism. What I found was disturbing, a mixture of religion and politics that are not well received in educated spheres. As for your politics, we will discuss them when I dictate. I will post them for you, and my fellow RRS readers can judge for themselves.
RRS members, when you go to these sites, look for the individuals called SOTT. SOTT is an acronym meaning Sight of the Truth. Remember, Tim's address is the same here and at these sites. You can find his writings here:
http://www.vicious-arrogance.com/AO/Forum/viewmsg.cfm?DID=12404
http://www.vicious-arrogance.com/AO/Forum/viewauthorinfo.cfm?AID=sott
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum2/viewtopic.php?p=105099&highlight=&sid=459bbdfae14214fb2a91351dec209aa6
So, this is a taste of what I know, Tim. I am digging further into your past, and you have left a trail as wide and bright as I could hope for.
You see, Tim, I am not slinging abuse at you. Your inconsistency on this site led me to my research. You have labeled yourself a jihadist in other places. You also refer to the damage that should be done to my home country, USA. I, also, found this disturbing; thus, my research was spurred on.
So, are you going to discuss the truth with us now, or will you continue to attempt to avoid the reality? I would advise the former because I am still researching. It looks as if you have been quite busy with known jihadists. I will post these links in the next installment, unless you would prefer to post them yourself in advance.
Until then,
"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer
I believe justice or compassion are not enough to make a decision. And even so, how do you decide if something is justice or it is compassion? If you give 25% to the people who aren't fishing, then that seems to me like an act of compassion. But aparently you see it as an act of justice. 1) Justice is whoever catches the most, has the right to own the most.(justice) OR 2) Everobody should get the same, regadless of how many they catch.(justice) You can turn those two points of views into compassion by changing your mentality.
So, in order to make the decision I would have to know if the people receiving less fish are starving. I need to know if fishing is all those less fortunate fisherman do, or do they also plant tomatoes... therefore they can trade tomatoes for fish. I need to know the reason why these people are catching less fish than the fortunate guy. I need to know if the less fortunate fisherman has tried other things other than fishing (or fishing somewhere else) to get food. It is not a ohhh we should apply justice because compassion appeals to the emotions and it is not rational. But what if the less fortunate fisherman is catching less on purpose in order to get free fish without having to work for it?
*bump*
*waits patiently*
Keep trying.
Learn to understand, make connection, try to get to the bottom of the message.
Sarcasm! think about it. Deep meaning between the lines I write.
to find the truth it is absolutely necessary to play both side.
I am not here to make more bear buddies but to test my theories, and learn from each other.
I am experience. I know, for fact about 50% of the atheists are as dumb as theist. They both are brainwashed in one direction or another.
However, other half are really good.
I want to discuss things, argue with this 50%.
Yes, I do have my standard below which I won't go the extra miles to talk/discuss complex issues with brain wash people.
Keep digging...
Neither. If the group that is catching a lot of fish are smarter and more hardworking than the other group, I see no reason why they should be penalized for their productivity.
I'm not quite sure how that relates to 'justice', though.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
Tim, why is your sentence composistion, syntax, slang and word usage so different between this post:
...and this one?
In the first you seem to understand the language very well, and formulate sentences correctly. In the second you seem to be making an overt effort to illustrate you are not a native speaker.
I'm just curious...
Just as an aside, cryptic mysterious posts such as these generally don't bring much to the table.
It would be much better if you could state what you're trying to say plainily instead of trying to create an air of mystery.
Also, suggesting that half of us are essentially beneath you won't win you any points either.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
The example of the fishes (which is oddly bibical... food for thought, pun intended.) is a poor example for such a broad question.
That is not a question of justice, but of political ideology.
End of story.
Justice is whether or not the rules made by the people who adhere to a political ideology are enforced uniformly.
Whether the rules are just? Another question entirely. Which political ideology is correct? Only people who believe dogmatically in their opinion would suggest that there is a single correct answer. We know about people who believe things dogmatically, don't we? Dangerous folks. They tend to fly planes into buildings and bomb abortion clinics.
Tim, your question is almost meaningless because it is too poorly phrased, or intentionally phrased vaguely.
One of the things you'll find here is that very few of us are willing to answer questions without them being spelled out properly, and we don't particularly care if you trick us into saying something because of a carefully worded question. Word games do not reality make.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Also, the question has to go much deeper than this simple scenario.
Are the people getting less fish able to sustain themselves physically? Are they able to maintain the minimum (for the society in question) standard of living getting so few fish? In this imaginary society, can the proficient group educate the less proficient group? Is the government able to aid in the less proficient groups progress?
I don't actually care to hear the answers to these questions, I'm just pionting out (as previous posters have) that the question really just seems like you're trying to bait something out of us to use as confirmation of an argument you have not yet made. Word games, as Hamby put it. I'm sure there are many folks here that would love to have this kind of philisophical exercise with you (I wouldn't mind) but the original topic needs to be laid out on the table or a bunch of assumptions will be made which will make the argument to scattered to be worthwhile.
Just my .02.
Tim,
You have attempted to take cover in what I will call the "confused polyglot defense." BGH has kindly pointed out that you are altering your syntax and grammar from post to post.
Proof has been set before you, and you do not deny it. Your reply is neither enigmatic nor profound. In fact, when we look to your posts as SOTT, we find that once you were decried for your true self, you did the same thing. So, another tendril of your past grows around you.
Just tell the truth about what you believed. If you are apostate, we understand. If you had dealing with Abdul Rahman, tell us about them. The culture of RRS is one of growth and mutual understanding.
What cannot be allowed are lies. If you deceive us about who you are and what you believe, why would any of us bother dealing with you? It is impossible to seriously discuss anything if the other person keeps changing who they are. Only in Murat's strange world could the phrase, "Dans la nuit, tous les chats sont gris," be true.
So, we all wait now. Trying to hide behind language will not work because we have seen you fluently argue in English. Claiming to be a simple atheist will not work because we have seen your jihadist writings. Only through the manifestation of truth can conversation proceed. I assure you that this will be a constant point of conversation in all of your threads until you respond appropriately and rationally to the evidence before you.
"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer
Hey tim, thanks for ignoring yet another post I make. From now on I will avoid writting directly to you.
I still think English is his primary and he's deliberately mangling it.
As for the question, both are arbitrary concepts but Justice is the more rational of the two.
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
There is no justice, only revenge.
Sorry, but I will illustrate my view with a biblical parabal attributed to Jesus. I researched religion (and still do) but I don't believe in religion or God. But here goes:
Only the best go astray. The cream of the crop. Madhouses are filled with geniuses. The only reason most people aren't insane is because they aren't intelligent enough. The only reason most people don't commit bad crimes is because they are afraid they will be caught. Most "good" people are good out of weakness and given a chance, where they know they won't get caught, they will do something "bad". My opinion is it is better to be bad out of strength then good out of weakness. Of course I try to be good out of strength. That is what I think Jesus's parable about the best sheep going astray and the shepard leaving the ninety-nine and searching for the one. The ninety-nine sheep are good out of weakness. The sheperd can leave them behind, they aren't going anywhere. He looks for the sheep that went astray, which was the Best. It is the debate about whether God is compassionate or Just. God didn't punish the sheep that went astray but loved it even more because it had the strenght to break away from the flock and attain an individuality. The old testament has a God who is very just, with laws and rewards and punishments, the new testament has a loving god.
But I know this forum isn't about god, it is about human justice and compassion. I think compassion is more important. There is no justice, just revenge. Compassion for the individual. Real justice shouldn't be concerned with punishing the criminal but protecting society from crimes.
Firstly your vendetta scares me. It seems a little obsessive. I don't know what Tim's goals are here but the little detective game seems to be taking it a bit too far.
I was going to stay out of this because I'm not entirely sure Tim is someone I want to throw in my lot with. However I want to discuss your point that I've quoted above.
I think it is ideas that are important for a discussion. I don't care who the person is behind the ideas, it's the ideas that we explore. If a compelling argument for the existence of god is presented does it matter if it's presented by an atheist?
Why can't someone role play in order to explore an idea themself, demonstate a concept or just to get the attention of those too closed minded to listen to those outside of their clique?
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
Silentseba,
I am sorry, I am not trying to avoid your post.
Please give me some time. I got few things to take of.
Thanks.
Patrician,
Here you go.
On one hand you said question is arbitrary then you said Justice is more portant.
That's all I wanted to hear.
I do not hate you. I am agreeing with you here.
so am I.
I might allow death panelty in very exceptional cases where there is no other alternative or the risk is too high.
Euthanasia?
Death Panelty?
Abortion?
Justice?
Compassion?
Selfishness?
Altruism?
All arel pretty closely tied togehter. One has have coherent thought/principle. That is what I advocate.
I concur.
I agree 100%.
Of course, it will vary from situation, but at the end of the day, one has to lean toward more than the other.
Which side are you on?
I disagree with you but at least you probably have analyzed it and are not afraid to say what is in your mind.
Well, you and I found some common ground.
I agree.
Justice.
Compassion should have come from the offender prior to the offense.
Yes and no.
If you say either is more important, we'd have to degrade the conversation into a debate regarding definitions and situations.
If you believe that justice means that the same rules apply in absolutely every case, that leaves no room for compassion.
Again, I use my example of a person who is mentally impaired. Would it truly be justice to mete out the same punishment for an offense to this person as it would to someone who commited the crime out of greed or just plain meanness? I do not believe it would. However, that's with some compassion thrown in.
When you get right down to it, why does anyone have to make an overall choice between the two? Sometimes justice will reign and sometimes compassion must take the forefront. As BGH said, it is situational and subjective.
I fail to understand why you think choosing one or the other is important.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Pariahjane,
Well Justice is fairness. I take concept of justice/fairness all the way deep. Doing justice with one's own thought is what I advocate. Justice with one's own thought is looking from every possible angle, do symmetrical thought experiments. Only by doing justice with one's own thought one can get to the truth. Justice in mind is the best filter to sort out truth from false.This is precisely why I said it was subjective. It is pretty hard to give a definitive answer unless all specifics are known.
If you remove capital punishment I suddenly revert to my childhood and why I would break the rules I would be told I should have thought about the consequences before I did the 'act'.
If all things are equal and the offender has full capacities, then justice should be honored as long as the 'law' was known beforehand. If there are extenuating circumstances then compassion needs to be considered.
It is.... "Situational and subjective".
At least some one is asking the right question.
I want counter arguments to flush out any defects in my argument/thought or just abadoned my understanding if proved to be false. [That is also justice.] Here is my reason.I am fully in support of teach our children compassion and practice it as much as we can.But I do not advocate government to legislate compassion.
I have come to the conclusion that Justice can be demanded but compassion can only be requested.
I do not want anyone force compassion out of me. But I support forced justice.
IMHO compassion has to be voluptuary.
I take the concept of justice all the way deep. I advocate justice (symmetrical thought experiments) with one's own thought.
That's all.
Error
Problem with you and some (not all) other atheists is you just won't believe that English is my 2nd language.
There is nothing I can do to prove otherwise. It would have been easier for me to prove otherwise if my claim were in reverse direction. Did you get that? [Have you heared about the experiment how to figure out the entity behind a chat is a person or a computer?]
Then you and some other atheist won't accept that I am not a theist.Then you accuse me of Jihadist.Like theists, some atheists are forgetting to ask tough questions. Like theists, some poor atheists wants to hear only conforming, comforting ideas. I tend to do just the opposite. I myself, hunt for people who will shake, and break my ideas. I am not in love with my ideas but with truth. Therefore, the more "Ah-ha" factor I get out of new ideas the richer I grow. Again remember, I = log (base 2) 1/p.I wish I could throw away my ideas every single day and get better idea every day. Alas, I can't.Are you in love with your ideas?The answer is compassionate justice.
There is nothing cryptic about these questions.
These are the foundation, building block of one's morality, sense of right or wrong.Using these one can build other higher level right and wrongs frameworks, and form opinioin on world politics as well.
For example, knowing, that Natural selection gave us "Selfishness" and "Altruism" both. But at the end of the day, when push comes to shove, selfishness wins - in general. Selfishness is required for the survival of species and altruism is needed for spieces to thrive (think, achieve consciousness, wisdom) - hence balancing act is paramount.
I have been very clear, consistent and coherent in my messages, posts.I repeat, I am not a theist.I am not a Jihadist.Forced justice leaves no room for compassion. Legislated justice leaves no room for compassion. (Think the Three Strikes Laws and now there are people sitting in prison for life because they were arrested for something relatively minor.)
I think you are now defining "logic" (looking at questions from all angles) as "thought justice". It's just logic thinking skills. No reason to put a fancy name on it.
Besides, justice as we've been discussing it (talking about consequences and punishments to actions) in relation to compassion doesn't have anything to do with defining critical thinking skills.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Wait, wait, wait.....
How about 'passionate compassion' with 'justified justice'? Sound good?
No offence, that's sounds like cop out.
Would you agree that justice can be demanded but compassion can only be requested? I do.
I do not want government to legislate compassion but I do want gov. to force the justice.
Justice is everyone's right.
Would you agree?
"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer
Justified justice sounds good as long as it is compassionately justified. 'Compassionately Justified Passionate Justice'?