Open thread, Sept. 1-7, 2014

polymathwannabe

If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.

Notes for future OT posters:

1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.

2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one.

3. Open Threads should be posted in Discussion, and not Main.

4. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.

If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.

Notes for future OT posters:

1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.

2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one.

3. Open Threads should be posted in Discussion, and not Main.

4. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.

any relevant theory of justice had to be applicable

Any? I have a feeling that you have a particular framework in your head that seems so natural to you that you just assume that everyone else also operates on the basis of the same framework. To you it's perfectly clear what does "relevant" mean here and you can true-Scotsman the "irrelevant" theories of justice.

But I'm different from you and my mind reading skills are lacking.

To be clear, the just world hypothesis is essentially "whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."

Not quite. That's a theory of causality, not justice.

If I had to take a stab at defining justice, I'd say something like "the positive correlation between the moral worth of actions or behavior and the value (to the actor) of the outcomes". I'm using "correlation" here not in a technical sense, but in a loose meaning corresponding to what a statistician might call "lack of independence".

Note the important parts of this ten-second definition: "moral worth" and "value of outcomes". There must be some underlying theory of morality (usually virtue ethics), some value system to estimate that "moral worth", and there also must be some ways to figure out the benefits of outcomes.

Effectively, what people consider "just" flows naturally out of their system of values and the crucial point is that different people have different systems of values, often VERY different.

"Sowing and reaping ought to be uncorrelated" is a popular theory of justice

Is it? My impression is that very few people would consider the world in which what you do doesn't matter at all to be just -- but I'm willing to look at evidence if you have any. Randomness is not justice.

have to be about what it means to sow "good" and what it means to reap "good."

Right. And that's precisely the discussion of the underlying morality and systems of values.

If your point is that under all human systems of value the world is just, well, that claim would need a LOT of support...

any relevant theory of justice had to be applicable

Any?

Yes, any. If you have a theory of justice that can't be applied to the question at hand, it isn't relevant to the question at hand. That doesn't mean your theory isn't a good one, it just means it has reached its limits. For example, a Rawlsian theory of justice has nothing to say about whether bananas are delicious.

To be clear, the just world hypothesis is essentially "whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."

Not quite. That's a theory of causality, not justice.

Well, th... (read more)

1tut12y

Those people usually don't talk about it as "sowing" and "reaping". But it is not rare for people to think of justice as some distribution of stuff that you decide on behind a "veil of ignorance" where your actions are irrelevant because "you" aren't any specific person. Edit: And I did not downvote you. I upvoted the parent of this comment.