I think we are all born good, if nothing else. Though it is the company we keep around us that make us who were are as people. Though, this then raises the question: how did they become who they are? And such an answer in nigh impossible to find, for it can and will go on and on and on, until, eventually, we reach the beginning. Though no has enough time do undertake this challenge.
The company each of us keeps helps us grow into our own person. We all have features that reflect different people. Our mothers, fathers, grandparents, older, even younger siblings, friends, mentors and sometime even strangers. All of these people help us though life, and we help them. Such is the way of the world.
Now, the question about Rights. Do we truly have rights? Think about it. Someone gets mugged in New York, the police deal with it. But what if someone got mugged on the way to New York, on some country road, after their car broke down? Do you think anyone has rights then? No. No one will care, or know, at that point. Mind you, it's a very unlikely scenario, but I'm sure you get my meaning. Under normal circumstances, yes, we have rights. Are we born with rights? Yes and no. some rights, like the right to speak out, is earned. How? Let me say it this way. If you went to a rally for some cause, and saw fifty adults speaking out, striking, yelling, would you listen? Probably not, but maybe. But what if there were fifty children speaking out? Would you still listen to them? I think not. Children, among other groups in today's society, cannot and will not be heard by the general public. Why? Who knows? Certainly not me
Okay a bit of revival here.
What is Justice? (a bit of a big one here).
personally i see it as more of a social issue, as defined by Plato; in that, if everyone is content and their natural endowment (t heir natural ability such as carpentry) is not infringed upon by others who are not of the same profession: if for example a trader decided to start making AND selling chairs rather than just selling them, then crime would not be necessary as everyone would have their place.
This is a bit of a rose tinted view of things. So, in the case of a modern concept of justice, (going to have to dig out the text books for this) it needs to be focused on the process of justice; as long as the person is tried fairly then the outcome is just, as opposed to assuming the person is guilty and making an example of him/her.
What is justice?
Justice is the forcing of equivalent reaction of whatever good or bad has been done to a person, towards the one who is responsible for the actions.
When it comes to justice in court, it is a bit more...specific.
A "fair" trial does not mean fair judgement. Or let me ask you this. A mother of two is trying to find a job (after her husband left her), but she just cannot find any kind of job, especially not any kind that would pay enough to feed just her children.
Should she leave the two kids so that she might find enough to feed herself? (of course not, just listing the possibilities)
Should she just keep trying and hope that some wonder happens in the next few days before they starve.
Or should she point a gun at a banker (...where she got the gun is irrelevant), should she tell him that she needs money to feed her children and pretty much rob the place?
In this case, which one would be righteous erik776?
Of course the jury would have her convicted. All they need to hear is that she robed a bank of free will. After that nothing really matters because letting some one free at such case would mean that every body robbing a bank will say that they were starving. And the all smart lawyers would make sure that as a result of that tragic women being released, many others will be. Punish the one braking the law, no matter the circumstances or should the circumstances determine the jury's decisions.... There is no right answer. Of course our basic system is that the circumstances are mostly irrelevant (this way the judging remains relatively simple), but the truth is that there is no just trial. We have built up a system which is full with flaws, increased by corruption, but it is as close as we can get to a righteous trial.
Actually, it's quite easy to argue his statement. realist philosophers will tell you that he is assuming the premise. He claims thinking proves existence. Except in order to think, one must first exist. "I am, therefore I think" would be more accurate.
Originally Posted by CrocMagnum