What is justice?What is Right or Wrong Morally?

[US-SSR]

As a consequentialist I judge the rightness or wrongness of an action by the effects it has. A good action has good effects; a poor one has poor effects. That being said, all useful moral codes share a core set of values, don't kill, don't steal, don't lie being three of the more obvious. A staggering oversimplification or a good start, you decide.

[Czechostan]

What is the "universal will"? Because quite clearly, different people believe different things are just and have wills that come into conflict.

I define universal will as that will which all people would be satisfied with if it is followed, not necessarily that they most want. That is, the will which allows for the fulfillment of as all people.

How does one gauge universal will?

This sounds like a type of relativism too, since the will that fulfills most of the people is forever in flux.

[The Emerald Legion]

The thing about moral relativism is that it has to be acknowledged, but we don't have to surrender to it just because it's the nature of things. The universe doesn't judge, it doesn't care about fairness, it just is. Even a genocide is, on a cosmic scale, just objects moving in space. But we can act as if there are some objective morals when it comes to the preservation of human well-being.

I firmly disagree. Just because it's possible to be incorrect, even likely to be incorrect, does not mean correctness doesn't exist.

[True Refuge]

What is justice?
Enforcement of a society's moral code against those who violate it in a way that does not betray that code.
What is Right or Wrong Morally?
Very little if any objectivity exists on this subject. Anything based on religious faith cannot be proved and so unsuitable for wide application. The closest thing we have is Kant's categorical imperative. Although that is internally consistent, some special cases mean it's not palatable for everyone.
How do you tell something is right or wrong?
There's very few objective ways to do this. On a personal level, it's best to come up with a small number of rules (with or without established exceptions) that you apply absolutely to all questions of morality. Kant's categorical imperative does this well, but it has its weaknesses.

For example, I think the absolute bare minimum people should follow is mostly covered by this list, which I've copy pasted from elsewhere:

• It is an intolerable crime to take an action likely to cause extensive or uncontrolled loss of human life or suffering of human beings.
• It is an intolerable crime to do significant and measurable damage to Nature or the Produce of Civilisation, or take an action likely to result in extensive or uncontrolled destruction of the same.
• It is an intolerable crime to kill or seriously harm a minor.
• It is an intolerable crime to deprive a human being [or a non-human minor] of the ability to call for help or otherwise successfully contact fellow human beings.
• It is an intolerable crime to inflict torturous and unnecessary suffering upon a living animal which is not a human being and thus incapable of fully informed consent.
• It is an intolerable crime to break a legal contract which one has made voluntarily without duress or pressure, and with full understanding of its terms, conditions, and consequences, unless an unforeseen change in circumstances renders the contract terms destructive, absurd, or cruel, in which case settlement must be found which is as fair as possible to all parties who have acted in good faith throughout.

For the most part this is only applicable in a certain political setting, in a world where people were given the ability to live by their own senses of justice and morality and do whatever they want that fits within the constraints of their morality to other people who follow the exact same morality. In that setting, I'd say that's what absolutely everyone should have to adhere to.
What are morals?
Whatever a person thinks are necessary guidelines to protect the fabric of society.
How are laws binding?
Social and self-applied pressure at the bare minimum in a homogeneous society, enforcement by the state otherwise.
What is freedom?
The decision to do what one wants, as OP said.

[Czechostan]

The thing about moral relativism is that it has to be acknowledged, but we don't have to surrender to it just because it's the nature of things. The universe doesn't judge, it doesn't care about fairness, it just is. Even a genocide is, on a cosmic scale, just objects moving in space. But we can act as if there are some objective morals when it comes to the preservation of human well-being.

I firmly disagree. Just because it's possible to be incorrect, even likely to be incorrect, does not mean correctness doesn't exist.

Well, for there to be "incorrectness," there must necessarily be "correctness," else how would we judge something to be "incorrect"? But Page didn't use either term, he's saying this is just how it is.

[The Emerald Legion]

I would also strongly disagree with Justice or Morality being a social, rather than individual concept. Law is a social construct, Justice and Morality are individual.

What is justice?: Just Behavior or Treatment. To be Just is to be morally right and fair. So Justice is the maintenance of Morally right behavior.

What is Right or Wrong Morally?: Courses of action which see you prosper or making gains towards your own self-determined goals.

How do you tell something is right or wrong?: By weighing an actions effectiveness in accomplishing your goals against the costs. As an example, Theft. You could gain by stealing things, however this would require either there be no punishment for thievery, in which case you would have little recourse against the losses of thievery yourself. Or that you get punished for theft, any punishment, in order to be effective, would have to cause you to lose more than you gain by the act to be discouraged, and so thievery is undesireable within the ingroup where all are subject to the same laws.

What are morals?: Morals are the general tenets of what one believes to be effective strategies for successfully achieving ones goals.

How are laws binding?: By the consent of the governed, granting empowerment to the enforcers of those laws.

What is freedom?: The lack of constraints on ones actions.

[Ethel mermania]

So no "might is right beating" to get the answer we want?

I mean tbh the answers he gave were pretty vague anyway, so even more rounded answers would be a start.

No biting?


I have been watching the good place.

[Bombadil]

Given even animals have basic notions of fairness and justice I don't think it's right to simply say 'what I think..'.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I define universal will as that will which all people would be satisfied with if it is followed, not necessarily that they most want. That is, the will which allows for the fulfillment of as all people.

How does one gauge universal will?

This sounds like a type of relativism too, since the will that fulfills most of the people is forever in flux.

It's not a type of relativism, it is simply what allows everyone to be fulfilled. People's desires for how to be treated are pretty consistent throughout history. What leads to fulfillment is related to what one wants, but is not necessarily that which fulfills everyone. For example, everyone might want to be a ruler, but it would be unfair for some of them to be rulers, so you either have to compromise and allow everyone to rule, or you have to compromise and have someone rule who will rule with an even hand. People may not want rule with an even hand, but it is what is fair, not what it is they want.

[Czechostan]

It's not a type of relativism, it is simply what allows everyone to be fulfilled. People's desires for how to be treated are pretty consistent throughout history.

I don't agree with you there. People's desires are very much a product of the time. In eras of instability, people certainly desire security more than people in eras of stability. The desire for food is certainly stronger in an era of famine than an era of plenty. And we can apply the same principle for geographical location too. If we are to reduce desire to the individual layer, than the universal will still differs across history, for we would have different ratios of people with different desires at different times.

You say people's desires are pretty consistent. That's different than being absolutely consistent. Pretty consistent desires means the universal will is bound to change. Saying otherwise would be to say that people have a consistent or natural inclination to certain desires. But if we go down that road, then we don't need to say justice is what satisfies the desires of most people, but justice is what satisfies natural human desire.

What leads to fulfillment is related to what one wants, but is not necessarily that which fulfills everyone. For example, everyone might want to be a ruler, but it would be unfair for some of them to be rulers, so you either have to compromise and allow everyone to rule, or you have to compromise and have someone rule who will rule with an even hand. People may not want rule with an even hand, but it is what is fair, not what it is they want.

Oh, I understand what you mean. Like utiltarianism, basically, but with fulfillment as the metric.

[Tabor-Zion]

Morality can only be founded upon God. What He says is right is right and what he says is wrong is wrong. Objective morality can't come from any other source. We can know what he says is right/wrong through his word, the Bible

[United Muscovite Nations]

It's not a type of relativism, it is simply what allows everyone to be fulfilled. People's desires for how to be treated are pretty consistent throughout history.

I don't agree with you there. People's desires are very much a product of the time. In eras of instability, people certainly desire security more than people in eras of stability. The desire for food is certainly stronger in an era of famine than an era of plenty. And we can apply the same principle for geographical location too. If we are to reduce desire to the individual layer, than the universal will still differs across history, for we would have different ratios of people with different desires at different times.

You say people's desires are pretty consistent. That's different than being absolutely consistent. Pretty consistent desires means the universal will is bound to change. Saying otherwise would be to say that people have a consistent or natural inclination to certain desires. But if we go down that road, then we don't need to say justice is what satisfies the desires of most people, but justice is what satisfies natural human desire.

What leads to fulfillment is related to what one wants, but is not necessarily that which fulfills everyone. For example, everyone might want to be a ruler, but it would be unfair for some of them to be rulers, so you either have to compromise and allow everyone to rule, or you have to compromise and have someone rule who will rule with an even hand. People may not want rule with an even hand, but it is what is fair, not what it is they want.

Oh, I understand what you mean. Like utiltarianism, basically, but with fulfillment as the metric.

No, more like the Categorical Imperative. If it were utilitarian, it wouldn't be fair, as it would take some people's fulfillment more into account than others. It's not maximizing fulfillment, but seeking what allows universal fulfillment. If it were utilitarian, some people's fulfillment would naturally need to be contravened for the *greater* fulfillment of others.

[Czechostan]

No, more like the Categorical Imperative. If it were utilitarian, it wouldn't be fair, as it would take some people's fulfillment more into account than others. It's not maximizing fulfillment, but seeking what allows universal fulfillment. If it were utilitarian, some people's fulfillment would naturally need to be contravened for the *greater* fulfillment of others.

But not everyone would be able to be fulfilled to the same degree, right?

[United Muscovite Nations]

I don't agree with you there. People's desires are very much a product of the time. In eras of instability, people certainly desire security more than people in eras of stability. The desire for food is certainly stronger in an era of famine than an era of plenty. And we can apply the same principle for geographical location too. If we are to reduce desire to the individual layer, than the universal will still differs across history, for we would have different ratios of people with different desires at different times.

You say people's desires are pretty consistent. That's different than being absolutely consistent. Pretty consistent desires means the universal will is bound to change. Saying otherwise would be to say that people have a consistent or natural inclination to certain desires. But if we go down that road, then we don't need to say justice is what satisfies the desires of most people, but justice is what satisfies natural human desire.


Oh, I understand what you mean. Like utiltarianism, basically, but with fulfillment as the metric.

No, more like the Categorical Imperative. If it were utilitarian, it wouldn't be fair, as it would take some people's fulfillment more into account than others. It's not maximizing fulfillment, but seeking what allows universal fulfillment. If it were utilitarian, some people's fulfillment would naturally need to be contravened for the *greater* fulfillment of others.

To go back to the example of governance, it might produce the greatest amount of fulfillment to use eminent domain to create a great convenience for the whole community, but it may not be fair to those who lose property to it.

To use a more personal example, some people may be more fulfilled by polygamy, but polygamy cannot be applied on any reasonable scale and lead to *everyone else* being fulfilled, as such, it is immoral, as the people who would prefer polygamy would still be fulfilled without it.

[United Muscovite Nations]

No, more like the Categorical Imperative. If it were utilitarian, it wouldn't be fair, as it would take some people's fulfillment more into account than others. It's not maximizing fulfillment, but seeking what allows universal fulfillment. If it were utilitarian, some people's fulfillment would naturally need to be contravened for the *greater* fulfillment of others.

But not everyone would be able to be fulfilled to the same degree, right?

Of course not, but the way I am measuring is a standard which subjects all people to the same treatment. In such a scenario, only that which leaves everyone fulfilled (and not necessarily that which creates the most fulfillment) would be fair.

[Vetalia]

Honestly, the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule are pretty rock solid as a guide for what is right or wrong, other than the First Commandment which is religion-specific but even then is good guidance at its root, i.e. not to put material things above the moral and spiritual. You can argue about the particulars beyond that but these seem like pretty natural, intuitive guidelines for morality that are cross-cultural, even universal in application.

[Czechostan]

But not everyone would be able to be fulfilled to the same degree, right?

Of course not, but the way I am measuring is a standard which subjects all people to the same treatment. In such a scenario, only that which leaves everyone fulfilled (and not necessarily that which creates the most fulfillment) would be fair.

How is it possible to fulfill everyone while also subjecting everyone to the same treatment?

[Czechostan]

To use a more personal example, some people may be more fulfilled by polygamy, but polygamy cannot be applied on any reasonable scale and lead to *everyone else* being fulfilled, as such, it is immoral, as the people who would prefer polygamy would still be fulfilled without it.

And the same can be said about monogamy or bachelorhood. Any one of these being applied universally would not lead to everyone else being fulfilled, and surely people could be fulfilled otherwise.

[Neanderthaland]

Honestly, the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule are pretty rock solid as a guide for what is right or wrong, other than the First Commandment which is religion-specific but even then is good guidance at its root, i.e. not to put material things above the moral and spiritual. You can argue about the particulars beyond that but these seem like pretty natural, intuitive guidelines for morality that are cross-cultural, even universal in application.

The first 3 are religion specific.
The forth is okay, but neglects the obligations parents have to children.
The fifth is fine, but obvious.
The sixth is okay on it's own, but redundant with the 9th.
The seventh is nicely refuted by the work of Victor Hugo.
The eighth is actually a really solid commandment, and correctly puts the onus exactly where it ought to be. I would change nothing.
The ninth literally describes thought-crime, and is a morally abhorrent commandment that criminalizes involuntary desires of which people have no control.
10th has the same problem as the 9th.

So, really. There's one good commandment. The rest are either "meh" or bad.

[Rojava Free State]

Unnecessary harm to living beings is wrong. One should take care to do as little harm to others as possible unless it is absolutely necessary and there is no alternative.

[Neanderthaland]

Unnecessary harm to living beings is wrong. One should take care to do as little harm to others as possible unless it is absolutely necessary and there is no alternative.

Except for whoever invented pumpkin spice.

[United Muscovite Nations]

To use a more personal example, some people may be more fulfilled by polygamy, but polygamy cannot be applied on any reasonable scale and lead to *everyone else* being fulfilled, as such, it is immoral, as the people who would prefer polygamy would still be fulfilled without it.

And the same can be said about monogamy or bachelorhood. Any one of these being applied universally would not lead to everyone else being fulfilled, and surely people could be fulfilled otherwise.

Monogamy allows everyone (or rather the greatest number of possible people, as there is not enough people in the world for everyone) to experience companionship, which would be more fair than some people having multiple partners and being fulfilled, and some people having none and not being fulfilled.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Of course not, but the way I am measuring is a standard which subjects all people to the same treatment. In such a scenario, only that which leaves everyone fulfilled (and not necessarily that which creates the most fulfillment) would be fair.

How is it possible to fulfill everyone while also subjecting everyone to the same treatment?

By choosing that which is fair to everyone.

[The Emerald Legion]

Honestly, the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule are pretty rock solid as a guide for what is right or wrong, other than the First Commandment which is religion-specific but even then is good guidance at its root, i.e. not to put material things above the moral and spiritual. You can argue about the particulars beyond that but these seem like pretty natural, intuitive guidelines for morality that are cross-cultural, even universal in application.

Not... really. At all.

1.) I am the Lord, Thy God, Thou shalt not have any other gods before me.

2.) Thou shalt not take the name of the lord, thy god, in vain.

3.) Remember to keep holy the Sabbath Day.

4.) Honor thy Father and Mother.

5.) Thou Shalt not Kill.

6.) Thou shalt not commit Adultery.

7.) Thou shalt not steal.

8.) Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

9.) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife.

10.) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods.

So it's really not until you get to the fourth commandment where you get one that is fairly commonly accepted. The Sixth Commandment isn't exactly well thought of in this day and age, and most moral codes are pretty unconcerned with thought crime, so that tosses out nine and ten.

[Czechostan]

Monogamy allows everyone (or rather the greatest number of possible people, as there is not enough people in the world for everyone) to experience companionship, which would be more fair than some people having multiple partners and being fulfilled, and some people having none and not being fulfilled.

By choosing that which is fair to everyone.

Such a choice does not exist, certainly not if it's a principle chosen universally. "You can't please everyone" as the saying goes. In fact, I dare say more people would be fulfilled if they were allowed to chose for themselves than follow some universal. For example, some people might find it is more fulfilling to be monogamous, others might prefer polyamory, others might prefer no marriage at all. To force everyone into the same standard would reduce the number of people who are fulfilled.