I believe it was mentioned in class at some point that who or what makes things just or unjust? I found this question very interesting. Say any given action in any given society is deemed just. However, one day that society is overthrown and new laws govern the land. What is just before is now unjust. Now, in my opinion, most of the people would probably go about doing primarily just deeds. But, I imagine that some would refuse to accept these new rules. Another thing that also comes to mind is the question, whose beliefs are the right ones? In a societal setting, the people in charge pretty much have dominion over that, but are they ultimately right?
An obvious answer is that, everyone has an opinion what is just or unjust. As well as everyone having their own reasons and beliefs as to why. Looking back on my example, I notice that this is happening in the world today. Which side is correct on what they believe is just/unjust? Or is it their place to do so?
PS: never done a blog before and I am exhausted mentally as I write this late at night. Hope it makes sense and give your opinions.
I can see what you're trying to say and I can agree with it. Who is to say that tomorrow, our government goes under a complete overhaul and everything we know is completely thrown out the window and replaced with someone else's ideas of what is right and wrong? Would we just blindly follow or keep to our values and morals? I feel that this is something that we all need to think about. I would like to think that I would continue to go along the path that I am on now, which is doing what I believe is right, but who is to say what I think is right IS right? My opinion of right and wrong could be completely different from everyone else's opinions of what right and wrong is. When it comes the people in charge and their ideas of right and wrong, I can also agree with what you are saying. They have control over a lot, including making laws about what is right and wrong as well as the punishments for those actions. Who is to say that, just because they have power, that they can't be wrong? We are all humans and we all make mistakes some time or another (some more than others).
ReplyDeleteSo far it seems from class discussions that there are at least a couple of interpretations that can start out as a base, or foundation, from which one's subsequent reasoning about right and wrong or justice and injustice can proceed. -- Although, I wonder if a distinction should be made between something being right/just/wrong/unjust and being legal/illegal. Since, no matter which belief is one's starting point, something believed to be right/just is not necessarily legal, and something wrong/unjust is not necessarily illegal. -- The two starting-points that I can see so far are:
ReplyDeletea) That the concepts of right and wrong are determined for each individual according to what that individual personally believes (and thus it follows that "right" and "wrong" for that individual will fluctuate according to changes in that individual's beliefs). Rules and laws enacted for the majority may or may not align with what a given person believes, so that what is legal/illegal may or may not be seen by that person to be right/just or wrong/unjust.
b) Alternatively, the notions of right and wrong exist independently of any individual. In such case, what constitutes right and wrong will remain the same regardless of anyone's personal beliefs; furthermore, legality and illegality may or may not correspond to Right and Wrong.
Each of the two basic systems has its own dilemmas. If right and wrong are decided by individuals, then we can constantly encounter instances of the logical impossibility of "what's true for you is true for you, and what's true for me is true for me." Otherwise, how are we to decide--who is given the authority to decide?--whose opinion should override the other's? Is there even a way to decide, since all beliefs can be considered equally valid, and yet we must choose one over the others??
On the other hand, if Right and Wrong are independent qualities, then they are the standards by which questions of morality can be measured and answered definitively--or, at least, with "something to go on"; there will always be knotty problems that arise, especially if there is any perceived internal inconsistency in the ruleset to which one ascribes. ...For after all, even this system is open to interpretation as well, for different communities and every individual has a choice among various ideas of Absolute Right and Wrong... Atheist, Buddhist, Catholic, Hindu, Muslim, Protestant, Undecided: every system of belief, whether part of a "religion" or not, has different standards, different absolutes--so the same question arises--do you subscribe to one belief system in particular (whatever that may be) and base your decisions on something constant, or aim for an avoidance-based tolerance with "everybody's right; it's all the same, really"?
Every area (country, county, school, what have you) has its own set of rules and laws, some agreeing, some clashing, some directly opposed to one another, just as individuals' beliefs may or may not line up with one another.
I'm not yet sure how to make pictures show up in comments, so here's a link to a picture--a brief analysis of a "COEXIST" bumper sticker.
http://steadfastlutherans.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/realistic_coexist1.jpg
Here is the page on which the above image appears, in an article urging Christians to remember to consult logic and reason when forming their arguments:
http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=22165
And here is a brief quotation from that same article:
"While the Christian is called to speak the truth in love to the neighbor this does not include forsaking truth for a lie. Logically (let alone theologically) the coexist position is untenable, nonsensical and misleading. Of course, the atheist could be right: all the world’s religions could be false. That’s logically possible. But they cannot all be true."
Looking forward to any feedback, responses, pointing out of fallacies, etc.