Vandrare

this is the way we have structure our society to that it works best for the interests of all. if someone want to be a part of this community, they need to follow the communities rules.

i believe i have a right to live, so in turn i extend that same idea to the rest of the community to be fair - there is no reason for me to have a special set of rules for just me that no-one else can follow.
it seems to me this is what society for the most part also believes hence the system works.

:-D Anna

Nowhere357

Grass strives to grow and live also.

meritocrat

Read Locke.

So don't you feel YOU have a right to life?

tudal

That's right; it is. What's your point?

Scandal

IMO one of the reasons we extend the right to life to everyone(maybe not everyone) is because of our ancestors' early interdependence.

Now the reasons are more complex and altruistic; we are evolving to a better end.

Alonzo Fyfe

In this discussion, it would be wise to keep in mind the distinction between an 'explanation' and a 'justification'.

It may be possible to 'explain' why a rapist commits rape or a murderer kills, but coming up with an explanation does not justify the actions. Similarly, an individual may be able to come up with all sorts of 'explanations' as to why a society has adopted a particular stand with respect to murder and slavery, but explanations alone will always fall far short of 'justifying' these positions.

And people who talk about things being 'right' or 'wrong' are not merely saying that these things can be EXPLAINED, but that their positions are JUSTIFIED.

If you want your statements to make this final step from 'explanation' to 'justification', you have to say something about how this can be done. Without that step, you have said nothing that it at all relevant to the issue of 'justification'.

[Thank you David Hume.]

Nowhere357

Life provides it's own justification, is my radical thought. If a thing finds itself alive, the normal course is that it strives to live and grow. It may ask "why do I strive to live and grow?" but that comes after the fact. Regardless of what answer it may come up with, the fundamental or primary fact is that it is the nature of life to live.

My next huge radical step is to realize that for a given life form, "good" applies to that which promotes the primary fact of it's own life and growth. This is relative and subjective, yet requires no further justification. Life provides it's own justification.

There is no right and wrong "out there". It is not possible to say in a purely objective or ideal sense that one life form's interpretation of "good" is superior to another's.

It amounts to a line in the sand. The question imo is not "why is the line there" but "which side will I choose".

Nowhere357

I agree that's a good idea.

I think we understand what we mean by "explanations". Here you say that justification is above or beyond mere explanation. But what is "justification"?

The word actually carries a load of theistic baggage. I would say it's explanation (or reason) based on moral understanding.

I would say it makes that step from explanation to justification by invoking morality. Begging the question, sorry.

Main Entry: jus·ti·fi·ca·tion
Function: noun
1 : the act, process, or state of being justified by God
2 a : the act or an instance of justifying : VINDICATION b : something that justifies
3 : the process or result of justifying lines of text

Main Entry: jus·ti·fy
Function: verb
1 a : to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable
b (1) : to show to have had a sufficient legal reason (2) : to qualify (oneself) as a surety by taking oath to the ownership of sufficient property
2 a archaic : to administer justice to
b archaic : ABSOLVE
c : to judge, regard, or treat as righteous and worthy of salvation
3 a : to space (as lines of text) so that the lines come out even at the margin b : to make even by justifying <justified margins>
intransitive senses
1 a : to show a sufficient lawful reason for an act done
b : to qualify as bail or surety
2 : to justify lines of text

Main Entry: 2just
Function: adjective
1 a : having a basis in or conforming to fact or reason : REASONABLE <a just but not a generous decision>
b archaic : faithful to an original c : conforming to a standard of correctness : PROPER <just proportions>
2 a (1) : acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good : RIGHTEOUS <a just war> (2) : being what is merited : DESERVED <a just punishment>
b : legally correct : LAWFUL <just title to an estate>
synonym see FAIR, UPRIGHT

Alonzo Fyfe

The distinction between explanation and justification is not a MORAL distinction, it is a LOGICAL distinction.

For example, the standard definition of "knowledge" is a "justified true belief", not an "explained true belief." Here, too, 'justification' is something distinct from 'explanation', and it carries with it no theistic baggage whatsoever.

For example, a person may acquire a belief that his mother has cancer as a result of a dream. But the explanation falls far short of a justification for a belief that his mother has cancer. The distinction here also carries no theistic baggage.

People often use theistic statements in their attempt to justify certain moral claims. They also use theistic statements in their attempt to justify certain non-moral claims (e.g., the age of the earth; creationism vs. evolution). Their tendancy to use theistic claims in their justifications is not a problem with the concept of justification, it is a problem with their use of these claims.

Nowhere357

It can be, as per definition 1a for the adjective "just". And it can a moral distinction, as per 2a(1). Is seems to me that in the context of this thread, 2a(1) applies.

You are right, using 1a.

Btw, my comment on the baggage refered to the word in general. Within the definitions we see "...justified by God", "...worthy of salvation", "RIGHTEOUS". Looks like baggage to me.