wildernesse

The distinction I'm trying to make is:

just--does what is fair

not just--has no care one way or the other about fairness and actions are arbitrary

unjust--purposefully decides to work in an unfair way

Hope that makes sense. I think that deciding what is just is another topic!

--tiba

katellagen

wildernesse,

I was thinking of the absence of the positive quality justice, "not just", as indicating that the actions of such a being would by definition be "unjust". After all, if he were "not just" he could not very well act "justly", for he would not have that quality.

But I see what you're saying. In essence such a being acting arbitrarilly would at times act "justly", and at other times act "unjustly", but wouldn't care one way or the other. But would not a being acting entirely arbitrarilly with no guiding principles be an amoral being?

What would be the category for us, who do care, yet who sometimes act justly and other times unjustly?

Peace

wildernesse

I agree with you about a "not just" being being unable to be just--uncaring about justice, or justice being irrelevant is what I was trying to convey. Maybe I should change my "Why is God not just?" to "Why is justice irrelevant to God?" For the record, I don't think that justice is irrelevant to God--I think that God is just and merciful.

But would not a being acting entirely arbitrarilly with no guiding principles be an amoral being?

I think so.

If you're asking if we are amoral, I would say no because we have guiding principles (although they vary from group to group). We have the ability to be moral/immoral, but I don't think that we, as humans within society, can be amoral. I also don't think we can act arbitrarily--without some very strict guidelines which we don't arbitrarily pick!

Sorry if I'm not making sense, it's way past my bedtime. MrDarwin, sorry for not answering your questions--maybe I'll stop hopping from foot to foot on the sidelines and jump in with both feet for you tomorrow (or actually later today! ).

--tiba

katellagen

wildernesse:
I agree.

To sum up:

I would put "not just" and "unjust" in the same category. (The "not just", or "a"just could only act "unjustly".)

The entirely arbitrary (no guiding principles), or "amoral" being, I would call a "psyco/sociopath" of the worst kind and would put him in a padded cell. (Though I don't think anyone could really be "amoral".)

The rest of us (all of us) could not be properly called "just" because we act unjustly. But neither could we be called "unjust", because we can also act justly.

So I would call us "fallen" and in need of redemption.

Good thing God is not only "just" but also "merciful".

Peace