What is Justice

[B. Royce 0]

B. Royce,

I understand the gist of your argument; I did all along. The phrase " justice was done" stops being " vague" when used in contradistinction to "justice was not done." But you don't address why that particular assertion is the appropriate one to use, in inappropriate context.

Let's say that " justice done " conveys an achievement of a value. I this particular case the value of isolating a crim from the rest of society.( we don't know yet that he is innocent.) But once we know the full context from the third person perspective, we should't iinsist that "justice was done" Now we know for sure , that the opposite is true.

What I'm objecting to mainly is the use of that phrase disregarding the context, thus acquiring a permanent status.

Oh. Okay.

[bborg 0]

I'm note sure what you are trying to pin down. If volition is the choice to be reality-focused, and the facts (in question) of reality are not known, then one cannot focus on them. A less educated person has the same complete free will, but his decision making is more limited due to the limited information he can process. Free will (volition) is an ability not limited, but choices are limited by knowledge. Free will is not much good if choices cannot be made.

The judge doesn't have facts to form a decision on. There is nothing to focus on. Nothing to exercise his free will on. These were beyond his control, and beyond his responsibility for the results. Are you saying the judge is responsible when he cannot make a ruling?

I was answering the very specific idea raised by Paul that an error of knowledge is "nonvolitional" or "outside morality". I was not trying to claim that someone with less knowledge is as capable of making good decisions as someone with more knowledge.

As for the status of the judge's ruling, I went into great detail on my opinion of that subject earlier in the thread.

[~Sophia~ 0]

Are errors of knowledge considered non volitional and thus outside of the sphere of morality? This maybe my mistake but I have always considered them within the sphere of morality - just as a judgment of "no fault". Can someone answer?

There are two components here. The problem is not with the method used (within volitional control) but with not having all of the relevant information (not within volitional control).

It is the second component which makes errors of knowledge outside of moral evaluation.

I don't think I agree with my final conclusion above that such errors are outside of moral evaluation (I think I was right originally). Honest errors of knowledge are a result of a virtuous mental process (and that is a very significant virtue) and thus a person deserves a positive judgment for that. Stripping someone of that positive judgment would be unjust and not beneficial for me as the purpose of moral judgment after all is so I know who is worthy of keeping around and who is not. His conclusion is erroneous but he is morally white.

[Cometmaker 0]

~Sophia~, can you clarify if you are speaking of a person generally, and not a sole presiding judge in the context of a court of law?

[~Sophia~ 0]

~Sophia~, can you clarify if you are speaking of a person generally, and not a sole presiding judge in the context of a court of law?

What can be objectively considered as an honest error of knowledge is contextual (a higher standard would apply in case of a judge) but once a conclusion is made of an honest error of knowledge this principle applies to anyone. Mental process is volitional and when virtuous deserves proper moral recognition.

[Cometmaker 0]

What can be objectively considered as an honest error of knowledge is contextual (a higher standard would apply in case of a judge) but once a conclusion is made of an honest error of knowledge this principle applies to anyone. Mental process is volitional and when virtuous deserves proper moral recognition.

I agree with your latest conclusion for humans generally, but this thread is strange in that what is objectively just for humans generally is applied to objective justice in a court of law as well through what I consider examples far removed from judicial reality. A sole presiding judge (and I make that distinction because of how rulings differ in administrative tribunals, appellate courts, and judge & jury situations) must routinely rule as a judge what relevant information he will admit in order for the court to have rendered justice. That is, it is within a sole presiding judge's volitional control to exclude relevant information from his own consideration in rendering a judgement.

For a sole presiding judge, an honest error of knowledge can still render him morally white even if he has excluded relevant information. In this post I am only referring to a judge presiding over a criminal matter since that has been the direction of most law-related examples in this thread.

[Cometmaker 0]

That is, it is within a sole presiding judge's volitional control to exclude relevant information from his own consideration in rendering a judgement.

I think I should clarify. What is relevant and what is admissible are two different things, and how a judge decides that, and the relationship of the relevant and admissible is part of an objectively just judgement.