tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post1481706470443069066..comments2024-03-27T20:37:09.185-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: Justice and the afterlifeAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-58663275069182534492017-01-22T16:15:53.567-06:002017-01-22T16:15:53.567-06:00For the non-normative reading, how about:
(2'...For the non-normative reading, how about:<br /><br />(2') There is never a case in which out of all the acts I could perform, the one which would most effectively promote justice on the whole is itself an unjust act.<br /><br />(1') But if there is no afterlife, then contrary to 2', there is sometimes such a case.<br /><br />(3) So, there is an afterlife.<br /><br />Maybe we could summarize 1' as "No unjust act is ever the most effective way available to promote justice-on-the-whole"? I think justice-on-the-whole is something like the sum balance of justice minus injustice in the world considering all cases of each.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06251565524682589544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-12000764664432184982017-01-17T12:24:44.887-06:002017-01-17T12:24:44.887-06:00Another way to deny (1) (I think) is to believe th...Another way to deny (1) (I think) is to believe the law of karma. No matter if some great evil looks like injustice, really it is retributive punishment for some evil that the putative victim perpetrated in a past life.Heath Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13535886546816778688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-50597368848170215192017-01-17T08:48:17.493-06:002017-01-17T08:48:17.493-06:00Read non-normatively across the board, (1) is sayi...Read non-normatively across the board, (1) is saying that, in pursuing the goal of justice, one may (as a matter of pratical necessity) have to resort to unjust means; (2) is saying that it is never the case that in the promotion of justice requires unjust means.... I think (2) is very weak, read this way.<br /><br />I'm not sure that I understand (1) in the normative sense....<br />Michael Gonzalezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05279261871735286117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-59050415554326138162017-01-12T23:30:37.198-06:002017-01-12T23:30:37.198-06:00"One could promote justice by doing evil and ..."One could promote justice by doing evil and injustice. (i.e. I could derive the financial resources for anti-child-abuse commercial adds through the enslavement of children)."<br /><br />I should correct myself: this example I gave has nothing to do with there being a <i>requirement</i> for injustice to be done for justice to be accomplished. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01613627123506607663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-36632209787341573612017-01-12T22:52:01.662-06:002017-01-12T22:52:01.662-06:00"Promoting justice never requires acting unju..."Promoting justice never requires acting unjustly."<br /><br />I don't think "promote" is the right word here, as opposed to "fulfilled". One could promote justice by doing evil and injustice. (i.e. I could derive the financial resources for anti-child-abuse commercial adds through the enslavement of children).<br /><br />Also, the argument might be circular if I'm right in my initial recognition that premise 2 would have to presuppose the truth of the conclusion in order to be meaningful for that conclusion. Stating that "Promoting justice <i>never</i> requires acting unjustly"--even if you mean that the fulfillment of justice <i>never</i> requires acting unjustly--incurs an enormous burden of proof entailing that we identify all instances where the promotion of justice does not require unjust actions in order to accept this argument with warrant.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01613627123506607663noreply@blogger.com