And the current equality creates oppression. It's a basic principle that every activists on the left understand.
Why ?
Because the vision of equality creates the illusion that we are all equal in chances, history, experiences, educations, capitals, genetics.
This is not the case.
All of those parameters are different from one person to the next. For example, I do have enough to live at the moment, I'm literally what you can call a poor person in my country and yet, in front of justice, I will have a lot more chances that someone coming from the working class. The reason for that is that I come of the middle class and I have therefore culturals and economic capitals that those people may not have. EVEN if those people are currently earnings more than me at the moment.
As you can see with this simply example, we are not equal and yet justice and society are blinding you into thinking that we are. The reasons are multiple but if we were to sum up : They are trying to make you legitimate the system
Real justice should be based on :
- Science
- The material conditions of our existence
- Equity
As long as those three parameters are not met, there is no such thing as equal justice.
Indeed. This doesn't change my argumentation.
Justice is not here to satisfy the desire of blood of a victim (which rarely exist in the first place), but to make an unjust situation, just.
It's the SYSTEM that will have to support the victim not justice as an institution.
By starting to understand that more blood will never create real justice, but just more blood.
There is no easy way to recover, it's horrible, those people must be supported by the system, but - once again - not by justice.
Exactly, it's impossible. Meaning that the entire concept of "debt" is irrelevant to begin with. It's an archaic system coming from times that I don't want to live in.
Now, we need to mature as a civilization and understand that our choices and being are the result of the material conditions of our existence and as such, we need to move toward a system that takes the REALITY of the world into account. NOT the idealistic vision of an eyes for an eye world.
Exactly, it's impossible. So the answer is not here.
The problem is not your answer, it's your question.
If it is impossible, we need to think differently and not transfer our affects on justice, at least in a system without oppressions.
Killing Hitler in a context of war would save million. Killing Hitler in a context of a trial would only feed or blood desire. It's useless, it's inefficient, it's counterproductive, it's simply unjust to kill people when
This is called the appeal to tradition. "because it's old and with major system, therefore it's just and good".
No, it's not. Never was.
Is that your way of saying that you didn't understand the definition ?
There are other ways to change a person than to punish them.
There was no debt to begin with. A life is not a debt, there is no ownership here. When we lose someone, we do not lose an object, we lose someone that was there and is now not there anymore because of the actions of someone else.
Nothing more. Especially when we are talking here about a woman who is the victim of a beating here and when it's the father (who has no say in the matter) who somehow make the call to forgive the son thus ignoring what his wife might want.
Again, there is no debts. If a bad action happens, we can't bribe the universe to erease it or to buy it back. It happened, it's in the past, so the question is not "how can I make the person who made me suffer, suffer" but "how can justice be applied so that this person stop being a danger for others".
There is three solutions to that :
- Death penalty > Factually, it doesn't work.
- Prison > It does not work well either
- A new system of rehabilitation that takes into account the material condition of the accusee to stop their track and change them.
You see, real justice should act in balance with the system. If there is a victim > She gets compensated by the system, meanwhile, the system compensate for the rehabilitation of the accusee on the other end.
In fact I think that in a good system, justice should not even exist, it should be a natural part of the system. Everything should be able to work in sync.
No.
We are not in wano here.
Well.. spoiler, that's the point of creating a better society.. to arrive at a point where laws will not be necessary.
There is no such thing as human nature. It's a essentialist concept made to legitimize an oppressive system in a paradise.
I evolved on the matter.
Murder is not evil, it's simply the action of taking the life of another human. In some cases, it is ethical, in others it is not.
For example, in a context of war where one is genociding a population and the only solution to stop that is to murder them, then.. murder a action of resistance and defense and becomes the ethical thing to do. On the other hand, in a random context (let's say a husband murders his wife) it is not ethical in any way.
Underestandable doesn't mean that I agree with them. I think I already told you that, but you can't make the difference between understanding the actions of a person and siding with the actions of a person, you will miss a lot of things about life.
Thanks for quoting something I just literally explained.
At this point I will start to consider that you can't read either. I don't know why I should waste my time with people who can't understand the difference between "understanding" and "siding with" in such a debate.
In our capitalistic society ? Yes. Because our society is not equiped to deal with that kind of problems.
We are a weak society. A society ruled by fear and meritocracy. A society that refuse to see the reality of the world because it's too hard to accept for some. 😢😢😢😢😢
Because we don't stop being a society when it becomes inconvenient.
If you consider that we should live in that type of weak *ss society, go for it, we will build something stronger.
