| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Ethics, second position, and abstraction |
| Posted by: | nj |
| Date/Time: | 14/05/2004 18:27:10 |
|
To elaborate a bit more on revenge, ... I said that the satisfaction of revenge is immoral, whether or not you feel good. That is not what Trudy Govier puts forward. She compares revenge, on page 46, "Often the satisfactions of revenge are only anticipated and never achieved." She goes on to say that a revenge-seeker experiences an anticlimax, once the object of his revenge is in his power. My list of arguments against revenge is a combination of her arguments and my own. But my thought, that justice is equivalent to revenge, only applies to a particular logical level of justice, the retributive level. Govier introduces different logical levels of justice, including social justice, penal justice (divided into retributive, preventive, rehabilitative, moral, and restitutive), justice of recognition, family justice, environmental justice, ontological justice, and even cosmic justice. She makes the point that, when people seek justice, what principles that justice is sought on make a practical difference in how that justice is achieved. The line of her argument goes the opposite direction from what I wrote. Justice has many forms, with different practical consequences for those who are its object. How would NLP play a part in deciding principles, or the values, by which acts of achieving justice are chosen? Surely the method of triple position could play a part. -nj |