Talk:Justice/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Justice. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
"Fair share" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Fair share and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 27#Fair share until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: Political Sociology
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2022 and 17 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): HGeske, HPG20018 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: XandraBryan, Tns328765.
— Assignment last updated by ImagineWorldPeace (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Quick thoughts on social and distributive justice versus other forms, and political versus legal justice
So... after doing some reording of related to social and distributive justice I looked at a recent text on "justice" and distributive justice and social justice was a main concern of the book. This makes me think that there might be a split between justice as a political context (extending back to plato potentially) and as a legal concept. This makes me think that my early changes while WP:DUE from a legal angle aren't necessarily due from a philosophical / political angle.
I suspect that we might be trying to merge together the two together here in a way that doesn't line up with the literature. E.g. in law social justice is to some degree a newcomer (in the form of feminist jurisprudence) while in politics it is a larger concern - at least formulated in terms of individual distribution of wealth if not the more "popular" group-based / structural forms of understanding.
I'm not going to look at this now. But it'd be interesting to look at any texts that try to reconcile the legal with political concept of justice to guide us in how to best reconcile the two concepts. The "lumper" in me would like try to have a single conception rather than split everything in two - if there is the sourcing there to support us in doing so.
Talpedia (talk) 14:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Comments from Messenger003
First of all, justice, an existing entry, admits at the beginning that it is a topic of constant debate and thinking, which shows that there is no conclusion! Then it should be acceptable for me to re-edit and propose a new definition. Justice is the top-level entry on Wikipedia, which means it has a huge impact on human society and should be the code of conduct for all human beings. Then it should be simple and clear enough for most people to understand at a glance. I think the content of the existing entries is just a pile of various discussions and speculations, without giving a simple and clear definition that people can understand at a glance. The current entry is not worthy of a C-level entry in terms of content. The top-level entry must be simple and clear.
My definition: To protect the freedom of other beings and oneself is justice, and the rest is evil!
The existing item is followed by the discussion of distribution. In my justice, there is no distribution problem anymore, because first of all, you have to protect the freedom of others to use their own legitimate interests. There is no distribution, and it is evil to distribute the interests of others. Maintaining the freedom of others eliminates factors that affect interests other than abilities and efforts. Therefore, the weak will not covet the interests of the strong and do not need to distribute; based on the same reasoning, the strong will naturally help those who really need help.
The existing entry goes on to say that justice is a virtue, and it is! But even the notion of justice is unclear, and neither is this virtue.
The existing article also mentions the issue of abolition of the death penalty. According to my definition, abolition of the death penalty is unjust from the perspective of safeguarding the life and freedom of victims.
Understanding of fairness and justice: Existing entries still do not have a clear answer. My definition includes all good and rejects all evil.
The existing entry regards justice as social harmony, which is wrong! My justice is not social harmony, but a necessary and sufficient condition for social harmony!
See justice as a divine command: Yes, my definition comes from the will of the Creator, and it is a simple and clear definition given by Him.
Messenger003 (talk) 02:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
no conclusion
- Yep, justice is a complicated issue.
propose a new definition
- Wikipedia limits itself to things that notable other people have said (WP:VERIFIABLE) expressed with some balance WP:DUE... so you can't really propose your own definition. You *can* find your ideas in the literature (billions of people think lots of things) and ensure that they are expressed with as much weight as it should have and no less. Wikipedia sucks for valuable original thought (WP:OR), we can however it make it as easy as possible for others to engage in oringal thought, the process of editing wikipedia will stimulate thought, and the ideas produced while editing could be profitable added to a blog, tweet, youtube video, or paper (should you have the willpower to get it published).
should be the code of conduct for all human beings
- I imagine it may act in this way... just the pillars of wikipedia WP:PILLARS trump that because ... it's wikipedia. By all means you can be motivated to make the lead as clear and succinct as possible, provided its not at odds with wikipedia's other aims.
In my justice, there is no distribution problem anymore
- It sounds like you are interested in negative and not positive rights.
I'm sure many scholars and schools of thoughts agree with them. You can endeavor to ensure that these ideas are well as expressed as possible. Talpedia (talk) 10:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)which is wrong
- This user has a long history of adding personal essays to this article and its talk page. Other users (see [1]) have tried to engage them in discussion, but the behavior continues. I've put a level 2 warning on the user talk page and suggest this escalate until the disruptive editing stops or the user is blocked. Oblivy (talk) 03:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
@Talpedia Thank you very much for your reply. In fact, I have never known how to reply to you. I did not respond to that reply. I found out recently, and it has been too long. Feel sorry! Regarding your questions, I have rewritten an article. If you are free, please move to my personal talk page, and I may be able to answer some questions! Thank you again!Messenger003 (talk) 14:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)