"By social justice I mean the true subject matter of morality. Distributive justice. "
For the man I consider to have the most rigorous approach to philosophy that I have seen that is alive, this is like a shit in the face.
I’ll just say this: I never heard you mention it… Before Greta.
No, I won’t read another word. This is disasterous.
My man.
We have a hard enough time pinning down justice. Never mind! Never mind social. And suddenly, like a fully baked cake, off-hand enough to be disdainful about,
positive law is social justice then, distributive.
As opposed to natural justice, as a presumed tuning fork of evolution. Evolution in A natural.
A good positive law is attuned to natural law but overlays it like a chord. The US constitution is a massive 12 gauge chord.
Again, this is what happens when you use the noun form, “truth”. And when you apply it to something besides a statement. And when you use “truth” in a statement about which you want to ascertain the truth of. I really should have coverrd this earlier.
Ecmandu - you have, once again, committed a violent rape. Which appears to be your hobby.
Language must assume itself as universal truth to bring all possible options for reality under its scope.
Universal truths inside of language include grammatical laws, that for example that subject relates to an object through an action. Concepts like “consent” and “violation” derive from this grammar as much as they do from the rest of reality.
Is the assertion that my thinking is “purely binary” a universal truth or is it just one man’s opinion?
Again, let’s bring these abstract intellectual contraptions out into the world of human interaction.
With respect to a particular context let’s explore the extent to which someone’s thinking either is or is not “purely binary”.
My argument is that with respect to value judgments it is not likely that universal truths exist because in my opinion the moral and political narratives embodied in “I” are rooted subjectively/intersubjectively in an identity/self encompassed out in the world of human interactions as existential contraptions.
Thus suggesting in turn that the tools available to philosophers here have a limited use and exchange value.