It isn’t justice in a legal sense. It is absolutely, positively, indubitably, 100% justice in a karmic sense.
Well, maybe Karma’s really bad at math. That seems to be “karmic” to the rate of 4.55%
Man, tongue twisters are getting dark these days.
Someone you don’t know killed someone else you don’t know for reasons unknown, and you call it 100 percent karma. What does it take to just get a 95 percent karma rating in your book?
Heck, what would it take to get a 60%? After all, we don’t want Karma to be a failure, right?
This intuitive sense of justice is wrong. Here, what you call “karma” is retribution. There is no moral justification for punishment solely for the purpose of retribution.
You are stating a subjective opinion as if it is an objective fact. My response is “is too”.
As opposed to the extensive moral and philosophical arguments that you presented in your post?
We can certainly justify harming someone for the purpose of (a) forcible separation from society, to protect society; or (b) to deter future bad acts. But when neither of these elements are present, the burden is on you to justify something that you advocate, inflicting harm for retribution. You have said only that it is okay to harm someone because it “feels right” given what they have done.
No, that is just a tragedy.
Karmic justice is when you stub your little toe after cheering on the violent death of strangers.
No, I’m willing to admit that both morality and philosophy are subjective concepts. My statement was a reflection of my subjective personal view of the world, not objective fact. And my subjective opinion is that every day that a murderer continues to breathe is a slap in the face of their victims and the victim’s families, and that a murderer dying in terror, agony, and dispair is karmic justice served.
Well:
Proponents of theism argue that without a God or gods it is impossible to justify moral behavior on metaphysical grounds and thus to make a coherent case for abiding by moral standards. C. S. Lewis makes such an argument in Mere Christianity . - SOURCE
If we follow that notion then God has something to say about retribution:
John 5:28-29
Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.Revelation 20:12-15
And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.Revelation 21:8
But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.’Romans 12:17-19
Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men. If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord.Deuteronomy 32:35
‘Vengeance is Mine, and retribution,
In due time their foot will slip;
For the day of their calamity is near,
And the impending things are hastening upon them.’2 Thessalonians 1:6-10
For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord JesusThe Book of Monty Python and the Holy Grail
"And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, ‘O Lord, bless this thy hand grenade, that with it thou mayst blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.’
I do not subscribe to the above but the notion is an old one.
So your only response when your views are questioned is “you’re not the boss of me, stop trying to take away my right to have a different opinion”?
Of course. Many of the problems with our flawed justice system derive from morally incoherent religious fantasies.
If that’s what you want to take away from that, have at it.
What I’m taking away from that is that your sense of “karma” is based only on a gut feeling of what is just. A gut feeling which I certainly share. If someone harmed my own family, of course my emotional reaction would be to seek retribution.
But I think if we examine it and reflect on it, there is no moral justification for such retribution. The only benefit is that it might make us feel good, but that’s essentially a circular argument.
And don’t confuse my view with being “soft” on crime. I am not absolutely opposed to the death penalty in principle, provided that it is applied only for similar reasons to euthanizing a dog that has killed someone.
The disconnect here is that I’m not claiming that the state should endorse or encourage prisoners killing each other, I’m just glad that he got what he actually deserved and not what a at-least-trying-to-be-civilized legal system had to offer. I would have been equally pleased if his comeuppance had been through cancer or necrotizing fasciitis instead of a fellow prisoner.
It makes no difference whether the proposed harm is officially sanctioned or criminal or random, you are wishing harm on him as a desirable outcome solely for the purpose of retribution, when there is no benefit to you or to society that derives from that harm. I’m saying that if you examine that wish, it derives only from (understandable) emotion, but ultimately it is not ethical, it cannot be morally justified.
Me: Blue is great.
You: Red is the correct best color.
Me: The best color is a matter of opinion, not fact.
You: What about when you said blue was best?
Me: Okay, I’ll admit that I was only stating my personal view on the value of blue.
You: So you don’t like to be confronted when people question your liking of blue?
Me: Whatever, man.
You: Can’t you see that red is best?
You are continuing to act as if there is one objectively correct morality, and it is yours, and you must convince me of it. You are being a BigT. Don’t be a BigT.
Are you seriously claiming that morality is as arbitrary and subjective as color preference, that any moral system is as good as any other, so it’s not worth discussing?
Of course I’m trying to explain and convince you why I think my view of matters is correct (more ethical), because I came to hold that view through reflection and reasoning and questioning the validity of my instincts, not because it’s like a fucking color preference.
I’m saying that calling wishes and internal satisfaction at an outcome unethical and immoral is silly. It is religious “I have sinned in my heart” thinking. I’m perfectly fine with my being glad when bad things happen to bad people, and have no interest in participating in a moral scolding/shaming over it.