This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Justice article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 180 days
![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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
propose a new definition
should be the code of conduct for all human beings
In my justice, there is no distribution problem anymore
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
@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)
I have made a substantial set of edits to this article, to improve the lead a bit so it reflects the article as a whole, to make some copyedits (for example, Plato wouldn't be talking about the Abrahamic God, but rather the gods), and generally to try to impose a bit of organizational consistency to the article. It needs a lot of work, and I won't suggest my edits are perfect but they were needed
As it stood, and as large parts of it still stand, the article breaks up theoretical frameworks into multiple pieces. For example, divine command and other religious theories of justice were broken into two pieces and I've put them in one place.
Big issues remain. The section on Theories needs to be cleaned up and probably belongs up at the top, maybe as a replacement for History (some text can be kept). I'm done for now and hope to come back later. This is an important article and it needs some TLC. Oblivy ( talk) 01:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
References
...as any student of ancient philosophy can tell you, we see the first appearance of a unitary God not in Jewish scripture, but in the thought of the Greek philosopher Plato...
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Justice article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 180 days
![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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
propose a new definition
should be the code of conduct for all human beings
In my justice, there is no distribution problem anymore
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
@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)
I have made a substantial set of edits to this article, to improve the lead a bit so it reflects the article as a whole, to make some copyedits (for example, Plato wouldn't be talking about the Abrahamic God, but rather the gods), and generally to try to impose a bit of organizational consistency to the article. It needs a lot of work, and I won't suggest my edits are perfect but they were needed
As it stood, and as large parts of it still stand, the article breaks up theoretical frameworks into multiple pieces. For example, divine command and other religious theories of justice were broken into two pieces and I've put them in one place.
Big issues remain. The section on Theories needs to be cleaned up and probably belongs up at the top, maybe as a replacement for History (some text can be kept). I'm done for now and hope to come back later. This is an important article and it needs some TLC. Oblivy ( talk) 01:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
References
...as any student of ancient philosophy can tell you, we see the first appearance of a unitary God not in Jewish scripture, but in the thought of the Greek philosopher Plato...