Why do you place quotes around the word, justify?

All things which are just are clearly just, and so their result is good...When ever peeople do what is clearly wrong, out comes the rationalizations, and justifications... What I did though clearly wrong was from that distant perspective understandable, even acceptable...No one ever has to explain the doing of good as justice is, so they can do it and as soon get over it...No defense required...

Did you answer my question of why the quotes around the word, justify? If you did, I did not understand your answer. Could you please try again?

Justify does not have the meaning we generally take from it; and in fact almost always connotes something other than the standard, or common definition...Look at the word: Just, with facere, where we get our word factory, to make Just...Can words make any unjust act just??? We have the word in relation to God, of being justified by acts, or justified by faith, or justified by grace; and perhaps if there is God then God has that power... But, you should think of the word as we consider the word cleave, which can mean bind together or split apart... What needs justification is unjust, and cannot be justified with words....Every justice is just by intent and result...Whether the word justify is in quotation marks or not, we should see it for what it is, as a loaded word hardly ever meaning what it says...

I am still confused. I suppose you don't mean by justify with quotes, what justify means without quotes. Without quotes, it means something like, show what is justified (in this case, the death penalty) is (sometimes) the right thing to do. That sometimes it is right to impose the death penalty. If you meant that, then you would not place quotes around the term, justify. So, my question is, what were you trying to indicate when you did place quotes around the word, justify? That is what I do not understand. Suppose I ask, "Can the death penalty ever be justified?" Would you put quotes around the term, justified in that sentence. And, if so, why? Of course that you happen to believe that the death penalty cannot be justified, does not show it cannot be justified, and certainly does not show that no one can try to justify it. Does it?

But once the State undertakes the prosecution, no one else is involved. In fact, there are instances when the family of the victim has forgiven the murderer, and even testified in his behalf, and asked for leniency in the sentence. It made no difference. The murderer was executed. Justice was served. Revenge had nothing to do with it.

All things which are just are clearly just, and so their result is good...When ever peeople do what is clearly wrong, out comes the rationalizations, and justifications... What I did though clearly wrong was from that distant perspective understandable, even acceptable...No one ever has to explain the doing of good as justice is, so they can do it and as soon get over it...No defense required...

What is just never needs to be justified, and what is unjust can never be justified no matter how hard people try with words to do so

The state is someone, its not an entirely neutral being. Actually, it is, or should be, the "sum" of the will of the nation.

There are no thing that are clearly just or clearly wrong as far as I know, there are only things that are just for many and things that are wrong for many.

The State is not "someone" at all. It is a political entity. And, it is supposed to be neutral. Sometimes, of course, what is supposed to be is not.

Oh, I don't know. It seems to me that torturing, raping, and then killing a little child, is a good candidate for an action that is clearly wrong, as well as "wrong for" most people. Which is to say, something that most people believe is wrong. And, I am sure we can both think of other actions of that kind which are clearly wrong, and not just believed wrong.

Why do you place quotes around the word, justify?

The word "justify" is a loaded word and has a variety of implications, especially in terms of philosophic discourse.

For example, Fast made a good point earlier: "To justify an action does not make it just".

Because we tend to delve into the semantics of words here, I thought it was appropriate to put the word in quotes.

-ITL-

Oh, I don't know. It seems to me that torturing, raping, and then killing a little child, is a good candidate for an action that is clearly wrong, as well as "wrong for" most people.

Which is to say, something that most people believe is wrong. And, I am sure we can both think of other actions of that kind which are clearly wrong, and not just believed wrong.

I didn't say that.

The word "justify" is a loaded word and has a variety of implications, especially in terms of philosophic discourse.

For example, Fast made a good point earlier: "To justify an action does not make it just".

Because we tend to delve into the semantics of words here, I thought it was appropriate to put the word in quotes.

-ITL-

The state is someone, its not an entirely neutral being. Actually, it is, or should be, the "sum" of the will of the nation.

There are no thing that are clearly just or clearly wrong as far as I know, there are only things that are just for many and things that are wrong for many.

To justifiy an action is not to make an act just; it's to show that it's just. Sometimes, we need to show that an act is just.

The State is not "someone" at all. It is a political entity. And, it is supposed to be neutral. Sometimes, of course, what is supposed to be is not.

Oh, I don't know. It seems to me that torturing, raping, and then killing a little child, is a good candidate for an action that is clearly wrong, as well as "wrong for" most people. Which is to say, something that most people believe is wrong. And, I am sure we can both think of other actions of that kind which are clearly wrong, and not just believed wrong.

If you wish the death penalty to be just, get the prisoner to agree that the crime he did and admits to demands death,

Could it be justifiable to put to death an innocent person? A person who for some reason or another slipped through the cracks of the system and wound up on the chopping block. Would that be alright? Maybe that never happens, only the guilty are found guilty. Maybe innocent people are never found guilty of crimes?

I think it would be far worse to put to death an wrongly accused innocent person.

Somehow, I don't think that consulting someone on his own sentence who is parti pris is an intelligent thing to do. I have never heard that the State is incorporated, and, in any case, a legal person is not really a person. It is a legal fiction.

Well we are all that...We convict the guilty to preserve our own innocence, but clearly the action is never complete... And we used to do so when we believed even the gods practiced group responsibility, and that all were stained with the blood of the victim if the innocent did not remove the guilty...When people were honorable they could counted on to admit their actions freely...In the discussion of Justice in Ethics, Aristotle quotes Euripides from Orestes: "I slew my mother, that is my tail in brief."
"Were You both willing, or unwilling both?"
As this section is on the question of whether a person can wiillingly be treated unjustly, it is relevent... If the convict agrees with the sentence of death, it is not unjust..I would say that the willingness usually has nothing to do with the suffering of injustice, because it is knowledge which gives people choice... It often happens that people do have the choice between one injustice or another, but that is no choice... And it happens that people are presented with no choice in the course of their lives that often leads to the suffering of injustice as inevitable, and it is not without the intent of others to defraud them of their choice... From my memory, since I have not read all of Aristotle in years, He concluded that people cannot willingly suffer injustice... We will to belong to society and every other relationship we can think of, and must often suffer injustice in the course of maintaining our relationships... Does our need for relationships for which we suffer injustice count as will even when it is clearly an unconscious need we seek to satisfy??? When Orestes killed, it was essential according to the rules of his community, which his mother recognized as fully as he...Yet, upon interrogation he was expected to answer truthfully, as an honorable man...I would have trouble killing some one who professed innocence, or extenuating circumstances... I would not have nearly so much problem with assisting some guilty party who admitted guilt and accepted execution in preference to the humiliation of prison for life...The acceptence of the penalty is the justification of it...That is the act which makes the execution just....

Either feud, or tribal justice as pacticed by Orestes is better than the whole society being fouled by inadvertant injustice...Might does not make right, and nothing is more terrible than might when right is not its first concern...

But what did putting it into quotes indicate? What was I supposed to understand by that? I suppose that you used quotes to indicate something to your reader-didn't you?

I was once in a restaurant, and I saw one door marked, ""Women", and another marked, "Men". What do you suppose that meant?