Whoa, hold up a minute. I said:
"But life is not just and fair, not intrinsically."
You replied:
I disagree. My definition of just and fair is that, Life is just and fair when everyone's needs are being met absolutely and simultaneously for eternity.
Now since you believe that life is intrinsically just and fair, you must believe that everyone's needs are being met absolutely and simultaneously for eternity.
Eternity has three components: the past, the present, and the future. The future we can reasonably dismiss, since nobody knows anything about it. But since the past and the present are subsets of eternity, it seems pretty clear that if everyone's needs are not now or have not at any time in the past been met absolutely and simultaneously, life by your definition is not intrinsically just and fair.
Are you going to tell me that everyone's needs are now and always have been being absolutely and simultaneously met?
Our society currently has this situation. You are claiming that it is fair to all and at all times?
No. We strive toward a goal, the goal of ordering our own society as well as it can be ordered. We must strive toward this goal, because we seek order and it is abundantly clear that order will only exist if we create it. We may never achieve the goal, but we can certainly do better that we are doing now. So we strive. We strive to achieve our own purpose, not that of some imaginary friend.
Except for the human condition I would say that nature is just and fair to all creatures.
The weak get eaten. Sometimes the strong get eaten too, if they get caught by someone stronger. Fair? Just? Does the bird eaten by a snake deserve to get eaten, or was it just in the wrong place at the wrong time? |
