When considered in the aggregate however: consider new injustices emerging, which are being increased or decreased; for every injustice that is eliminated?

For example, while burning coal like witches in the Spanish inquisition, was once a non-moral issue, it is now a grave injustice.

Stop to consider the notion that the aggregate amount of injustice/justice may always be roughly same; the existence of the concept may indeed be reliant on such a balance.

What you then have is: an illusion of progress over time/generations.

The pursuit of humanity's progress gives us something to collectively do; but is not necessarily imbued with purpose or truth - for such a thing may remain forever elusive inside an infinity.

Precisely. Please consider this notion more closely, and my response to BTM above.

Gekandenexperiment = Gekandenaktion.

Einstein's equation is also a moral one. Freeze light and nothing happens in luminal space. In thought space, one considers Heisenberg's binary fuzziness.

Of course, there are teritaries and quadraries. But...

Really, you start with a creatio ex nihilio... And then...

Taoism is pantheism. It is deterministic atheism. In Abrahamic logic, I suppose Matisyahu would say that his maturity is owed to the concept of a priori nihilio.

Naturallamente, like a DJ plays with 2 turntables... What of a grinder who plays with 20-30?

Considered and answered. Have fun.

You are equating fairness with harm. They are two separate moral feelings.

Everyone dying at the age of 29 from the plague would be perfectly fair.

Conservation of unfairness under the law of diminishing returns? Or maybe, unfairness deflation. Or, people can't be happy unless they're unhappy about something. Or maybe, the more things change the more they stay the same. Does every rule have an exception that proves it?


PairTheBoard

If the world were perfect, it wouldn’t be. - Yogi Berra

While I view question like this to be the philosphical equivalent of "last night I was playing poker and the guy on my right went all-in and I had JJ, should I have called?" (i.e., way too little information). I'll play.

I use the gun regardless of the circumstance. He started it, i finish it. No remorse.

We find satisfaction less from where we're at than in how fast we're getting someplace.


PairTheBoard

So if he's about to slap you gently openhandedly on your cheek you shoot to kill?

I think this is the best I'll get out of you in terms of agreement at the possibility that this philosophical lens is accurate.

I was putting fairness under the broader umbrella of justice, but if it seems like equating the two, I apologise.
I like your train of thought but trying to apply a scientific terminology like - conservation of unfairness - is inappropriate I believe. The view originates from the notion that objects in the world do not exist, and that only logic and its concepts exist. Since this view does not care much for empirics, I think its better to avoid going down that track.

Your "people can't be happy unless they're unhappy" is a lot more relevant here.
Very relevant
I like this very much.

I find happiness in where I am and in my memories.

I've got no particular place to get to, but I expect to get there and enjoy the ride.

I'm fine with killing the person to prevent ANY harm to me. I'm not saying I would. But my morality says provoke me (also any innocent bystander near me) and you do it at your own risk.

Insane or the kid - my morality is the same.

I'm fairly certain I wouldn't pull the trigger in any of the cases until it was life threatening or probably any type of permanent damage. But that's not the question.

You're changing the parameters of the OP.

That's why the original question is stupid - it's devoid of context.

1. How do I know this person is "apparently sane"?
2. How do i know the level of injury will fall within a specific range of injury?
3. Why is the gun my only option, and how do I know that to be true? Even at my age, I'm strong enough and fit enough to not fear significant physical harm from ~75% of adult males, thus, in most cases, I don't need a weapon of any kind to protect myself
4. What transpired prior to this act that led to the attack?

However, I can agree that I was rash in my prior answer. The correct answer to the question is "It depends."

I may be going nowhere but I'm getting there fast, so it's all good.


PairTheBoard

Getting nowhere slowly is better

The age of driving sideways is near!

Recommend a journey to the center of the Moon. May not be too hot.

Think about the destiny, not the journey.

Pachinko waterslide from Mare Tranquilitia to the center?

Eminently doable. I'll wait until the day I can walk to Luna. (Not you, but you know.)

Easy for a Klingon to say

majQa'

Ai'is.

Isn't the bat'leth a defensive weapon anyway?

So for those who have a sort of specific answer such as preventing a broken arm that would be caused by someone who means you harm.

If you would kill to prevent that, what about if the harm is not physical? More precisely there is no other way to prevent it besides homicide and the harm is great enough that you would have preferred to have your arm broken (or whatever you specified)? Lets say it is obvious to the attacker and everybody else that this is worse harm. Stealing most of your life savings. Putting up horrible stuff on the internet. Preventing you from going to college. Whatever.

Is it ethical to kill in this situation also? It probably wouldn't be legal but that's not my question. If your answer is no, I would like to see a logical explanation.

For me having to live on existential minimum the rest of my life is enough. That means losing any possibility for a job plus life savings. Just the life savings is not enough, I can make a fresh start, using money a bit differently.

These are really good questions David. You should do a well thought out book on the game theory of morality. Written and promoted well, with the right edges/hooks/political topics/fascinating ideas, it has a (smallish) chance of being a breakthrough hit like Freakonomics or The Black Swan.

Actually I think there are a number of books you could write which have this possibility. You have an very unusually interesting and independent way of thinking/instructing, and your poker background gives a quirky kind of credibility.

Best chance you have of going mainstream in my opinion, short of you actually doing the hard work of specializing in a field and then having a breakthrough.

I think we react to the prospect of physical injury at a more primitive level than for abstractions involving money, reputation, or ambition. I suspect brain scans would show more primitive sub-brains getting lit up when fearing physical injury. BTM can probably speak to this. So I think it's a natural instinct for us to respond to the physical threat in a more primitive way.

Whether this is ethically justified I suppose depends on your system of ethics. But to the extent that a common ethic is encoded in law I think this principle is recognized. Trespass evoking a more primitive sense of injury is more likely to legally allow deadly force in response. For example, you catch a man raping your wife. Or a home intruder.


PairTheBoard