Defining justice

--1 standard

--universal, every case

--larger idea---> example 1, example 2, example 3

--not self-referential

--unchanging standard, non-relative

--no exceptions (not about results, but about process?)

Looking definitions up in the dictionary, coming up with definitions

--how do we define, say, dinner fork?

--how do we define, say, dog (as opposed to wolf)?

--how do we define love?

--how do we define existence?

What don't we want in our definitions (because it will screw everything up): Bad Definitional Stuff (BDS)

--tautology: saying the same thing, an 'explanation' that has no explanatory power

--vicious circle: what is justice? justice = fairness. what is fairness? fairness is justice! (begging the question)

--Does justice = not doing x, y, z (where these are examples of injustice)?

--beware of extraneous terms

Question: What is the purpose of definition? Is all defintion (like in the dictionary) circular?

Abstraction, use--what is the connection here?

Necessary and sufficient conditions

--wizards and muggles examples --baking a cake

Does a ncessary and sufficient condition involve the idea of essence?

Back to Page