[BaseballPhysics]

> Some people can't seem to come to grips that trying to counter injustice with injustice only compounds injustice rather than cancelling each other out

It's always fascinating to me how the definition of "injustice" is so flexible to those espousing this view.

Do you also believe in eliminating, say, food stamps, which exclude people based on their income? After all, it's a program that doles out an economic benefit to some people but not others which seems like "injustice", yeah?

How about the ADA? Seems unfair that disabled people would get special accommodations over everyone else, right? Is that an injustice?

[ori_prior]

Food stamps are an injustice, however, the ends there justify the means, food stamps are so people don't starve. They aren't "luxury dinner at fancy restaurant stamps" in the same way admission to famous(ly expensive) universities is.

ADA measures (that affect individuals) are also very different in that existing and proven disabilities are the reason to alleviate problems from those exact disabilities. They aren't blanket bonuses for some races in the way university admissions were before the most recent supreme court decision.

[BaseballPhysics]

> Food stamps are an injustice, however, the ends there justify the means

Thank you for so perfectly and succinctly illustrating my point for me.

You've apparently decided one "injustice" is okay and another one isn't, for reasons that are entirely arbitrary and based purely on your own personal value system.

But then, like the person I originally responded to, you dress it up like some kind of logical, philosophical argument, as though your personal opinion carries with it some kind of inherent truth.

[ori_prior]

You are right.

Justice and injustice are entirely subjective, there can be no objective measure of those. Why? Because they stem from an individual's value system. Which is the subjective measures (good, bad, nice, rude, just, unjust, ...) that the individual applies to objective facts (Jimmy getting a birthday gift, somebody starving, lion eating a zebra, drinking a glass of water...). A value system can try to be logical, consistent, aligned with certain goals, but it doesn't have to be. Sometimes, it can't be. Society and especially "the law" try to institute common majority value system that is intended to be consistent, logical and aligned with certain goals, rooted in a few assumptions like self-preservation, equality, preservation of humanity, human-centricity, and others. Not all of those goals and assumptions are necessarily equally firm, established, or unchanging.

Now in the foodstamps example, the two goals of self-preservation of an individual and the preservation of humanity are valued higher than the more abstract goal of equality. Which is why I, in my value system, see the choice as an obvious one. Of course others might disagree, but I've assumed this (without pointing it out) to be the majority consensus. Sorry. There are even societies where the majority value system is different in that one need not or should not help a starving individual. Because they do deserve their suffering as (carmic, divine) punishment, or that society is made stronger by culling the weak.