"iwpoe" wrote:

but your post is so grossly false as an account that posting it here borders on being disrespectful and trollish.

It seems disrespectful and trollish because I am deliberately giving an uncharitable reading to scholastic natural justice theorists. Normally it is good academic courtesy to give the opponent the most charitable reading of his theories, but I did not in this instance to raise the question of how exact is "moral disequilibrium" fundamentally different from "a disturbance in the Force," even though the later is obviously fatuous and not meriting serious consideration. Personally, I believe that scholastic theorists must have some less stupid reason that they're clinging to scholastic natural justice, and I would like to see a good apology. I originally wanted to have Dr. Feser produce the apology, but one of the blog readers referred me here.

"iwpoe" wrote:

Just because one has some kind of conceptual scheme whereby one can determine "optimal play" in some game we all participate in this simply does not entail that either this result is just nor even that the game itself is just.

But then you're in the awkward position of admitting that the hardass moralistic just society would result in a less livable society than my friendly liberal fruit-juice drinker society. And we don't have the freedom to choose the game when it comes to society. There are people who are free moral agents with competing interests and any choice of play you pick must acknowledge these fundamental facts.

But do we actually need justice to achieve a functional society? What's wrong with taking a murderer, putting him in a livable prison with enough amenities for him to continue living and possibly even producing something where he's not able to murder people or harm society? The murderer can continue living his life, and society is safe.