Justification is offering a public account of what constitutes sufficient reason to assent to any given particular claim or set of claims. I often find that there is sufficient disagreement on these forums regarding what constitutes being justified. This thread aims to set out this topic of justification. It is an all-important concept in not only philosophical thought but also in everyday activities. Most just do not give the notion much thought. Hopefully, this thread can engage the notion.

I'll leave it open for others to begin...

justification is in the minds of each of us individually. for instance, i may see the big bang theory as justified as a logical explanation for the beginning of the universe based on the credibility i place on those who've researched the theory. another might say that my justification is in error based on his reading of the bible. justification has nothing to do with the public unless those who decide justice has the authority. but even in that instance justification is an individual thing. many supreme court decisions are split 5/4. five justices found the oral arguments justified, four found them unjustified.

Justification is a public affair jrbogie. Warrant is personal. Putting one's personal warrant into coherent and meaningful terms is the act of justification. Your example shows this nicely.

Indeed they may. Claiming an error in another's statements requires it's own justification by showing how it is in error. "Because the Bible says so" is unconvincing and does not pass the muster for reasons that can be explained if need be. I think that we agree here.

justification is not a public affair. a serial killer justifies his murder of prostitutes as a commandment he received from god to punnish women of the night. but does the public share in his justification? the roe v wade decision is justified based on the forteenth and fifth amendments but does the entire public agree in that justification?

sure. to claim an error in the bible would require justification to support the claim. but the justification may not satisfy the claimant and yet the person challenging the claim will not see the justification as valid. people have argued that there is justification to try dubya as a war criminal yet nobody has actually brought forth formal charges. so many if not most in the legal system do not see such a charge as justified. justification is very much an individual thing.

Creative, justification is a personal "view" of what one person believes to be validation for their beliefs thoughts actions. Some try to get public confirmation of their justification but it is a personal "view" on things.

Unless you can show where I have this wrong.

If justification were satisfied solely by the conscience of the individual in question, then Hitler was justified.

Need more be said?

indeed, hitler did think his actions were justified as did many of his nazi followers. nope. nothing more need be said.

Do we agree that justification is not satisfied by the person's own moral compass?

Perhaps it be better put another way, say, in the form of a question. Afterall this is a philosophy forum and asking the right kinds of questions, is crucial for doing philosophy.

Do you agree that there is an important distinction between being justified in thought/belief/action and thinking that one is justified?

Seems to me that justification is as subjective as the claim itself…given to a multitude of variables based on the environment in which it is concluded and presented by the individual…to say that it is a public affair seems to attempt to apply a majority rules value to it …

Agreed, but it does not follow that all justification rests upon equal ground.



I don't see how the act of public justification need be a case of majority rule value application.

justification is a person thing, soul. that's what i'll agree to. you mentioned the moral compass. that too is the product of each individual and often varies between any two people. most americans would think it morally unjustified for a husband to beat his wife for shaming him and yet the act is not only morally justified but legally justified in saudi arabia. justices is not the same everywhere on the planet. governments create laws because everybody cannot agree on what is and is not morally or ethically correct. you brought up hitler. many people justified his actions to purify the races as morally and ethically justified. many others disagreed to the point that a global war was fought over the issue. saddam justified his invasion of kuwait based on the league of nations stipping that land from iraq after the first world war. he justified the act as simply reclaiming land that was stolen from his country. the un disagreed with this justification and a coalition ran him out. i could go on and on with examples of one person or groups of persons who have thought their dispicable actions and atrocities to be justified morally and ethically according to THEIR OWN moral compass.

no we don't. justificaton IS satisfied in the person's own moral compass. it my not be satisfied by another's moral compass. justification is or is not justified based on each of our own moral and ethical compass. is the roe v wade decision justified? i think so yet many disagree with me. even the court was not uninimous in reaching the decision. seven saw a woman's equal right to due process and privacy as justified, two opined that such a right is not justified. if we all agreed on what is and is not justified we would need neither laws or the courts.

no, all justification does not rest on equal ground. it rest's within the minds of each of us as individuals.

sometimes majority rule has value and othertimes not. were the majority to rule in the southern states some of those states would still be praciticing racial segregation. many would see no value in that but even then there would be much dissagreement. in this case where the value of majority rule was shown, in many american's minds, was the majority in congress that inacted the civil rights act. and yet some think the act unjustified.

So, Hitler was justified according to your account of what constitutes being so.

I suppose I'm questioning what the world would be like if we were only held accountable to our own conscience. Self-justification.

I cannot find much coherency in what you're claiming jrbogie. On the one hand the claim is personal, and on the other it is obviously cultural, and on the other it is obviously international...


Looks public to me.

Can one be wrong in thinking/believing that they are justified?

hitler was justified according to his moral and ethical compass. not justified according to mine.