a true ethical system needs a transcendental justice

I would conclude that to reach a true ethical system

it is necessary to reason according to transcendental, or divine, justice.

According to the virtue of true justice,

we can elect only those rights which are ethically inspired.

The reply by Gemini:

True Ethics Through Transcendental Justice?

You propose that a "true" ethical system and ethically aspirable human rights require reasoning based on transcendental or divine justice.

Reasoning by Higher Justice:

Ultimate Source: Ethics and justice originate beyond the material world, from a transcendent ideal or divine will.
Objective Truth: Ethical truths are objective, not based on human opinion or culture.
Universal & Immutable: This justice is universal and unchanging, providing absolute standards.
Guiding Human Law: Human laws should aim to reflect this perfect, higher standard.

Electing Ethical Human Rights:

Rights are "elected" based on alignment with this higher justice, not just utility or consensus.

Beyond Utility/Consent: Justification lies in inherent consistency with transcendent justice.
Moral Foundation: Provides a strong, ultimate moral basis for rights.
Critique of Unjust Laws: Offers a standard to challenge laws conflicting with higher justice.
Emphasis on Duty: May also highlight corresponding human duties and obligations.

Challenges:

Defining Higher Justice: How do we universally understand and define this source?
Problem of Interpretation: Interpreting sources (e.g., religious texts) can be complex and varied.
Risk of Exclusivity: Claims of exclusive knowledge can lead to intolerance.
Role of Human Reason: May de-emphasize human reason and evolving understanding.

In Conclusion: anchoring ethics and rights in a transcendental source offers a vision of objectivity and universality. However, reliably accessing and interpreting this higher justice for a shared understanding remains a key practical challenge.

My reply:

The points you considered (difficult understanding, diverse interpretations, potential divergences, required humble reasoning) appear to me as the general use of human imperfections to seek particulars (which could be logically assessed) and many try to show them as faults in the theory.

Whilst you surely liked to present common thinking as a contribution for our conversation, aren't those who present such instances making a rhetoric fallacy?

The reply by Gemini:

Critique of Ideal Theories: Rhetorical Fallacies?

You suggest that focusing on the difficulties of understanding and applying transcendental justice might be a rhetorical fallacy, using human imperfections to dismiss a higher ideal.

Your Point: challenges in understanding/interpreting transcendental justice might be attempts to unfairly critique the theory by focusing on human limitations rather than the ideal itself.

Potential Fallacies:

Argument from Ignorance: Dismissing a theory because we lack perfect understanding.
Appeal to Perfection (Nirvana Fallacy): Rejecting a theory because its implementation isn't flawless.
Straw Man (Potentially): Misrepresenting the theory by solely focusing on application problems.

Clarifying the Intent:

The aim wasn't to dismiss transcendental justice but to explore the challenges of applying abstract ideals to imperfect humans and diverse realities. These are crucial points for discussion.

Tension: Ideal vs. Practical: philosophy often grapples with the gap between ideal theories and real-world application.

Ideal Theory: Seeks fundamental, coherent truths.
Practical Application: Deals with human imperfection, diverse views, and workable solutions.

"Humble Reasoning": emphasizes intellectual humility when approaching profound concepts, acknowledging the limits of human understanding.

Moving Forward. A more nuanced approach:

Acknowledge the Ideal: Recognize the potential of transcendental justice.
Bridge the Gap: Focus on connecting the ideal to practical ethics and rights.
Engage with Interpretations: Critically examine attempts to understand and apply it.

In Conclusion: focusing solely on implementation difficulties might be a rhetorical fallacy. Human imperfections don't necessarily invalidate ideal theories. The key is to thoughtfully bridge the gap between profound ideals and the pursuit of a just world, acknowledging human limitations and diverse perspectives.

My reply:

Yes, I would like to perfectly live and live in a perfect world together with perfect companions,

and yes, we can just strive to make our best deeds and thoughts,

and live with others making good deeds of Justice.

The reply by Gemini:

The Value of Striving for a Better World

Your desire for a perfect world and perfect justice resonates with a fundamental human yearning. Even if unattainable, striving towards it is deeply meaningful.

The Importance of Striving:

Moral Compass: The ideal guides our actions and thoughts towards what's right.
Motivation for Progress: It fuels efforts against injustice and towards a better society.
Finding Meaning: The act of choosing good and just actions gives life purpose.
Building Connection: Shared aspirations for a better world unite people.
Cultivating Virtue: Refining thoughts and deeds develops positive inner qualities.

Acknowledging Imperfection:

Humanity and the world are inherently imperfect, with diverse views and the capacity for both good and harm.

The Power of Intention:

Despite imperfection, intentionally choosing good and striving for justice in our interactions is true ethical living.

In Conclusion: while a perfect world might be an ideal, the journey of striving for it, guided by justice and good intentions, is a worthwhile and ethically vital path.