#23 - Global Reference, Must Be True

[jackieb]

Hi sherrilyn,

An ideal situation could occur in many other contexts than a "wholly just world;" the two are just not at all synonymous. Does that make sense? Wholly just world is just too much of a stretch for the lines you referenced.

I still don't see how they aren't synonymous.. I get how ideal situations can occur even in not wholly just worlds, but a wholly just world is ideal. I feel like it's getting too into the weeds and they really are a simliar concept.

[Jeff Wren]

Hi jackie,

I can understand your confusion. It does seem that a wholly just world would be ideal. However, the way that the two terms are used in each passage is not identical.

In Passage A, the author discusses what definition would work"if the world were wholly just" (lines 9-10). The author then goes on to point out that the world is not wholly just, and "the existence of past injustices" (lines 24-25) is why a principle of rectification is needed. In other words, a "wholly just world" is a hypothetical model that doesn't exist in our world.

In Passage B, the author recommends the ideal solution, namely that "the land should be restored to its rightful owners" (lines 56-57). While the author admits that such a solution "may be impractical" (line 57), it is not impossible/unattainable in the same way that a wholly just world is. In other words, the ideal solution is simply the best solution of actual possible solutions, while the wholly just world is more of a hypothetical and unattainable world perfect justice. If the world were wholly just, there presumably wouldn't be a need for the principle of rectification or for ever the having to return the land to the rightful owner's (because it never would have been taken from them in the first place).

[jackieb]

Hi jackie,

I can understand your confusion. It does seem that a wholly just world would be ideal. However, the way that the two terms are used in each passage is not identical.

In Passage A, the author discusses what definition would work"if the world were wholly just" (lines 9-10). The author then goes on to point out that the world is not wholly just, and "the existence of past injustices" (lines 24-25) is why a principle of rectification is needed. In other words, a "wholly just world" is a hypothetical model that doesn't exist in our world.

In Passage B, the author recommends the ideal solution, namely that "the land should be restored to its rightful owners" (lines 56-57). While the author admits that such a solution "may be impractical" (line 57), it is not impossible/unattainable in the same way that a wholly just world is. In other words, the ideal solution is simply the best solution of actual possible solutions, while the wholly just world is more of a hypothetical and unattainable world perfect justice. If the world were wholly just, there presumably wouldn't be a need for the principle of rectification or for ever the having to return the land to the rightful owner's (because it never would have been taken from them in the first place).

This clicked, thank you so much!