as our primary defense of the justice system in the first place but far more importantly here justice is a huge important concept the sort of thing that you really want to be correct and convincing about and yet here stucky seems all too happy to produce an argument about it that would fail to convince anyone who doesn't want religion to play a role in how we treat criminals a huge group with both atheists and believers but this is the argument we get as an aside it's actually the only argument we get the only other time prageru talks about how justice should work is in their death penalty video where dennis prager is just like come on let me shoot this guy that's that's my take if you really do believe these people deserve to keep their lives well as i said at the outset i don't understand you i don't even get why you're not letting me kill this guy right now so you know why why do they have to make a religious thing about this issue and i think the answer comes down to one major thing prageru is terrified of presenting its image of justice as anything less than the undisputed objective definition of justice itself in one of the first moments of the video ali gives us this definition of justice justice is when we get what we deserve well i'm not going to say that this is a bad definition or a good definition but rather that it is a woefully incomplete definition that leaves me with a lot of questions for one thing it is putting a tremendous amount of weight on a here undefined term deserve like okay people should get what they deserve that's almost self-evidently true but how do we decide when someone does that personally i don't think anyone ever deserves to be brutally punished for their crimes i think the only good reason we might have for removing violent people from general society for a time is to prevent them from harming others and to hopefully make them less violent and as such it shouldn't be positioned as a punishment or a comeuppance in the first place so how would prageru handle my differing account for how people deserve things but here's another maybe more important problem assuming that justice is when people get what they deserve prageru clearly doesn't believe that the government should always be a purveyor of justice they are a right-wing organization after all strong believers in unregulated marketplaces and small governments and one consequence of that system is that sometimes people won't get what we think is coming to them a noble and virtuous person dying from poverty and lack of health care doesn't to me seem like the fate that they deserved and yet prageru fully advocates for a system wherein that sometimes occurs where there is no expectation that the state should give people their just desert so we have to ask what makes the government a legitimate purveyor of justice in the case where people do crimes but not the case where they are dying from poverty in other words what gives us the positive right to get what we deserve this is the problem with prageru's account of justice it pretends to a sense of universality and coherence when in fact it is incredibly narrow and commonly contested why should we seek to harm people even when it won't produce any positive outcome to speak of why does someone who commits a crime deserve to lose dignity deserve to be mistreated for huge stretches of time and in order to resolve this problem prageru must invoke
NO_SEGMENT_TOKEN