What is Justice?

What is Justice?

      It is from behind the “veil of ignorance” proclaimed by John Rawls, basically meaning without identity or not knowing who you are, that I must give the general principle/s of “justice” which should be used to govern society.  This philosophical inquiry overlaps into several areas; requiring the examination and thought given to ethics, political philosophy (politics) and possibly even logic.

       Without knowing who I am, my social status, wealth, age or gender I believe I would agree with John Rawls in that I would foremost want to be guaranteed fair treatment and opportunities to succeed in a society.  I also like the way John Stuart Mill defined liberty and I find it to be remarkably similar to the ideas written by Thomas Jefferson in “The Declaration of Independence.”   They both were influenced by John Locke because they insist that there are basic human rights that need to be protected; an idea first put forth by Locke that he called “inalienable personal rights.”   These are rights that all people have.  They are needs that must be met in order to live and maintain a functioning society.  Mill adds a boundary on these rights by stating that they shouldn’t harm another or infringe on the right of others. I also tend to agree with Rawls concept of “justice” because he believes that truly “just” means it must be truly “fair.”  The two are one-in-the-same or intrinsically linked.  Social utility is the core principle of social justice according to Mill.  Social utility is basically like democracy in that it’s a majority rule type system by defining justice as whatever “creates the greatest social benefit for the greatest number of people.”(Chaffee570)  This seems fair at first, until realizing that a majority of people can be disillusioned, deceived, misinformed and uniformed by means of manipulation and propaganda.  That sort of thing could and most certainly has led to unjust action and choices.  Unfortunately this allows for potentially large portions of the population to feel unfairly treated and that justice did not occur. 

       I find Rawls concept of “justice” to be both a sound and valid argument because to be fair is to be just and to be just is to be fair.  I simply cannot find or think of an instance where they are not one in the same.  I do not find Mill’s social utility to be quite as convincing an argument.  There is no proof that the fairest course of action is always the most popular.  Mill did make some very good points about liberty that are valid.  His insightful idea to include free thought and expression undoubtedly laid the foundation for the “Bill of rights” in the American “Constitution.” He also insisted that one has the freedom to exercise these rights as long as they don’t harm anyone else or infringe in any way on another’s rights.  These are both important ideas when considering “justice” in a society.   John Locke’s “inalienable personal rights” concept has validity in that it means that no one person should hold the power of life and death over another.  No one should be denied the ability, opportunity or necessary resources to survive. 

        I would create a just society by governing on the principles of rights and liberty and equality and fairness with each individual having the freedoms to engage in any form of activity they so choose as long as they do not harm or infringe on the rights of others, whether purposefully or otherwise.  These same rules would apply to corporations and governments organizations alike.  Some particular instances where it is necessary due to location and resources for some people to suffer relocation or seizure of property for the greater good should be duly, fairly, timely and completely compensated.  In order to prevent the prediction of Karl Marx we would not use a monetary system.  Monetary systems are inherently flawed and have only proved to promote greed.  Greed compels and tempts individuals to do immoral or unethical practices often leading to the unfair treatment, violation of rights and harm of others. With term limits on policy makers, proficiency tests and equal representation, laws would be fair and just.  In a just society, taxes would be evenly spread out by the use of resources.  Those that use more and consume the most put more strain on the society and system.  Therefore they should be required to pay more especially if those resources are used for profit.  The consequences for violating laws should be fair and swift.  All penalties for violations are the same regardless of any status.  There are no exceptions.        

Works Cited Page

Chaffee, J. (2013). “The Philosopher’s Way: A text with readings”  5^th Ed. 

City University of New York, Pearson

Fantasy Philosophical Discussion About Ethics and Morality

Another Fantasy Discussion About Ethics and Morality

        When it comes to situations as serious and complex as the philosophical issues of morality and ethics that must be considered in these types of cases, I often find myself incapable of making any decision without council.  For this reason I have consulted with both Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Nietzsche.  Here I recount our discussion and deliver my conclusions based on its content.

        I start the conversation by simply asking, “In general, what does it mean to act ethically?”  After a moment of thought, Kant opens up and replies “To fulfill the moral duties that all people in all situations should follow.”(Chaffee461)  Nietzsche laughed in response insisting that what we are talking about is really what he calls our “will to power”.(495)  He continued by reminding us he has always maintained that the ultimate moral good is simply the individual imposing his or her own values on to others by means of exerting their own will to power to its extreme potential.  I thought about this for a few moments before asking them to relate their philosophical theories directly to these three particular cases.  Kant said that all three are instances of individuals not acting morally or as they should be.  Nietzsche laughs again at my ignorance and states that it is obvious that all three cases are about one individual trying to impose his or her own will to power or set of values on the other respective parties.  “Thank you,” I said to them both as I shook their hands, “I have some thinking to do.” 

         As I began considering our discussion I had to side with Nietzsche and his belief that all three cases did seem to involve one person forcing their own will or morals onto another in some way.  However Kant throws a broad net when he stated that people act ethically when they fulfill moral duty and implying that moral duty is what all people should follow in any and all situations.  But define “moral duty”?  Is it what’s best for the individual or for all?  It almost seems to suggest a “gut feeling” type of reaction.  Some situations and circumstances are not easily determined as to the morally correct thing to do.  Indeed it can get rather complicated.  Overall it does make for a sound argument. On the other hand, Kant’s theory allows a set of universal morals by which most of us believe in and live by today.  Unfortunately it is Nietzsche’s theory that seems to be on to something.  When applying his theory to history it is apparent that people have always forced and imposed their values, morals, beliefs, ethics and religion onto others since we have existed.  So Nietzsche’s argument is, to some degree, valid. 

        After reflecting for some time on the conversation/discussion with my friends Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Nietzsche, and after carefully reviewing the cases before me once more, I have come to a conclusion.  Taking into account Kant’s theory I cannot deny that there are indeed some universal values and morals that all people share.  However I have come to believe that, whether we know it or not, whether intentional or unintentional we do try to force and impose or will and values onto others.  That said, I can see that in each of the three cases there is some kind of moral/s being questioned, broken and/or challenged.  While each situation here brings its own set of circumstances that make them ethical dilemmas, all of them are, in some way or another, both ethical and unethical depending on the morals and ethics of the individuals involved.  This supports the notion that ethics is a set of the individuals’ morals that determines if they act morally.  Moreover it lends credibility to Nietzsche’s theory because the individual always fights for his or her own moral beliefs and ethics to be imposed as law.  They do this regardless of others opinions or values or beliefs.  Everyone believes themselves to be right and everyone else as wrong.  With this in mind I give my verdict on the three cases. So in the case of the medically assisted suicide of Sue Rodriguez I say she was not treated unethically because it is the law of the land against it and the law reflects the ethics and morals of the population.  As for the defense lawyer contemplating violating her oath and allegiance to her client, I say she would be acting unethically to do so.  She knew when becoming a criminal defense attorney that she would represent guilty people at some point.  She also has the ability to refuse or step aside as this man’s attorney.   And finally the case of the animal testing and reported cruelty by the university I must agree that, at least in this instance, the testing is not necessary because it cannot prevent the disease from spreading regardless of whether it does or not.  Thus the experiments are unethical. 

Works Cited Page

Chaffee, J. (2013). “The Philosopher’s Way: A text with readings”  5^th Ed. 

City University of New York, Pearson

A Question of Morality

A Question of Morality

        Should I take a life to save 29 others and risk my own prosecution, or should I allow all 30 people to die and save myself?  A position I wish on no other but also one that overlaps from ethics to religion to politics.  Realizing my ignorance, I consulted two of history’s greatest thinkers, Ayn Rand and W. T. Stace to help me sort out this mess. I asked them “[Given the situation], what is the morally correct thing to do?”

        Rand replied that because the situation is unique and beyond my control that I could choose either way and arguably still be a moral man.  But he continued by stating that even if I chose to act only in my own self-interest I would still be acting morally.  Suggesting that if I chose to allow all 30 people to die just to protect myself against prosecution at some later time, that I would be acting morally.  W. T. Stace agrees with Plato but only because morality is relative more than universal and as he states, “…some moral values are universal and apply to all individuals and cultures.” (Chaffee 419)  Ayn Rand says Altruistic Morality is noble but “…although it may be possible for humans to act in a way that sacrifices their own self-interest, it is immoral to do so.”(428)  Stace concluded the discussion by saying; “Moral right means what people think morally right.  It has no other meaning.” (421)

         When reflecting on our conversation, I began to understand what Stace was trying to suggest.  He made me think of the religious side of things by suggesting that regardless of the situation, the act is immoral and probably all the same in gods’ eye.  While Ayn rand really made me think that self-preservation is neither shameful nor immoral.  Rands’ perspective allows for an individual to make selfish choices without guilt.  We always seem to recognize, honor and award selfless acts.  As well as celebrate those who do them - sometimes even elevating them to hero status.  However we all know many successful people who have made many selfish decisions.  Choices that have served them well I might add.  But I doubt I could ever live with doing the act itself and would forever be filled with regret.  Possibly even be filled with regret regardless of the choice I make.  According to Stace it is all subjective and simply a matter of perspective.  Meaning each situation or decision has its own morally correct choice.

        Making a decision in this matter is an unbelievably hard thing to do, even after discussing it with some very intelligent philosophers.   Considering the fact that this is not my culture I don’t believe it is my place to make judgements on their morals, values and/or beliefs.  That said, I must also live by my own moral code as well as take into account the laws of land I call home.  It reminds me of the old cliché; when in Rome – do as the Romans do.  I cannot take that advice this time.  I do not believe I can take a person’s life with my own hand unless given proper reason.  I can find no such reason for me to be involved at all.  While I have been given this opportunity to be a part of this ceremony, I must respectfully decline the honor.  My choice is to allow the proceedings to continue as though I were not even there.  I must look past my involvement and realize that this sort of thing happens here all the time.  And that the people chosen on this day, at this time had nothing to do with me or my presence here and would likely have been chosen for execution anyway.  Even if I decided to try and save 29 lives by taking one, how long would it be before those 29 were again chosen to be executed?  These are the reasons I give to remove myself and allow things to unfold as they would without me.  It is best to observe and comprehend before either becoming involved or passing any judgements.  

 

Works Cited Page

Chaffee, J. (2013). “The Philosopher’s Way: A text with readings”  5^th Ed.  

City University of New York, Pearson