As humans, we often use an idealized version of things to determine what we should do, or how we should act. Among these important ideals are the ideals of justice and “the good”, as discussed in class today, and a major problem with these terms is that they can mean different things to each individual. For example, one person could define "good" as being what furthers the self, what causes the least harm, or what helps others the most (possibly even at the expense of the self). In class today, it was argued that Plato believes all unjust actions to stem from an imbalance in the psyche between the three classes, reason, passion, and appetites, where the person does not seek “the good” rationally, but is that a sound argument? I do not think so, because each person’s “the good” is different. Is it, for example, good or just to live in contented happiness by causing pain or to suffer unhappiness and destruction that others may be happy? Both are equally valid interpretations of what “good” is, and neither one is necessarily more right than the other. Thus, this is an excellent example of how justice based on the good can be contradictory. Another, more concrete example is whether it is just for a member of the guardian class to suffer the weight of the city’s rule, especially by putting their own individual good beneath the good of the whole.
Defining justice as being a quality that is always present when the three elements of the psyche are in balance and harmony seeking the good is thus seen to be problematic when the good of an individual and of a larger group are in conflict. However, the more important question is whether this is still could be a valid ideal for us to compare with real world scenarios, or is this line of inquiry unprofitable and should be abandoned? In order for it to meet my own ideal standards for an ideal, it need only fix the subjectivity of the good, for justice, I believe, will follow from the good. As to the ideal of good, for it to be useful, it should be perfect, and thus unobtainable, and should be as concrete and definite as possible. The questions that still need to be answered are whether the individual good is subject to the good of the many and whether the choice of the individual affects what is good (such as would we say that one person forced to suffer for the majority is just? Or unjust?). What are some of your thoughts?
Although I agree with you, I would like to play Devil's Advocate. You say that the definition of "the good" differs from person to person. Do you actually mean definition or do you mean types or examples of good vary from person to person? Let me the draw the connection to the word "color". Most people have a definition for color that is the same for all intents and purposes. Does this mean that they all experience the color the same way? There have been studies done to show that we all see colors differently, and even that the way the colors influence our mental state differs between person to person. One person could define red as a certain range of electromagnetic wave lengths/frequency, but another person could define it as a visual input that causes excitation, and there are number of definitions in those styles. Are either one of these wrong? Not really. Red is actually both. But somehow we are able to understand what red is even though people experience and understand it in so many different ways. This could mean that there are two layers of definition there is the personal level and there is a global level. One definition that we can all understand and one for each individual person. Could it be that when trying to achieve the good, there are two levels we could achieve it at? The first level being, where we use emotion and instincts, and then another level which gets us to the global definition, that is true for every case, every person, just like a global definition for red. I may be simplifying this too much. It is also possible that this does not hold true for concepts such as justice and the good. And I am sorry if was not complete clear on this, or if I did not follow logical sense.
ReplyDelete