For the past two thousand years philosophers have strived to define the word “justice.” Some tried hard
to prove Plato’s definition of justice that says that a just man is a man who
is where he is supposed to be. Still, after all this time, Plato’s definition
is not considered complete. No one has really come up with a concrete
definition of justice. Many of the definitions that we discussed in class contained
subjective words like “fairness.” To use the word “fair” one needs a definition
of “fair.” But who determines fairness? In any situation there might be many
fair actions that one can take but which action is the fairest action? So using
the word fair, doesn’t really help us define the world “justice.”
I believe that in order
to find a more concrete definition of justice, we have to look at its
counterpart: injustice. If we can better understand injustice, then the
definition of justice will be clearer. So,
what really is injustice? Is it sex trafficking of young girls? Is it tyranny?
Is it racism? Is it child labor? In my mind, these are all not only unfair but
also injustices; this is because I believe that in all of these instances the
strong are taking advantage of the weak. So, I would define injustice as the
strong taking advantage of the weak. Therefore I could say that Justice can be
defined as equal opportunities for all. In a just society the strong will not
infringe upon the rights of the weak.
In class we discussed
the Voter ID laws and if they are just. If we do define injustice as the strong
taking advantage of the weak then I would say the Voter ID laws are quite
unjust. Voter ID laws can be considered poll taxes (which we banned decades
ago). Some people are not able to get state IDs because they either don’t have
the financial means or they don’t have an address. The people who can’t get IDs
are the poor and if we expand that further we can say that the poor probably
consist of mostly African Americans, college students, and other minorities
like immigrants. Which make up the bulk of the Democratic Party. So, these
Voter ID laws are made to suppress a group of people; even the congressman who
came up with the law, said that this law will make Mitt Romney win the
election. So why is this unjust? When the strong (politicians and rich people
who have influence over the politicians) take away such a right from the poor
then I would consider the strong to be unjust. If this kind of law passes then
the strong will get people that they support into the government. This would be
quite a slippery slope because as more and more politicians who support the
strong get power, the weak will cease to have a voice. I believe that in order
to live in a just America, we need to get rid of these Voter ID laws or offer
free ways to get State issued IDs. This way everyone can have a voice.
I agree with some of your points, but I don’t think injustice is merely the strong taking advantage of the weak. If a poor man killed a rich man, should the consequences be any different if the roles were reversed? The weak can also take advantage of the strong. I think it is unjust when someone is receiving federal aid that doesn’t deserve it. People that, for whatever reason, are fully capable of working, and choose to rely on the work of others. If a society was truly equal and just, there wouldn’t be separate social and economic classes.
ReplyDeleteI do agree, however, that Voter ID laws are, in a sense, unjust. Everyone should have the opportunity to vote, but I can also understand the reasoning why some people thing they would be necessary. The best way to compromise would probably be to issue free State IDs. That way, both sides get what they want. Everyone could have an ID to help prevent voter fraud, but it wouldn’t be a hindrance to those who wouldn’t otherwise be able to afford one.
While i do agree with a lot of your points, such as "fairness" not being a viable explanation of justice considering the definition of fair is in the eyes of the beholder. However, Lauren brings up a great point of the strong taking advantage of the weak being some what of a double standard. It appears as though many American citizens focus far too greatly on the strong taking advantage of the weak and do not think about how weak do, in fact, take advantage of the strong. While I do agree with both of you on Voter ID laws being unjust considering everyone should have the opportunity to obtain an ID, I do believe that in a sense, it could be relatively reasonable depending on the perspective. What percentage of the eliminated population have actually voted in the past elections? While a small percentage of this population is educated in regards to politics and the effects it has on our country, many of them are clueless and often do not vote. I feel as though, a lot of the people who are excluded are of the weak population who have been taking advantage of the "opportunities" the democratic party has offered them, and they simply vote democratic for more assistance. Voter ID laws could inevitably motivate some people to stop abusing the systems, and cause a more politically educated voter population.
ReplyDelete