During class today, we offered up some thought experiments
for determining whether, by Aristotle’s standards, an action would be
considered an injustice. Injustices, we
read, must be voluntary, and to be voluntary, they must be
1. Up to the agent
2. Done with
knowledge, and
3. Not coincidental
or coerced
Some examples that we discussed were driving carefully but
accidentally hitting a pedestrian with your car, driving recklessly and accidentally
hitting a pedestrian with your car, and being coerced into hitting a pedestrian
with your car.
Professor Johnson also clarified that, by Aristotle’s model,
the law does not always produce justice.
The example of Jean Valjean’s imprisonment for stealing bread to feed
his sister’s starving child is a good one.
In that scenario, the law governed the punishment he received (5 years
for stealing the bread), but it seems a great injustice. It seems that there is an imbalance between
the amount of bread Jean Valjean got out of the exchange and the amount of
punishment he received for it.
This example of justice not coinciding with the law made me
think about the idea of moral obligations.
I’m sure we’ve all entertained some hypothetical ethical
dilemmas from time to time. I know I’ve
talked about these with friends many times (maybe I’m strange). One example may be this:
You are walking along a path, and you come
upon a lake, where a stranger is drowning.
Aristotle would likely suggest that the drowning person, let’s
call him Bob, is involuntarily suffering an injustice (the only way one can). He is a terrible swimmer, who attempted to
swim alone, and by some accident, he is now drowning.
There are lots of ways to complicate this scenario, but let's just assume that you are an excellent swimmer and know that you could save
the man’s life. In fact, the lake seems
pretty small and, oh look, you’re wearing a swimsuit already. In other words, it would trouble you very little to save Bob's life. Many would suggest in this situation, that
you are morally obligated to save the drowning man. Legally, you’re not. The Good Samaritan law in Tennessee only suggests
that if you intervene to help and
some damage comes to Bob, you shouldn’t be held legally responsible. You could, by all means, walk away and let
Bob drown.
How would Aristotle view the situation? Is it your responsibility to rectify Bob’s
injustice? If you let him drown, are you
performing an injustice? You were not
the distributor, determining Bob’s circumstances, so it seems like you would
have no responsibility to save him, but walking away clearly seems like the
wrong thing to do. Is voluntarily
allowing an avoidable injustice to happen (the death of Bob by drowning) the
same thing as committing an injustice?
What if he shouts for help?
I’d really like to know what you guys think. I think perhaps you would not be unjust to
leave Bob to die, you may just be a huge jerk.
It might, for the passerby, not be a question of justice at all. Bob is suffering a deficiency, but is it your
responsibility to rectify it?
Source:
Source:
Aristotle. Justice, from the Nicomachean Ethics. Justice. Ed. Jonathan Westphal. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Pub., 1996. 73-94. Print.
--- Katie Sanders
--- Katie Sanders
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBob’s predicament is actually not the result of an Injustice- it’s the result of the poor choice to go swimming when he isn’t a good swimmer. The Injustice that is being done is to society as a whole, who would lose Bob’s contributions to society. Therefore, the Just thing to do stems from Bob’s contribution to society. If Bob is a healthy young man who accidentally cramped while swimming has a wife and kids, and is an excellent cook, then it would be safe to say that the Just thing to do would be to save him. The social consequences of Bob’s death would far outweigh the benefits of his death. But if Bob was a drug dealing murderer, who’s drowning is an excellent example of evolution at its finest, then maybe your stroll should continue.
ReplyDeleteBut I’m going to assume we don’t know Bob. If the defining characteristic of Bob is his existence as a human, then Aristotle’s system of Justice begins to fail us. If Bob was not the suffering a direct Injustice as a result of a decision by another person, then the decision to save Bob becomes not a matter of justice, but of the principles of humanity. Does Human life hold an intrinsic worth to others? Do we have a moral responsibility to another’s life?
I guess my point was more to discuss the potential actions of an individual upon discovering Bob drowning, not specifically Bob's situation. Though I suppose he wouldn't truly be acting with knowledge. I like your point about not really knowing Bob's value, which would play a role in making a judgment on what action would be just.
ReplyDeleteBy witnessing Bob drowning, having no responsibility for his circumstances, it seems perfectly just (maybe not cool, though) to walk away. But could witnessing it and being able to stop it enter the witness into the situation? Can you, knowingly, intentionally, uncoerced, walk away and let Bob drown without committing an injustice? I'd like to assume yes, since Bob is not your responsibility, but I think judging just how involved one has to be in order to be held accountable (or to be able to be judged as just/unjust) is a little foggy.
It's also hard to keep a thought experience like this a discussion of only justice!
I think that clearly and moral person would save Bob. If some one believed in fate then I could not see a more obvious example of when action should be taken because it would be just to easy to help out Bob. I have always thought that you should do unto others as you would want them to do to you.
ReplyDeleteHowever we are talking about this in a philosophical and regards to what Aristotle would say about the situation. I think he would find it difficult to talk his way out of helping an innocent man (since we are not told otherwise). However he was a very crafty wordsmith. We could refer to his teleology of nature and say that it seems like this would be someones purpose to save Bob considering he even had a bathing suit on. As well I think most people in there right mind would find happiness in saving another humans life which Aristotle says is our end goal. If Bob shouted you would haven even more reason to help him considering you now know that he wants help and you can't just ignore the situation. I believe that there would be a deficiency of justice if someone were to allow bob to die.
It is up to the agent in the end but I believe that anyone with knowledge would save Bob because if the world was as cynical as letting everyone suffer then there would be no charity.
This is just my opinion and with the way you wrote the article I can see how you justified your statement.