Last night Illinois Senator Dick Durbin spoke to the Democratic National Convention just before President Obama came on stage to deliver his nomination acceptance speech. While there were many interesting elements to the DNC speakers last night, as well as this entire week, something particular struck my during Senator Durbin’s brief address-- the senator attributed Obama's success with restoring women's rights and ending don't ask don't tell with the characteristic of "justice.”
My question followed, then, does Senator Durbin’s use of the term comply with Aristotle's definition of justice?
First I think we must take time to decide whether we consider these social inequalities are in fact injustices. Injustice according to Aristotle is the presence of excess or deficiency in a relationship between people where the distributor of the injustice is acting voluntarily-- with intent, knowledge, and without coincidence. Is this the case? First, we must determine if there is a relationship in this instance. Perhaps if we consider the relationship here to be the connection between representatives and decision makers in the government and these groups of people (namely women and the GLBT community), we can accept this to be an instance of relationship.While these relationships are not necessarily personal today (and the relationship between people who initially wrote the laws and the current population is certainly not personal) this is an instance of the government as the distributor of injustice.
We also must consider whether the restoration of "equality" in this situation constitutes justice. A we discussed in class, there is a difference between equal and equitable. In order to consider the legal discrepancy of rights of, say, GLBT members of the military, you must first believe that a just distribution of human social rights that is equitable is in fact one that is equal. Granted, then we must consider if other groups also require equal and equitable rights, for example convicted felons. In order to view the repeal of the Dont Ask, Dont Tell policy as an act of restoring justice, we must decide upon a definition of social justice that is applicable to all groups within society. Here, of course, we have stumbled upon the basis for the “Religious Right’s” argument against gay rights; in their opinion, there is not injustice in this situation because an equitable distribution of rights would not allow for gay rights, because gays (according to this conservative mode of thinking) do not deserve equal rights.
However, if we consider that social rights ought to be distributed equally, because in this case what is equitable is also equal, then (and only then) can we consider Obama's successful repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell an act of undoing a situation of deficient rights, in other words an act of justice.
I think using convicted felons as an example of another group in society doesn't add to your argument here. Aristotle (and Plato as well) would state that they don’t apply as a group in a just society, as they are out of order in their souls, or rather, that they have become convicted felons by acting irrationally in the past. While felons not always been a part of the group they are now being placed in, the GLBT minority normally have always been ‘members’ so to speak of this group in society. Now days if we were to treat other minorities with the same logic, society would be extremely bigoted.
ReplyDelete