Thus far
this semester, we have mainly focused on justice, but is justice the most
important thing for us to study? There seem to me to be only two alternatives
close to the same importance, which are happiness and morality. While these
three are most certainly related in the various theories of justice we have
studied thus far, there are many disagreements about the precise relation. John
Stuart Mills, for example, emphasizes happiness as the determining factor of
what is a moral and just action, whereas Socrates and Aristotle place more emphasis
on living virtuously ( albeit each in slightly different ways), which leads to
living happily and justly. This line of thought leads to a few more questions,
such as which is more valuable, in both a personal and interpersonal sense, and
also to what degree are they dependent on each other and on the individual in
question.
Before
examining these questions, I want to spend a few moments defining these terms a
little. Morality is the ethical system whereby one determines what one should
or should not do; essentially it is the guiding principles of our lives.
Happiness is the positive feeling of elation or contented satisfaction. Justice
then is the guiding principles of interaction between people; I am using it in
a sense where an individual cannot be innately just or unjust others.
Back to the
first question, most would agree with Aristotle in that the highest personal
good that one individual can strive for is happiness, but would also say that
morality is more important for interpersonal relations than justice, because
justice is, in a way, dependent on
morality. This is because justice is inseparably intertwined with morality, as
an imagined society of perfectly moral
people would necessarily be perfectly just as well, but an imagined society of
perfectly just people would not necessarily be perfectly moral. Thus, morality
would seem to be a more worthy topic for our examination.
However, the
second question throws that conclusion in some doubt because morality is not
necessarily consistent between different people. Even people using the same basis
for their morality can reach differing opinions, such as in various religious
texts and their interpretations. Morality, therefore, does depend on the
individual in question, but does justice? By the definition of justice as being
an interpersonal concept, its existence is predicated on facilitating people’s
interactions. Thus, justice must be predominantly an accepted thing in order
for it to fulfill that purpose, very much in the same way that language must be
accepted by at least two people for it to have any meaning. What do you all think?
In order to understand why we use justice as the focus of social and political thought, you have to understand that justice is an implemented reality. While happiness and morality can be subjective without infringing on other rights, justice cannot be. As long as my individual happiness and my morality does not infringe on your existence, then it isn’t a concern with regards to the securing of rights. While governments and societies are concerned with maximizing happiness and moral conduct of citizens, the primary concern of governance is the securing of every individuals rights. And while views on justice can be different, the one aspect of justice that we can agree on in our study is that justice can be measured in human interactions. Thus, social and political questions are primary concerned with the issue of justice as not a subjective analysis, but an objective understanding of interactions.
ReplyDelete