The Melting Pot of Justice

The on goings of police officers and their arguably unjust actions when associating stereotypes has been a greatly debated topic in class this last week. When the question, whether or not it was just to impose prejudice based on past experience was first posed, I automatically believed any prejudice in any manner was a great injustice. However, as the class divulged into what were seemingly exceptions. I became torn.

As one abiding by Kant’s ethical theory, it is a straightforward choice between right and wrong, when considering formulation of a biased action. The Universal Law of Justice to which Kant adheres states that one should “act externally in such a way that the free use of your will is compatible with the freedom of everyone according to universal law.” In this sense, it appears that one may develop a prejudice opinion but is not committing an injustice until he or she wills said prejudice. In that case, the freedom of the one in which the discrimination is directed is violated.

Contrastingly, after reading the excerpt from John Stuart Mills, “On the Connexion between Justice and Utility,” the idea that “the feeling of justice might be a peculiar instinct,” rang a certain truth. In proving his point, Mills argued the fact that as human beings we distinctly believe harm or retribution should come to those who do harm to, not only ourselves, but to others as well. Security, therefore, is the most protected human rights. With that being said, it would make sense to create a negative attitude towards those similar to a person who poses harm to humankind and their rights in general.

It seems to me that there are always shades of grey when a group of people from varying backgrounds come together and attempt to place a distinct definition on a term as encompassing as justice. When I ponder the true meaning of justice, I find that a mixture of the “great thinkers” ideas should be considered. In comparison to the nickname given to America, the melting pot, the closest to perfection one can become is a combination of many critical ideas. On the other hand, taking the concepts and theories from philosophers out of context could be detrimental to their true meaning.

As students of so many varying opinions are we inclined to choose a single point of view to adhere by? Or is it that we should take each argument as equally important and applicable and use them all in the society we have built today?