I am on board with Kelsen, when it
comes that there is not just an absolute justice, but that it is just human
interest. I completely agree with this tenant of Kelsen’s definition of
justice, because why otherwise would there be some many philosophers, with such
diverse ideas? We are, by nature, self-interested animals.
Individuality is what we like to
call our thoughts and the way we treat topics, but in all honesty, it is
nothing more than self-interest. We are taught to be open to other belief
systems and opposing arguments, but at the end of the day, who does not want to
be correct or prove that their thoughts are the right ones?
Absolute justice is an allusion. I
do not think that that is the only allusion however, that can be pointed out by
Kelsen’s theory. What about the allusion of tolerance? Are people truly
tolerant, or are we just trying to cause the most amount of happiness in
society but not always stepping on other people’s toes? Has our society become
too tolerant? Is there no longer any more room for correction, or is that just
being intolerant in our society?
I heard the other day that one
school in the US does not call there students freshman anymore, but rather
first-year-students. The reason behind this change is because the word “men” in
freshmen is not sexually tolerant. I personally think this is too far, and that
the nation is running a little too wild waving the “politically correct” flag!
What is your thoughts?
This is interesting. I agree that, when we enter into discussions with people holding different opinions, we (I, at least) don't always listen as well as we should, because we believe that we are right. Kelsen would argue that, if this disagreement is one concerning value judgments, each person's opinions are shaped by their history and environment. He also says, though, that deliberation is important. So, although we cannot seem to come to one factual conclusion, I think we can (in fact I think he argues it's very important) that we have these discussions and see which argument is stronger.
ReplyDeleteWe should live in a society in which people can challenge the use of the term "freshmen," debate it, and come to the conclusion that it's an outdated term. We should also challenge that conclusion if we disagree with it. I think Kelsen would argue for the most compelling argument--but this would be one with a conclusion. It's not just that we can't decide what is right, so anything could be right, but with democracy, we can review and change our conclusions when they are wrong.
For the most part, I agree with Kelsen that there is not an absolute justice. The idea that it is just human interest is fairly accurate. Justice varies per person and often it depends on the situation and how they would be affected by the outcome. Katie points out that Kelsen thinks we should have discussions and figure out the stronger arguments. However, we often do not care about the opinions of others if they conflict with ours.
ReplyDeleteI agree that justice and tolerance are both allusions. I agree with Kelsen that there is no such thing as true justice. We use these terms to represent our own ideas whether or not the are to the greatest benefit of the majority regardless of what one thinks. "Justice" not only varies from person to person but a societies perception of what is just evolves over time.
ReplyDeleteAnd in terms of the "freshman" debate i believe that there is an overkill to political correctness. But if people are truly tolerent that at a certain point some words shouldnt be looked at as derogatory. It's true Freshman contains the word "men" but woman contains "man" women contains "men" and female contains "male." Using the same logic one could possibly say the terms are also derrogatory.
I agree that justice and tolerance are both allusions. I agree with Kelsen that there is no such thing as true justice. We use these terms to represent our own ideas whether or not the are to the greatest benefit of the majority regardless of what one thinks. "Justice" not only varies from person to person but a societies perception of what is just evolves over time.
ReplyDeleteAnd in terms of the "freshman" debate i believe that there is an overkill to political correctness. But if people are truly tolerent that at a certain point some words shouldnt be looked at as derogatory. It's true Freshman contains the word "men" but woman contains "man" women contains "men" and female contains "male." Using the same logic one could possibly say the terms are also derrogatory.
ReplyDeleteWith regards to allusions of justice, we must remember that in failing to search for an absolute justice, we allow a lazy relativism to slip into our understandings of morality and ethical action. Justice is absolute because any situation must either be just of unjust with regards to different positions, but those positions result in varying degrees of so called just actions. Tolerance is important, but it is in and of itself a value- why should we value creativity when conformity is so much more productive at times? While political correctness is also matter of tolerance, what light it sheds is intriguing because it is, in this case, trying to suppress individuality through so called negative experiences of sexist language. There can be arguments made for both the inclusion and seclusion of different aspects of our social order, but this is certainly an interesting microcosm of the way we are trying to change our society for what some may think are the better, and some may feel are infringement on our rights.