Hey Everyone,
Recently, I have been pondering upon the issue of social justice. While embarking on yet another thought safari, I hit a stumbling block when nearly establishing how the notions of subjectivity and relativeness paralize any argument from being sufficient on a global scale. Is it that there are variations of a truth? Or is it that we can be right in one place while that "right" can be wrong in another? Or should we just hope to accomplish what Reinhold Niebuhr calls "rough justice"? I mean, we all know that Kant's laws of universality cannot be applied as he had in mind, unless we were to do so myopically! I have no answers in this post, only questions...
Any thoughts?
5 comments:
Ramon,
Here are some of my thoughts... they are kind of rough, but it's always like that when you try to be brief in a weblog:
---
"Is it that there are variations of a truth?"
I assume that you are asking this question in a rhetorical way. I believe that for X to be true, it's negation must be false (Logic: Law of the Excluded Middle). As such, any variation of X would have to be something other than X.
Nevertheless, I do believe that there are various applications according to specific human needs. This brings in the issue of human rights.
Human rights generally don't change, but some people are needier than others. Thus, a tsunami-stricken country doesn't need any more water on their land, but that doesn't make rainfall bad for the growing crops in Egypt, right?
"...is it that we can be right in one place while that "right" can be wrong in another?"
Here, we must draw an important distinction:
(A) Cultural Relativity: People in different places and times have practiced and preached opposing ethical prescriptions. (This is a descriptive position in ethics)
(B) Ethical Relativity: People A believe and practice X, and are right in doing so. People B believe X to be wrong, and are also right in doing so. (This is a prescriptive position)
Now, if you're question is concerning the fact itself, then you are right. It is true (according to DEFINITION A) that nations contradict each other.
However, I do not believe that both can be justified. Rape, for example, can be legal in Mars, and not on Earth, yet only one of the two planets can justify the claim for R or ~R.
"Or should we just hope to accomplish what Reinhold Niebuhr calls 'rough justice'?"
I haven't read Niebuhr on this subject, but I presume it would be something like modus vivendi, viz. coexist when we can't agree.
It would be neat if freedom, justice and happiness were matters regulated and secured by the state (presumably a nation with a set territory, government...etc.)
Unfortunately, the billions of people on this earth are interconnected. Given our advanced forms of production, communication, travel and economic control, our happiness is contingent upon other people in the world.
As such, what happens in one part of the earth, will have an effect on another. There is only so much 'rough justice' we can take. If Country X is selling Country Y a hefty amount nukes, it should strike none of us as strange that Country Z will have a really 'rough' time with it.
"...Kant's laws of universality cannot be applied as he had in mind..."
Give my hero a break! HAHA... The beauty of philosophy is that we can try to salvage or update older theories. After all, it's hard to come up with something entirely new. True intellectual beauty comes with clarification, rather than invention.
I believe that universifiability is a good principle, especially in global justice. After all, we're thinking on a macro-level, which is exactly what -- in principle -- Kant had in mind.
While not everything can be applied neatly, there are things, such as murder, genocide, rape that are unjustifiable -- anytime and anywhere.
Other issues (presumably not as bad as those mentioned above!) are situational. In such cases, specific laws, I think, should fit the context of that geographical location. But again, that's the whole business of morality, in which ethical dillemas arise inexorably.
---
OK... that was a long response -- sorry, homes!
Peace,
Camardicus
Good to read you Rami.
I will keep my response short.
Seeing justice as a discrete unit means that it is either right, or not. It may help to see justice as a boundless spectrum. Every instance observed occupying an area in the spectrum. And, every instance is either more just or less just than another instance.
Different peoples may set different thresholds within the boundless spectrum according to their particular belief. Therefore, depending on who you ask, everything is just... more or less.
Good to see you blogging buddy.
SeZ
Carlito,
I appreciate your insights, and the clarification you made in terms of Kant thinking on the macro-level. I can even appreciate his intentions, however, his perspective troubles me; it's too neat for my taste. There appears to be a slight notion of wishful thinking in the theory he presents. Should'nt ethical deliberation entail taking in all the data that one is aware of? In any case, the macrocosm approach appears to contradict itself since the "whole" consists of parts. Since each "part" is distinct, one must acknowledge these distinctions in order to deliberate ethically...
Lucid counter-argument to Camardicus' point, Rami.
Joe
Hey Sandro!
I deem myself priviliged that you have reacted and responded to my thoughts! You definately present a perspective that I do not share with you, and I appreciate you doing so. As much as I can see where you are coming from, I still must conclude that your approach appears to be flawed insofar as a successful applicability.
Ethical relativeness stirs up a form of uneasiness within me. Perhaps it is because this notion of "what's right for you is right" and "what's right for me is also right" appears to omit and erradicate any sense of standards applicable to humanity as a collective whole. Besides, those who disagree and protest will always be among us. Therefore, their very existance can paralyze the potential of bringing such a means of deliberation to full fruition.
Perhaps this theory would be worth a second glance, in terms of application, if and only if the entire human race were to act civil at all times. Till then, all that this ethical means of deliberation can ever be is just another penny in the fountain of wishful thinking. It can be placed alongside the vast array of communist theories which are only beautiful on paper, at least somewhat! I believe that this notion of ethical relativness even corrupts the boundless spectrum you speak of. After all, the boundless spectrum loses its splendor when one fails to acknowledge the values needed in order to maintain it as such...
Please feel free to react and help me understand what you mean, if I have failed to understand you thus far...
Blessings,
Ramasutra
Post a Comment