Justice
Posted by Arielle Johnson
With the challenge of defining justice, I began my journey of self-realization. It is interesting how different a life I live than my fellow peers, or family members for that matter. Through defining this term I have discovered both how I view the world and its inhabitants, and the way it should be run. Both of which I assumed to have already grasped being 18. Yet, I have discovered being the age 18, leaves much of myself, and much of life left unexplored, ready to ponder and validate.
What I have as an end result is more than a definition, for I have sifted through more than the pages of the Jacobbus’s work in a World of Ideas; I have sorted out my own views and practices. Creating a case study; what justice do I practice on a daily basis? With reference to; Frederick Douglass, Martin Luther King Jr., Martha Nussbaum, and John Rawls my definition began to take form. It began to take form as that of a painting…beginning as an empty canvas with only the presence of fear, fearing lack of inspiration. It was within the pages of the text that I discerned the passion allotting me the completion of thought. While combining what is unjust in the mind of Douglass, with justice as fairness in the mind of Rawls, justice as a compilation of functional capabilities in the mind of Nussbaum, and the need for equality in the mind of King—I live up to my mural of justice every day.
Justice is formed on a basis of basic morals and ethicality, conceptualized into a rational system which would draw upon the social norms of the present society, while attempting to uphold fairness to the best degree. Thus, justice is simple, justice is fairness. When this aspect of fairness is not present, justice is unattainable. Therefore, without justice, the common people are left with a dissipation of humanity, eroded spirits and the removal of destiny—stripped of the fulfilled life each individual deserves to experience for them self.
With the technique of Douglass, the last part of my definition was created, the technique being to first discover what is unjust, therefore to work backwards. Through the factor of slavery, “a slave for life a slave in the hands of strangers, in their hands she saw her children, her grandchildren and great-grandchildren, divided, like so many sheep, without being gratified with the small privilege of a single word, as to their or her own destiny” (Douglass Para 18), Douglass triggered a thought of my own. The thought being, slavery is unjust because it is a dissipation of humanity, erodes spirits and is the removal of one’s destiny, what is now the second part of my daily justice definition.
The Functional Capabilities of Nussbaum provided me with the validation worthy of finding prior to delving into the world of justice any further. Drawn to her idea of us, as humans, all holding the right of obtaining a fulfilled life, I read closely. I read her work closely, and found a validation for each of my three ideas; “Senses, Imagination, Thought. Being able to use these senses; being able to imagine, think, and to reason—“ (Nussbaum Para 9), giving way to my humanity portion, and combined with Douglass, creating the dissipation of humanity that shall co-exist with the absence of justice. The act of eroding spirits was supported with the words, “Emotions. Being able to have attachments to things and persons outside ourselves; being able to love those who love and care for us; being able to grieve at their absence; in general; being able to love, to grieve, to experience longing, gratitude and justified anger” (Nussbaum Para 10), and so without the freedom of emotion, like in the situation Douglass describes, there is an eroding of spirits occurring. And finally Nussbaum speaks to my theory of destiny, and the importance it holds, “Being able to form a conception of the good and to engage in critical reflection about the planning of one’s own life” (Nussbaum Para 11). With my three key points validated I continued construction of a personal, living, working definition.
From John Rawls came the foundation of my definition, “I shall call justice as fairness” (Rawls Para 1). Fairness includes the emotional, mental, and physical aspect of all people…leaving room for differences, for every one person is in need of something different, therefore, allotting the term fairness to vary upon the individual’s needs. Justice cannot be a certain shape; it must be applicable to all. To all I mean not only the majority, not only the white, not only male, not only those with money but to all….to all ethnicities, genders, economic and social classes, to all human beings.
The idea to judge based on the many rather than the individual, in the words of Aristotle seemingly contradicted my philosophy, for we are not all the same, so why make a definition only applicable to some rather than all? Why not form a mural of ideas based on the needs and life of that individual rather than forcing the needs and lives adaption to it.
The idea of justice as imperfect in the words of Thoreau was not compatible with my definition either, for why shouldn’t justice me perfect? If you create something that everyone benefits from, no matter what the time period or social norms of the society than isn’t that the arrival of perfection?
The route taken by Elizabeth Cady Stanton is unsettling as well…my goal is not to anger another group of individuals, to pick them apart but, to simply present them with the notion of fairness, removing the possibility of resentment caused by insolence.
In a word filled with such diversity an adaptive definition is my final outcome, necessary to apply to all, to all human beings, thus, the ideas of “humanity”, “fairness” and being “conceptualized into a rational system which would draw upon the social norms of the present society, while attempting to uphold fairness to the best degree”. Leaving room for our evolving societies; the economic and social shifts, and the ever changing social norms all are aware of. You see, what is a norm now was not so, 100 years ago, nor does the norm of 100 years ago currently hold truth. However, I have added the “attempting to uphold fairness to the best degree”, to rule out the possibility of allowing others with ill intentions, the use of definition the use of my definition as justification merely because it is seen as a “social norm”…for then they are forced to analyze the situation further and see if their actions are; dissipating humanity, eroding spirits and/or removing one’s destiny.
After wrestling with where I stood on the aspect of torture all together, no matter who the victim, I come to the conclusion of not agreeing with it. By ruling out the individual them self and looking at them simply as a human being, torturing that individual goes completely against my definition of justice—therefore, in my eyes making it unjust. It becomes a matter of ethicality and the simplicity of fairness, with these two factors justice is simple.
One never knows how great of an impact one’s actions with hold on another individuals life, therefore one must always understand justice. Over time, faced with emotionally charged questions and situations such as; where do you stand with the war of today, what is your feeling on torture, do you agree with the death penalty, should we kill or merely punish, and furthermore what form of punishment is not only effective but morally just? The one and only way to answer the above questions is to use this definition of justice. For with the contradiction of just one point out of many; justice is absent…and therefore stripping the capability of a fulfilled life from one or more individuals, harming all of human kind. Before you act consider the victim, consider the strain you will burden them with and the torture you will endure in the long run, be it mental, physical or emotional….injustice is cause and effect, both parties robbed in one way or another. With the presence of justice our world has a shot at living peacefully together, living fulfilled lives in harmony with one another.
Peace and Love
Arielle
Posted: May 13, 2009 7:33 am | 0 comments
Tags:
