What is Justice?

17.7.08 23:07 - Chania, Greece

Welcome back.

Classes continue here in Greece, and for the most part, they continue to impress me and my colleagues. Our first week is focused on the class taught by Drs. Collins and Ambrosio - The Good Society. Overall, it discusses the question of what goes into constructing a society that functions to provide justice to its citizens. Collins and Ambrosio do a wonderful job of connecting each days lessons and structuring the lecture so that ideas build upon each other. This helps make connections between theories, like the theory of the marvelous and the murderous that I discussed in my last post. We have all been walking around Crete, seeing a beautiful beach and commenting, "That's marvelous!" It has become something of a joke, but it is also the basis of a set of theories on justice that make a lot of sense.

Let me provide a few definitions as I see them before I continue. They are, by all means, up for debate. However it is important to understand how I use these words to proceed with this dialogue:

1.) Dialogue - Structured bi-lateral communication that, unlike debate, requires that each side understand the others opinions and arguments. Agreement is not necessary, but empathy is.
2.) Education - The devolopment of one's conscience through the family, the local community, formal educational institutions and life experiences.
3.) Deliberation - The very real act of taking into consideration the theory/ideal (what should/would/could happen in the best circumstances and without human error) and the practice (what happens when ideal is completely forgotten) to make a decision concerning any individual situation.
4.) Conscience - Our individual belief system and education that guides what we view as marvelous and what we view as murderous. We hope that for any instance, we have the time to deliberate. If that time is not available, however, we hope like hell that our education has brought our conscience to a point where we make the right decision on instinct.

OK, continuing on...

It is important in our lives to accept that no decision we make will be completely obvious. That is the ideal (marvelous), but it is not realistic. Likewise is the knowledge that no decision, when thought about unemotionally, is entirely impossible to make (murderous), which gives hope. How then can humans living in a society full of stupid, often ignorant men and women, come to conclusions that make sense not in a bubble of individuality, but in our relationship to society as a whole and other individuals who fill our lives? The theory proposed from Greece here is best described a sequential growth. The individual first must be a philosopher (a lover of wisdom), in order to question everything in his world. These questions have no concrete answers, but we hope to live our lives as an answer to these questions. Difficult concept, I know. From this constant state of questioning, individuals proceed to make the attempt at being as whole an individual as possible by questioning ourselves and questioning those around us. The questioning of those around us leads to a dialogue, when it becomes absolutely vital to have empathy towards the opposition. The lack of empathy between sides is what keeps conflicts like Israel-Lebanon and Serbia-Kosovo so volatile.

I was unsure about the theory up to this point the first couple days. I saw Plato's theory that those in political power should live like a philosopher, a lover of wisdom, a constant questioner. However, in Plato's "Apology", which covers Socrates trial, Socrates says that "human wisdom is worthless". I made this connection: politicians should be philosophers, which are lovers of wisdom. Wisdom is inherently the admission that we, as humans, do not have the answers to the questions that we are required to ask, and is therefore worthless. I concluded that this could only mean that constant questioning would lead to innaction. This is where the concept of deliberation becomes relevant.

Deliberation is the acceleration of dialogue to a process of making a decision, with the full knowledge that your decision will not live up to the ideal, but it will also not live down to the practice. As individuals, we must take ownership of our education so that we can form our own consciences and make wise decisions in moments of trial. For example, Martin Luther Kind Jr., when deciding to disobey what he viewed as an unjust law, deliberated the consequences. The ideal was political and social equality for all peoples, but the practice was segregation. To break the segregation law would mean a period in jail, but this period had the potential to awaken the public to the issue. King asked the question of the American people, "This brutality, this segregation of humans, is occuring in your country. Are you OK with that?" Inherent in his decision to break this law is the acceptance that the answer from the community may be "no". The solution may not occur in the lifetime of those who try to change cultures. But if, based on our conscience and our education, you as an individual belive that your action will open an opportunity for the betterment of society (not of your individualality, necessarily), then it is your duty to take that action, accepting the consequences of the rule of law.

If every individual lives by these principles, democratically electing leaders who govern and decide policy by these principles, we will (ideally, of course) build the Good Society.

I would love to hear comments or questions (which I give no guarentee of providing a good answer for!) to these ideas. Eventually, this will all turn into a research paper back in the States so your comments will greatly help me (and hopefully you!)

Kalinikta.