What do You Expect?

Interactions between two people have expectations of certain behavior depending on the relationship. It ranges from taking your place in line, to contracts, employment and relationships. When the mutual expectation isn't honored, there is conflict because of the injustice. Rather than virtue for one person, this kind of justice depends on two. The middle ground or median is both people getting what they expect. We find injustice when one side experiences too much loss and the other more gain than was due. Fixing it is called rectification, where a situation needs to be rectified. 

We make laws according to what should be fair and appoint judges to find that happy median. That is why they are called mediators at times. There can be contract disputes that rise from voluntary transactions and there can be violations such as violence where someone was hurt involuntarily. The judge tries to correct the wrong. This might be done by lawsuits that try to even things out. It can also be done by penalties for wrongdoing that at least take pleasure away from someone who causes hurt to others. 

We recognize corrective justice the most and it is closest to black and white when all the details are known. Every good person seeks to make sure their interactions are fair; where others get good out of it and everyone is happy. Unfortunately, we all have different perceptions and may expect more than what is due. That is why we put things down on paper and also why we establish law and order.  In casual interactions we expect a certain amount of respect and kindness and can feel violated when someone is out of order. Take road rage or waiting in line for shopping as examples. There are certain expectations that might be violated but the law kicks in when the behavior gets to the point of injury. But this isn't the only form of justice we know, there is one more that is a better way.  

As we add value to interactions they become less black and white. People forced to simply take what they get are close to slaves. When we can give grace to those we care about or give more to those who have a valuable service, another form of justice is practiced. Reciprocity is what binds people together. With this we can value something and pay accordingly or give someone a break because we value them. This is the foundation for freedom. It is when this free exchange is interrupted that a society pulls apart and becomes resentful toward one another and their government. More next time…. 

I Have Rights!

Distributive justice is the basis we use to determine rights. It is distributing property or an ideal to each person that belongs to a group. If a person doesn't get what the group thinks is due him, there is an injustice. These perceived rights can either establish greatness or wickedness. It is safer when it is on a small scale such as a right to an inheritance because of belonging to a family. But if a large enough group is convinced of perceived rights, such as being a superior race with the right to eliminate others, it becomes dangerous. That is why a government has to be limited to certain rights that are without argument. Our rights were narrowed down to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our founders then added a bill of rights to further define what those terms meant. When philosophies come in to convince enough people that they have rights that violate these, a Pandora's box is opened and there is no telling what might come out. Whenever a small group gets the ear of a majority, the entire society has to suffer with it. So distributive justice defines rights to access a portion of something important for a group. But trouble occurs when people decide to champion their own passions as rights. The group always feels justice is served by punishing those who don't agree. There isn't a conservative or liberal to this. It is a general principle like a math equation.  

Justice is an important subject to understand. Next we will look at what turns the black and white areas of common justice into grey. I will preface it by saying; with grace there is freedom.    

All for One!

One face of justice describes a sort of transaction between two people of which they should have equal access. One shouldn't be penalized at the expense of the other. Each person should receive what he is due. When a person takes too much for himself it is unjust because it takes away from another. We want to see continuity in what is perceived as valuable. An injustice occurs when it is withheld . So in this kind of justice, equality has to do what has merit, be it ownership, citizenship or some other thing. Different cultures value different things. It may be hard work that is valued or creativity. But each culture wants to give every person his chance at something and if it is withheld, an injustice occurs. 

Distributive justice has to do with allowing people to have equal access to a whole. The arguments in this area of justice lie in what is to be distributed. A libertarian values individualism. A communist might value equal distribution of natural resources and currency. Socialism considers making social utopia a priority.  A republican believes that unity through a limited government distributes freedom. A Christian wants salvation for everyone. Some say all we need is love. Each has their own definitions of what is owed to a society equally. If their standard is violated, they feel there is an injustice. When their ideal is distributed, justice to them occurs in a society.  

With Halloween, equal distribution of chocolate is priority. We will continue and look at another face of justice...

Let's Be Fair

My motive for this blog is to make complex things simple. I am a details person so forgive me for digressing into them once in a while as in the last post. This will be short and to the point…

We cannot cover every injustice by making laws. There is an expectation of fairness between people that shouldn't depend upon laws. We have our broad written laws, people’s opinions that can be even broader and then we have what is actually fair for each situation. Each situation has rules of  fairness that are written in our hearts. Good people that know all the particulars will also recognize what is fair.

In order to treat ourselves well and treat others the same, we practice virtue; using our passions and acts how they benefit the most to bring the most happiness. Good laws will be based in this while forbidding vice. Should our laws be used to educate everyone for the common good? Whose responsibility is it to produce good people and the resulting happiness? We can address this in more depth later but it seems to be a function of society in some ways but also an individual responsibility in others.

A person can appear good publicly, but does that make him a good person? Any country will have good and bad people while their culture might have different definitions of good. There are always pretenders and players and those who are genuine regardless of the cultural norms that surround them. This is true in church and family associations also. We seek the genuine in everything without having to lay down the law to produce pretenders. Let's examine how we come to agreement concerning what is just. It will take a little trip through particulars but I promise it will be sweet...

Just Me..

To get more specific concerning justice, we have to look at certain criteria: What kind of actions we are talking about, at what point we find justice and what are the extremes. We might be taking it too far or not far enough. In this way it is similar to the preceding discussions.

When we talk about someone being just, we consider a sort of person that would do what is just because one wants to. An unjust person wouldn't have much of a desire for justice. Some treat justice like a math equation where precise answers are possible under every condition. But in reality we are taking an Ideal and looking at where things get off base. We see examples instead of equations. Everyone knows what a healthy person is and will want to emulate health. There really isn't a desirable contrary at all. The interest is more about achieving the ideal of health rather than the exceptions.  

Sometimes the contrary shines a light on the ideal and we focus on how we don’t want to be. Other times it is recognized when we see the ideal in others and we see how we want to be. A person might dislike being flabby and want to become a little more firm or might want to be buff like a body builder.  How high the ideal is will also be the same for the contrary. Being out of shape has a different meaning for either state. It is the same way for justice. Words also have different meanings. The word “shot” could be from a gun a glass or mean something is worn out.

So there is no misunderstanding let’s find a starting point: Unlawful and greedy unfair people are considered unjust. So it would follow that law abiding and fair people are considered just. But what is the greedy person grasping at?

Seeking prosperity and avoiding adversity is always considered a good thing. But it doesn't always produce good for everyone. People seek goods and pray for them but really shouldn't. They should pray for things that are good for them. An unjust person views lesser things in life as something to be obtained and grasps at them at the expense of truly good things. Since good people also desire them, this person feels justified while making his life miserable. Life seems unfair to him and so he thinks it is just to be unfair to others.

A lawless man is one that breaks the communities laws. Laws are in general made to encourage justice between citizens. Therefore a lawless man is considered unjust. The law is there to produce and preserve happiness by penalizing vice and encouraging virtue. The brave, temperate and faithful shouldn't worry about breaking laws. Well thought out laws will do this but the hastily made ones don’t.  So the spirit of laws should always be virtue but it isn't absolute. It can be said that in justice every virtue is comprehended. Laws should be an exercise of complete virtue. It helps people to be fair to others and not just themselves. The focus of justice is in relation to other’s happiness and not just our own. Since virtue is the best state a person can be, justice entails all virtue. But it isn't virtue itself since it always includes one’s neighbors. It is this kind of justice according to virtue that we are investigating.

If a person commits wrongdoing but doesn't have a bad motive, we are more apt to give him a pass. For example a person who runs out of fear, speaks harshly out of a bad temper or ignores a need because he is frugal. The vices mentioned here are injustices toward the virtues of courage, temperance and liberality. Inside injustices there are worse states than others. A person who commits adultery to make money is different than one who does it out of passion. One would be considered unjust and unlawful because of the gain while the other is self-indulgent. There is injustice that is always related to a particular vice such as adultery to self-indulgence, desertion to cowardice and physical violence to anger. But there is also a broad sense of injustice that has to do with ripping others off. This person wants money, safety, honor or all of them. The pleasure of getting these things is his real motive. We can see that there is one form of justice that is connected to the many virtues and another that is distinct from them that is connected with the vice greed. How can we make things equal in a society? That will be the next subject.