![]() Justice means giving each person what he or she deserves or, in more traditional terms, giving each person his or her due. From the Republic, written by the ancient Greek philosopher Plato, to A Theory of Justice, written by the late Harvard philosopher John Rawls, every major work on ethics has held that justice is part of the central core of morality. In fact, no idea in Western civilization has been more consistently linked to ethics and morality than the idea of justice. Is affirmative action fair? Are congressional districts drawn to be fair? Is our tax policy fair? Is our method for funding schools fair?Īrguments about justice or fairness have a long tradition in Western civilization. If you would prefer a physical copy, you can purchase Why and Because – The Art and Science of Moral and Ethical Understanding.Many public policy arguments focus on fairness. Without ethical understanding there can be no justice.Į is a website devoted to providing a greater understanding of ethics. This website is organized like the book it is based on. The second step is to make ethics the foundation of the system of justice. The first step to having an just society and system of justice is ethical understanding. they are not based on a foundation of ethics), and because they are executed by people who lack proper ethical understanding. When systems of Justice seem out of whack, it’s because they are modeled wrong (i.e. Being able to dispassionately evaluate a wrong is paradox doable but it takes a lot of discipline and emotional intelligence. ![]() Anger results from being wronged or a perception of being wronged. But to be angry with the right person, to the right degree, at the right time, for the right purpose, and in the right way that is not within everybody’s power and it is not easy.”Īristotle’s keen observations on the human condition were also profound. The tough part is setting up a system of justice that has ethically wise individuals who can rationally evaluate ethical acts repeatable over time and cultures.Īristotle is recorded as saying, “Anybody can become angry that is easy. In an ethical sense, “an eye for an eye” is ethically just. It’s a tit-for-tat system that intends to right the wrong, to even out the scales of justice so no further retaliation is justified by the individual or group originally harmed or the individual or group punished for the original offense. Justice systems are designed to provide 3rd party, objective arbitration to seek ethically sound justice rationally, “an eye for an eye”. That person or group would likely respond “in-kind with interest” and this escalates the original act which creates a downward cycle of violence and instability. When you are harmed, you (and your group) do not feel that harm rationally and your retribution to the individual or group that harmed you would likely be “in-kind with interest” in other words, you would likely go overboard. ![]() “An eye for an eye” is a call for retribution but it does not seek to escalate a wrong with more wrong rather it is a call for cool, rational evaluation of an unethical act – “a wrong” and a call for reciprocal justice. You may have heard the phrase, “an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind”. ![]() Justice is typically considered post fact as a means of reciprocity – correcting the scales to provide some equilibrium. Ethical matters are evaluated in terms of harm/care in fairness/reciprocity. Justice should be based on sound ethical judgement. In five words it summarized the essence of justice. The first recorded law is claimed to be, “an eye for an eye”. Authority/Respect and Agenda-type Control.Where does ethical knowledge come from?. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |