The Clash of Justice

 

    With all of the recent buzz lately over the shocking comments of Glenn Beck concerning his view of social justice, I began to think about the very concept of justice itself. It is one of those words where we all think we know what it means until we have to begin to explain it. Part of the problem for me here is simply the sheer scope that the word justice necessarily entails. People have used this word in countless ways to imply an infinite number of meanings. However, I would like to take it all the way back to the big three of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle and see what, if anything, we can learn. In the Republic, Plato essentially equates the practice of justice as a craft to be practiced like any other. He points out that every craft is performed to the benefit of its subjects. So, when a doctor performs medicine, she is doing it not to her own benefit but rather to her patient's benefit. When a ruler rules, she is only a ruler insofar as she benefits her subjects. When a teacher teaches, he is doing it for the benefit of his students. So, when a judge practices justice, he is supposed to be increasing justice and thereby benefiting those who are brought before him. Therefore it is not the function of a judge to harm anyone but rather, by performing the function of x, increase the level of x. If in fact that means ordering the offender to pay punitive damages, this then is meant to accomplish two things simultaneously. In the case of the defendant, he is being prescribed a medicine of sorts for the state of his soul. The plaintiff, on the other hand, is being given back what was unrightfully taken, or some substitute in order to return to some semblance of previous order and balance. The point being that this is the opposite of vengeance whereby the goal is to harm by way of violence. 

    In the dialogue of Gorgias, the wily Socrates beautifully argues that it is indeed better to suffer injustice rather than to commit it. The beauty of the argument is that it indeed scales. Therfore this applies to the smallest of transgressions of injustice as well as to a brutal tyrant committing unspeakable heinous acts and everything else in between. This sentiment has indeed been echoed in all of our great religious sages such as Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad and many others. 

    However, I want to take a step back and look at societal justice as a whole. Aristotle contended that the optimal political arrangement is where the conditions are provided so as to ensure the people are able to have fulfilling flourishing complete lives. This is a much more robust view of the way in which we as individuals participate in justice in our everyday lives. However, it, like every other, encounters problems in the sense that it has the tendency to create a meta layer of justice that is at least one degree removed from the local of people’s actual immediate experience. However, the screaming rhetoric from today’s conservative faction is entirely predicated on an anemic understanding of justice in the sense that it is reduced to only repressing that which they see as an unredeemable inherently savage human nature. This move purposefully restricts the scope of justice to that of overtly legally criminal acts, completely divorced from the larger socio-economic context in which they were committed. This then allows them to avoid the larger context in which societal injustices have been perpetrated by those in power. This is the classic separation between subjective and objective violence. This move, while highly expedient to their purposes, is indeed deeply disingenuous and protects the societal objective violence on which their privileged positions are entirely predicated.  

    Furthermore, on the micro level it is even more violently reductionistic. This move takes all of human complexity and reduces it to a particular negative moral phenomena. It defines humanity through the single dominant lens of the desire to have power over and against all others. This view of power is predicated on the platonic view of ontological power; whereby things are perfect insofar as they can affect others, and imperfect insofar as they can be affected by others. This is a deeply alienating move because it precludes the possibility of mutual relatedness. This lens does not allow the posture of being actively open to being affected by the world and people around us. This denies the fact that we indeed create our very identity out of what we have taken in. Most profoundly of all: it does not allow the possibility of influencing the world around us by first being deeply affected and formed by it. 

    Lastly, I will conclude by arguing that any conception of justice, therefore, must contain within it the idea of returning us to our full humanity as it were. It must view all of life as indelibly sacred, worthy of being protected and served in all of its overwhelming, beautiful, irreducible, infinite, and  complexity; full of faith, hope and love. It must recognize the alterity of the other as anything but an imperial project but, rather, one to be experienced and mutually engaged! As Richard Rohr would say, "life is not about you. You are to be about life!"

Comments

[Laura]

Good points, good argument. Can't say that I disagree with anything you said. If you're interested in an Aristotelian inspired view of democracy, and hence justice, that purposely attempts to avoid any "meta-layer" by bringing government to the people, check out John Dryzek's Discursive Democracy. He utilizes Aristole quite a bit when creating his argument for public arenas and discursive, rather than representative, democracy. Also, there is a movement or a theory, if you will, in criminal justice known as "restorative justice," in which rather than relying on and utilizing solely what the law says, judges creatively come up with sanctions and punishments which restore the community and individuals involved, rather than just putting someone in jail and leaving them to their own devices. For example, if a teenager is arrested for graffiti, he/she is sent back to clean and fix up the property that was damaged, perhaps even wearing a sign telling their community why they are doing what they are doing. The purpose is not necessarily to shame or punish, but to give the offender the chance to make up for what they've done in a way that keeps them connected to the community and hopefully prevents future criminal behavior. So while our legal system is fraught with injustice and there are many minds out there who prefer to think of the entire world as an adversarial system, there are little beacons of light that are trying to change things when they can.

[Tia Lecorchick]

I really enjoyed this post. The complexity of the human condition and how the often abstract concept of justice fits into it, is so often overlooked and oversimplified. I was very impressed with your reflections upon it. An inspiring read!

[Dac99a]

To me it seems that this misconception of justice stems more from our American heritage than it does from a particular political ideation. America's favorite way to ensure "equality" is to give people the right to do certain things. The problem seems to be that simply lacking restriction does not always equalize opportunity. However, this is a difficult idea to sell in an individualistic society. Giving someone an opportunity does not mean they will take advantage of such an opportunity. Recognizing the external factors of someone’s behavior does not always increase the compassion that people have concerning that individual. Therein lies the complexity of society and human agency.

My question is always “so what?” What can we do about it? I tend to think one of the best ways to combat this view is to enable individuals through education to put our world in the hands of knowledgeable, creative, and passionate people. Education is seen as a basic right by both sides of the political podium.

On a different subject…

I disagree that the conservative viewpoint necessarily includes an “inherently savage view of human nature.” Frankly, I think this statement stems from your incredibly negative emotions related to anything that could remotely be called conservative. I do not pretend to deny my own conservative roots, although my father always called himself “moderate,” while my mother always voted democrat. My parents were probably the most politically open minded people I encountered during my upbringing. May be it is because I am a political mudblood, but I see little value in spending my energy decrying others who may have different views than my own. I see this as intolerance on both sides.

One of my ACU professors (who is actually a liberal) recently wrote a very interesting blog concerning the difference between what it means to be liberal or conservative (http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2010/03/thoughts-on-racism-liberals-and.html). He suggests that liberals view human behavior as the result of external factors, while conservatives view it as the result of internal factors. In my opinion, extreme belief on one side or the other is a very distorted view of behavior; neither is inherently “right” or “wrong.” It is most likely that human behavior is a combination of these two different sides. I often find myself stuck in that complexity, noticing that there are inherent injustices on both sides.

There is a good chance that I have offended you by what I have just said. But I want you to take a real look inside and think about your own value of intolerance and consider applying it to those whose viewpoints are different than your own. Jesus never chose to be a Pharisee or a Sadducee. He called both to repentance. In light of his example, I believe we all need to quit choosing sides and be part of the solution.

[Thomas Just]

Daniel thank you for your comments and push back! Part of why I write this blog is so that I can get helpful constructive feedback and examination on my own thought processes. I would argue that you are right in the sense that not all of conservative thought has to be based on an inherently savage view of human nature. Regardless however much of what is loudly proclaimed currently is. I would also point out that the left has the problem of seeming to lack any kind of well communicated robust theory of justice. More of my objection is rather to the whole social contract theory of justice by which both parties operate under. I am suggesting that this social contract theory is inherently anemic and yet I applaud it for the improvement it was out of the feudalist context from which it came. As to your points concerning human agency I couldn’t agree more that it is far from being black and white. That complexity is extremely important to stay in unresolved.