Macintyre’s “Justice as a Virtue: Changing Conceptions,” explores how there are different senses of the concept of justice. He adeptly demonstrates how justice can be viewed in different forms through a modern example of aspects in United States political systems. Macintyre further illustrates two relatable viewpoints in the forms of “A” and “B,” where “A” believes that he has legitimately acquired his property and wealth. On the contrary, “B” holds that there is injustice with the distribution of wealth; the needy should be given assistance solely because they need it.
With the example of “A” and “B” directly opposing views of the just and unjust, Macintyre exhibits how the two views of the just can come to a compromise if both views are addressed if and only if the limits of each view are not breeched by the other. However, further into the reading, Macintyre concludes that both views are “incommensurable” and ultimately only one can be implemented at the expense of the other. “For A aspires to ground the notion of justice in some account of what…a person is entitled to in virtue of what he has acquired…B aspires to ground the notion of justice in some account of the equality of…each person in respect of basic needs…But our pluralist culture possess no method of weighing…Thus these two types of claims are indeed incommensurable” (Macintyre 246). Macintyre demonstrates how in light of different notions of justice, one concept of justice will always prevail over the other. In order to resolve one concept of what is just, the other concept must be “sacrificed.” The incommensurable nature of “A” and “B” claims leads to a dilemma of ultimate justice.
As justice is seen in everyday life, controversies arise out of peoples’ different views of justice and what they deem is just and unjust. In light of Macintyre’s point of how the latter claims cannot ultimately be solved equally, my question is how does anybody’s issue with what is just or idea of justice get addressed? How can anyone’s definition of justice be accurate if one claim of justice always leads to injustice in the eyes of another? If each definition of what is considered as justice overlaps another idea of justice, how is true justice ever reached and how do we know that it is just?
Perhaps Macintyre would simply address these concerns with the notion that people perceive justice or what is just through what they have seen to be known as justice. He may argue that people judge the just through preconceived notions and what they know society accepts as the just.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
I essentially agree with Macintyre's view expressed in his work. I feel that he has masterfully painted the political landscape that we face today in America by applying the Aristolean idea of justice as the basis for politics and society. To adress the questions asked, justice is like beauty it that it is in the eye of the beholder, as Macintyre has shown us. Anyone's definition of justice is accurate only in so far as it is compatible with their morals and how they view the world. We know what it just by only knowing what is just to us. We understand others concepts of justice, but disregard them since they are incompatible to our own views. The notion of "true justice" is incompatible with what Mac was saying, or if you had to define it, it would be a partiality of both justices as seen in the Supreme Court case. However, in the end our ideas about justice and injustice tend to draw us into a view of a black and white world where we cannot comprehend a gray part since it would mean a failure of us to uphold our morals. The conflict between "justice" and "injustice" is what drives humanity, it is the realization of the battle between good and evil, the pull of ying and yang which holds the world in a balance, but ofcourse neither side wants this balance.
It is a hard question that is referred to in Kelly's Blog. How do we decide if one is just or unjust, our actions can be analyzed differently by others. If we consider something just or unjust then that must be considered just. Even though something can be frowned upon it is one who decides what is right and wrong from how their culture reflects that. Like Aristotle states, general justice is mostly looked at by the law, and the law is what is connected to all of the virtues. If something is not necessarily related to the law, and someone acts a wrong way how can we consider that to be unjust? Maybe that is Aristotle speaks of general justice being to broad for us to immediately judge being just or unjust. Just as Macintyre has exhibited the two views of the just and how both are "incommensurable." Everyone should be allowed to believe in what they think is a just or unjust act. But neither or can be right or wrong, and that is why we must figure out the controversies so that their can be agreement and ways for peoples issues to be addressed.
Trying to answer the questions Kelly poses in her blog is extremely difficult and constantly open to debate. However, the way in which justice and what is just, should be addressed in a case by case bases as Macintyre proposes, because what one person may think to be just can actually be seen as unjust in the eyes of another. Then this leads to another problem and that is how can someone see something as just and someone else view the same issue as unjust. The reason for such conflicting views on the same issue has to deal with the culture and society one has become accustomed to. The way we determine what is just and unjust as Aristotle has described is by law. The type of law Aristotle refers to is opposite of our form of law today, because his laws were laws that told the people what to do, but today we have laws the laws tell us what not to do. The one thing both Aristotle's law and present day laws have in common is they promote what is just and unjust. Therefore in response to Michele's question of "If something is not necessarily related to the law, and someone acts a wrong way how can we consider that to be unjust?" I think that law provides us with what is right and what is wrong, therefore if you commit wrong acts it must it must be going against some form of law, not only criminal but also moral law. I know it is subjective to what constitutes moral law, but for the most part law dictates what is just and unjust. This leads into the main question of how is justice ever reached and what how do we determine what is just? I agree with Macintyre that in today's society we will never have the idea of true justice, like Aristotle did in his time, because of the differing views of society. Since the ideas of justice and injustice are so diverse the only way to determine what is considered just is by dealing with the issue in the culture or society the issue takes place in. The idea of true justice can never be reached universally, but it can be reached in ones society which possesses the same laws and morals.
I would go as far as to say that, nowadays, we have no such thing as justice or injustice, or at least in reachable ways. Somewhere along the historic progression of mankind, we lost the objectivity of justice, and with it, the ability to punish and reward with outmost justification. Instead, we have resorted to determining right and wrong, or at least getting as close to these concepts as we can, by pleasing the popular consensus. Some may argue that in a way, there really can never be an objective morality, but that it is in fact popular consensus what constitutes morality. Yet, I feel like that at such a point it stops being morality and it only becomes handed-down ideals that are merely warranted by popular consensus. As such, “morality” will always be changing and remain relative only within the construct, i.e., popular consensus, that brought it about. One could refute this by saying that our moral concepts are rooted to constant ideologies, such as Christian ones. However, even then our morality is still dependent to our “Christian” society, which also is changing. Not only are there differences in roots from society to society, but also within a society as new ideas gradually overtake old ones, forming a new popular consensus that could even one day reshape our entire moral system. As long as this remains conceivable, there is no such thing as an absolute eternal morality, and, thus, no objective or “true” concepts of justice and injustice.
I think Abigail makes a vaild point when she says justice and injustice are unreachable nowadays. Like what MacIntyre was saying in this particular article, contemporary society does not have shared moral prinicples and therefore, as a whole, we are unable to collectively determine what is just and what is injust. In this way justice and injustice are unreachable because there are many conflicting moral principles. However, I also agree with Anthony when he says that the law provides us with guidelines as to what is right and what is wrong. Granted, what is right and wrong may not necessarily determine what is just and what is unjust, but it certainly gives us some sort of idea as to how to act accordingly in society. In terms of Kelly's question ("If each definition of what is considered as justice overlaps another idea of justice, how is true justice ever reached and how do we know that it is just?") my answer would have to be that nowadays justice must be looked at in a smaller group, perhaps a community of people. Maybe justice is better understood through those groups rather than through society as a whole. Perhaps nowadays justice takes on many forms, or perhaps justice doesn't exist at all.
I completely agree with Tina when she says that people are more likely to unite under the same conception of justice in smaller communities. In Aristotle's time, people lived in small communities and did not face the same diversity as politicians today do. This is especially true for the U.S.. Many Americans come from several different cultural and religious backgrounds which provide them with an underlying idea of what justice is. Therefore it is almost impossible for our entire society to have a universal understanding of what it means to be just. This could be why the Amish and Native Americans who live secluded lives are so peaceful because they've established a small community with a united outlook of justice.
I agree with the idea that in order for one idea of justice to be achieved the other must be sacrificed. It is the same as a "good." Even though everyone has their own views on what is good, the "common" good usually overrides the individual goods because it usually benefits to a higher extent. Therefore, it could be the same way for the "common" justice. Although it isn't viewed by all as justice, it is just to a higher extent.
I agree that one claim of justice will inevitably lead to injustice in the eyes of another but justice is a virtue and like any other virtue, we search for the mean, not merely to side with either extreme. Sides A and B, although they may not be happy about it, would have to be willing to make certain concessions so that in the end, a justice may be derived that is not necessarily fully, but is at least sufficiently, satisfying to them. No single person or group’s view of justice will ever be entirely accurate because a definition of justice is only accurate insofar as it can be effectively applied to a wider range of people. Justice is not achieved by accepting any single group’s definition of the term but rather, by taking certain characteristics from each group and forming a justice that all can agree to abide by.
Macintyre's "Justice as a Virtue: Changing Conceptions,” is an insightful and arguably accurate depiction of political parties in present day society. Essentially, types A and B represent the conservative and liberal groups in America today. Similar to today's culture, one group is not content when the other is in a position of authority because the two do not share the same values. It is unrealistic to expect both types to be feel validated when one has power over the other. As a response to your question, I do not think it is wholly possible to determine which is more just than the other. What is just to one, may be unjust to another based on individual's perceptions. It cannot be determined which party is justified and which is not because everyone has a different opinion. In present day society, what is virtuous and just is based more on the individual.
I think that the answer to your question is just as Macintyre states; that in modern society we do not have any conception of what true virtue is. Also that the our modern conception of the just and unjust is skewed depending on which side you are on; A or B, Conservative or Liberal. I believe that it all depends on the perception of the matter, but there can be justice in our society just not the type of justice Aristotle refers to in Nichomacean Ethics. Our sense of Justice is "Compromise", which is what Macintyre speaks of when referring to the Supreme Court. Therefore, "true" justice is never reached, but compromises are made that allow us to come closer to justice, which is better than no justice at all.
I agree with the last comment. It is just as Macintyre stated, we cannot have a single view of justice because we don’t have a single view of virtue. To take it even further though, and discuss the “why”, we have to think about the foundations upon which our society was structured. We are a country that fought for independence from our parent nation. So, then at our very core we are competitive and individualistic. These traits are obvious in most aspects of our society including economy and education. Is it any wonder than that our moral systems have developed in a similar way? We cannot expect uniformity in a society that doesn’t encourage it. A universal virtue of justice would be nice, but in a society based on individuality and personal freedoms the circumstances are just improbable.
I completely agree with the last comment, which is why I think that we, in terms used after our Independence, are always striving to create "a more perfect union" which, in turn, does not imply one of complete virtue or justice.
I agree with Tina, Abigail, and Kathryn on the idea of achieving justice being unreachable. Our society is large, and it is difficult for everyone to agree upon what is justice or injustice. If society was smaller then it would be possible for Justice to be identified, as stated in the earlier post. I also find it difficult to answer the questions Kelly has posted. I do not believe anybody can determine what is justice or not because someone will always have a different opinion about an act, but I do believe that if enough people agree upon what justice is then I believe one can then determine justice for themselves even if someone disagrees.
I agree that "our pluralist culture possesses no method of weighing" (Macintyre 246) just actions and that we "cannot expect uniformity," as stated by Belton and echoed in many posts. The plurality of our culture and permeability of our laws do not permit a consistent and common ground for justice. However, I do think that it is possible to achieve and necessary to seek justice. Expecting uniformity does not mean that uniformity cannot be found. If there exists justice, then we should, with proper reflection and discernment, be able to (to some extent) come to know it as a nation.
Post a Comment