According to Aristotle in Book V, there are two parts of the politically just. One being natural in that it is universally valid everywhere and the other legal, it involves having people to lay down the rules regarding whether it is just or unjust, an act of justice or an act of injustice.
The difference between something that is just or unjust and an act of justice or injustice is that a just or unjust is a particular wrong or right but when the just or unjust is committed, it becomes an act of justice or act of injustice. As Aristotle states, “unjust is unjust by nature or enactment; when this has been done, it is an act of injustice, but before it is done it is only unjust (N.E. 78).”
To determine whether an act is just or if it is an act of injustice, it depends on if the act was committed voluntarily or involuntarily. For example, if someone were to take your hand and force you to hit another person, hitting another person is an unjust act, but because it was done by force on you to the victim, your act is an error since you did not choose to hit the victim. Other factors to take into consideration are whether the unjust act was carefully thought out or done in ignorance. If person A taunts person B in a public place and person B, out of anger, hits person A without considering the consequences of getting arrested. Although person B committed an illegal unjust act, person B is not unjust because person B did not attack person A out of a personal wicked intention. An example for ignorance, person A without realizing, closes the door on person B’s hand. Out of ignorance, person A had closed the door when person B’s hand was still there. Closing the door on person B’s hand is an unjust act, but person A is not unjust because it was an accident.
Aristotle defines the term “injustice” to mean “harming with knowledge of the victim, the instrument, and the way, against the wish of the victim (N.E. 81),” and that “suffering injustice is not voluntary (N.E. 81).” Recently on the news, a professor from the University of Alabama shot at six of her co-workers and killed three of them. Shooting six of her coworkers is an act of injustice, which also makes the professor unjust, and it is universally known to everyone in the United States that intentionally shooting someone, the shooter will be automatically be sent to jail. Wouldn’t the professor already know that her action would send her to jail? Wouldn’t she know that being sent to jail would not only waste her life, but it would ruin her reputation and harm her forever? Wouldn’t this professor be inflicting injustice not only onto her co-workers but also onto herself? Isn’t the professor, in order to see her colleagues harmed, willing to suffer the injustice?
However, in chapter 11, when Aristotle addresses suicide, he states that because the individual kills himself willingly, it is not an injustice to himself, but an injustice to the city (N.E. 84). So, Aristotle would probably respond to my example with, even though no one wants to go to jail, the professor, in order to see her coworkers harmed, was indirectly willing to go to jail, and so it is not an injustice to herself.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
It is very interesting that you bring up the recent happenings of the University of Alabama professor. In this case, as in many other murder cases, it does seem as though she was indirectly willing to go to prison for her actions; however, she may think she will be able to avoid prison time in the future through her right to a fair trial. In this sense, her actions will lead to an injustice towards herself because she is unaware of the conclusion of her actions. If she is unaware of the possible conclusion it would be considered an injustice through ignorance which would not make her unjust but only her actions unjust.
I also like the fact that you use recent events in order to compare Aristotle's philosophy on the justice and injustice to our modern views on this matter. I do have to say, though, that I do not completely agree with Aristotle's definition of what is considered to be unjust or in the realm of injustice. Aristotle says that if a person does a bad deed in ignorance or without knowing the consequences of his or her actions, that person is not unjust. I believe that his view on the above subject is ideal to an extreme. A person may plead ignorance whenever he or she does an unjust act that harms others, but I believe that that same person almost always knows what the direct consequences of his or her actions will be. If you do something that is questionable according to our norms in society, it is to my belief that it is not ignorance that allows the person to pursue his or her actions, but selfishness. Lastly, in response to the question of whether a person can do injustice to oneself, I also disagree with Aristotle. Although going to jail may also be an injustice to the city or society, it is also an injustice to oneself, because you also have to think about what that person would be doing if her or she were not in jail, in my opinion. That same person, although some may argue that they could be doing more harm to more people when out of jail, could also have a chance to do good in society.
Your example of the recent shooting at the University of Alabama was very helpful to me in comparing Aristotle's philosophy in justice. What the professor did was the exact opposite of the example in paragraph three regarding "person A taunts person B in a public place and person B, out of anger, hits person A without considering the consequences of getting arrested." The difference between the professor and person B is that person B was treated badly while the professor wasn't. Person B attacked person A for being taunted. However, the professor on the other hand committed a crime with wicked intention.
In response to your questions regarding implying that the professor would know all of the consequences of her actions, I think that the type of people who commit such violent and irrational crimes do not think about consequences to their actions. Some people have a skewed and disturbed mentality, which may lead them to such horrific actions. In many cases people have an illness of the mind, which makes them commit these types of actions. While some people will plead insanity simply to shorten or lessen their crimes, I wonder what Aristotle would say to those people who do have mental illness which leads them to do unjust actions without them realizing them. Would he consider such a case ignorance? If so how could one consider such violent crimes as mass murder as merely ignorance?
Your examples were very vivid and it helped put into perspective what Aristotle is trying to say. Although when it comes to your example of the professor, she could easily be suffering from mental problems and might not be aware of the consequences, therefore not knowing that what she has done was unjust. However, I also don't think that anyone could be so ignorant to commit a mass murder, not knowing what the consequences were or thinking that it was okay for them to do this, unless the people willingly wanted to be shot. If they willingly wanted to be shot would that still be considered unjust on the professor's part because it's not just to kill people and would she be considered ignorant for agreeing with what they wanted?
To Sam Jolly and areda, both of you bring up very good points.
areda, I do agree with you on the topic about the injustice towards oneself, but I can see what Aristotle means by the injustice to the city, in that, when one commits suicide or goes to jail, it is the city that has to pay for the rescuing, the clean-up, or the jail room and board. Not only that but it is also an injustice to the city when the family and friends, of the person who committed suicide or go to jail, suffers.
To accorado1, yes, I do agree that the professor committed an act of injustice, but I was referring to how she would also be committing an injustice to herself since she killed those people when she most likely knew that she would also end up suffering from the consequence of her actions.
Aristotle would probably say that when a mentally unstable person commits injustice towards others, it is an involuntary act because the mentally unstable person would not kill if he or she were sane. Since it is considered involuntary, then the injustice that the insane person caused was an error rather than a complete act of injustice regardless of how many people he or she had killed.
I hope this answers your question, Tim Del Bello.
To S Olech, the professor harmed six people, that is an unjust act. But if those six people wanted to be shot, it is still considered an unjust act on the professor's part. She hurt them because SHE wanted to, not because they wanted to be killed. I wouldn't think she was ignorant even if the victims also wanted to die, she knew what she wanted to do and she was going to murder whoever and in however way she wanted to. My point is, regardless of what the victims want, the professor is in this only to get what she wants out of the situation and that is to kill those people, and therefore she wants to commit an unjust act. I hope that helps.
Personally, I feel that ignorance, if it can be empirically proven, is an adequate excuse for committing an unjust action. If someone does not know the standards of justice, then how can they formulate their actions to conform to those standards? Granted, insanity or ignorance can often be claimed as a convenient way to diffuse responsibility when one commits an unjust action; however, knowledge of what justice and proper conduct is is integral to acting in accordance with those standards and, subsequently, act justly. Without a proper understanding of justice and its implications and prerequisites, one cannot be expected to act justly.
Post a Comment