Disclaimer: I do not necessarily subscribe to these thoughts, I just
think that they should be considered. Considering all view points and
opinions on an issue make for a more informed person.
Not to dishonor the memory or the day of Martin Luther King, Jr., but after seeing all of the posts about him, I got to thinking. One of his most famous quotes is that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Which implies that we must get rid of injustices everywhere so that justice may reign. I would like to argue that we should not get rid of injustices, as they help us in many ways.
Yes, I would argue that we should not get rid of injustices in the world. I think there are many good reasons for not totally getting rid of injustice in the world.
I think it is important to remember that without a concept of injustice, we would not be able to think of or discuss justice or what is just. Maybe there are some who think that justice exists outside of our earthly realm and it transcends our existence, but it seems to me that all of our judgements about justice and injustice come from experience and interaction with others. If we were to not be involved in the world from a very young age and we truly lived alone, with no human contact whatsoever, I seriously doubt that we would, by ourselves, come up with this idea of justice. We would have to had previously experienced injustice to come to make judgements about justice.
For example, we would not be able to consider stealing to be unjust without having already experienced the effects of stealing. Until we see a robbery, we are not going to know or understand why it should or should not continue to occur. We could not, in my opinion, even fathom the idea of stealing if we were secluded from the world and never experienced it for ourselves. The same could be said about killing: we could not make any judgements about it until we first experienced it. This experience does not have to be personal (I am not saying that we should kill someone or have someone we know be killed), but we should just be able to hear about it or see it in order to discuss whether it is ethical or not.
So experience is crucial to making judgements about justice, because without it we could say nothing. Embedded in this experience, if I have not already made it already clear, is the other side. We must experience, I think, both justice and injustice. How are we going to make judgements about one if we have nothing to compare it to? I think that for this reason, injustice is a necessary part of experience and life. If we were therefore to eradicate injustice totally from our human experience, then what would be just? Nothing would be considered just because there would be nothing unjust to contrast the justice.
If we totally got rid of stealing in our world, if there were no more thieves, how could we say that not stealing is just and the right thing to do? I do not think that we could. Maybe in this example we would find other things that could be just or unjust while not stealing would merely not be thought about. That is to say, the world would take for granted that there was not a stealing issue in society and so therefore would focus on other things rather than the fact that there is not stealing.
However, imagine if we managed to get rid of all things we currently consider unjust. (Just imagine. I understand that this may be difficult, but just go with me on this.) If everyone was treated the same, there was no stealing, no killing, nothing vicious ((I use this word in the sense that it is a vice and therefore bad). What would be considered just any more? Nothing could be, because everything would simply be. There would be no more just/unjust, no more ethics, no more ethical decisions to be made. There would fail to be any moral judgements. If this were to occur, think of all the ramifications this would have on religious institutions, philosophical traditions and therefore our world as we currently know it. Imagine that these things did not matter any longer and how different our world would look. I know that I could not imagine it. I think it would be a lot less interesting.
That was a long tangent, but I would like to make one more brief statement on why I think that injustice is beneficial to society. It is in the same vein of my previous statements. I think that in order to appreciate the good, the just, one must have some adversity, some bad stuff happen to them, some injustices done. Without experiencing the bad, how are we to become good, or at least better? How would people move forward without experiencing some injustices along the way to challenge them and propel them forward? I dunno, but I think that injustice might be an integral and necessary part of society and that its complete eradication would not necessarily be good. You cannot begin to understand the good until you have understood the bad.
One of my favorite bands, Rise Against, has some lyrics that are attached to this topic and that I think work nicely here. The song is called "Satellite" and is off of their newest album, Endgame. I think I have written about them before, but take a read and think for yourselves a little bit.
You can't feel the heat
Until you hold your hand
Over the flame
You have to cross the line
Just to remember
Where it lays
You won't know your worth now, son,
Until you take a hit
(chorus, and then later)
You can't fill your cup
Until you empty all it has
You can't understand
What lays ahead
Until you understand the past
You'll never learn to fly now
Til you're standing at the cliff
You can't truly love
Until you've given up on it.
Dear Andy - you are a deep thinker! And you bring up things that I studied in school (but you know, in one ear & out the other). I remember discussing similar thoughts in US History. We discussed John Locke's ideas about property and "natural law" and the ownership of land/property by virtue of the one who labors of that land. There would be no need for laws dividing the land or property rights if you would work the land that you needed for survival and left the rest for others. But we always want more..and that means someone else has to have less. I think it's the same way with other rights. There's a certain group who thinks they are entitled to more and the only way to have that happen is that someone else has to have less (whether it's property or civil rights). I don't know if it's really a matter of justice vs. injustice, I think it's a greed and ego thing. Perception that "I" am more deserving of something than "you" are. If "you" have it, then it makes me less important. If you look back at the women's rights movement you can see some of that attitude. If we ("we" being rich white men) have to concede and give a woman the right to vote, well, then we better make sure the slaves don't get that right or it will make us look like even less of a man! I also see similar attitudes towards gay marriage. Years ago, slaves were not allowed to be married. That has changed and now gays are fighting for the right to be married and people oppose it citing religious conflicts. I think it is really more of an entitlement and ego thing - "if gays are given the same rights as me, then that makes me less important". I totally get where you are coming from with the justice v. injustice thing. It's like how can you appreciate the warm sunny days if you haven't experienced a cold, -12 day!? But I think we shouldn't be comfortable with injustice if we call ourselves a civilized society! There - now that is my long rant!! (I like the lyrics, too!!)
ReplyDelete