Kyra contrasts "...lives computerized in the name of order or social justice or whatever they called it..." with the idea that "...governments and machines ought to be instruments people used, not ends in themselves." (38, p. 370)
Should there be social order? Yes, not at the expense of freedom or justice but as their necessary basis.
Should there be social justice? Yes.
Should governments, as long as they exist, and machines be instruments, not ends? Yes.
One of many problems is that some people's idea of justice contradicts other people's idea of freedom and vice versa but such issues can be resolved. We are only at the beginning of industrial civilization - although potentially also at its end.
"...the noble words: 'We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal -'" (36, pp. 330-331)
20 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I am VERY suspicious of terms like "social justice." Far more often than not, I see such canting jargon being used by people to justify an ever more intrusive, meddling, and oppressive gov't. One current example being "Josip's" Attorney General Garland's infamous memo siccing the FBI on parents protesting things like CRT at school board meetings, calling them "terrorists." Justice should be defined more in negative terms, more along the lines of forbidding gov'ts and citizens from DOING things. Like the example I cited or prohibiting and penalizing murder, rape, robbery, etc.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But misuse of a term does not cast any doubt on the validity of the term itself. It should be a straightforward matter to agree that injustice including, for example, persecution of minorities, is wrong. A secondary matter, of course, is that many people, including your American political opponents, misuse such terms. This does not mean that a term like "social justice" is "canting jargon."
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
It it just to prevent prevent persecution of ethnic or religious minorities? Yes. But, in that case I see no need to tack on the world "social" to "justice." Justice alone is all that is needed, with no need for vague additions like "social."
Problem is, "social justice," over the past half century and more, has become just another bit of canting jargon used mostly by the left in the US, with it always seeming to mean expanding yet more the powers of the state. So I react to "social justice" with suspicion.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We have to address not only particular unjust acts but also socially institutionalized injustices like, when they existed, slavery, segregation and gerrymandering in Northern Ireland.
Paul.
"Justice" means, in practice, "my opinions are enforced, yours are not".
I'm fine with that: I want all the justice I can get.
But when people start talking as if it was more than their opinion, I hear SNURGLE FLUGGA WUG-WUG, followed by SHUT UP OR I'LL SMASH YOUR FACE.
When I studied Philosophy, Ethics was a central subject but I regarded it as peripheral because I was more interested in Metaphysics and Ontology.
I do think that the morality which says: "No capital punishment" is better than that which says: "Burn heretics" but I would have to think about how to back that up.
I would want to live in a society where the "No capital punishment" philosophy was a universal consensus that did not have to be enforced, also where such issues were discussed and debated, not just taken for granted.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: Then abuses, where they exist, should have their remedies as narrowly defined as possible, with a view to avoid concentrating yet more power in the state.
And I don't believe capital punishment would be wrong for all crimes. But I have no objection to making it hard to impose.
Mr. Stirling: Amusingly put, but I don't think the English jurist Sir William Blackstone would agree! He famously wrote that it was better for nine guilty men to escape punishment than for the tenth and innocent man to be wrongfully convicted.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But "abuses" occur within a system. Some entire systems, like slavery and Apartheid, are unjust.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And the British Empire and even Tsarist Russia managed to abolish their forms of slavery without making a bloody hash of it, unlike the US with our Civil War.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: in both cases, -because- they weren't democratic.
British planters and African chiefs had no recourse when Parliament decreed the end of slavery and the Royal Navy came calling.
Likewise, the Russian aristocracy were servants of the Czar -- that was their ethos and whole historical reason for being; one of the standard speeches they gave to their peasants was "as I am to the Czar, so you are to me".
When he decreed the end of serfdom, they obeyed.
Paul: that degree of spontaneous consensus is not possible among a large group of human beings.
Consensus is in itself impossible without imposition by power -- by social means (shunning, shaming, boycotting etc.) and by law.
Consensus rules certain things beyond legitimate question. We often say they're "not political", but that's meaningless -- everything without exception that human beings do or say or think is political.
"Not political" just means "my side is more powerful, so SHUT UP."
I think that there are three basic factors -
economics: production and distribution;
politics: power and resistance;
history: progress or regression.
Politics is about power relationships in society so it affects everything. I have heard someone say, "I am not political but I think...," then express an unreflecting political opinion. I have also heard someone say, "I don't accept everything I read in the papers," then repeat everything that they had read in the papers.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
While I partly agree with what you said about how the UK and Tsarist Russia managed to abolish their forms of slavery without first having to fight bloody civil wars, it was not quite as simply as you stated. The UK might not have been very democratic by current standards, but itc certainly was far more democratic than Tsarist Russia. The UK Parliament was a real legislative body whose consent or assent was necessary for all major policies. And abolitionists had to agree to compensation being paid for slave owners for the loss of their slaves.
And even Alexander II of Russia couldn't simply decree the abolition of serfdom--because to do so would have stirred up a hornets nest of opposition to him. Opposition so powerful it might even have led to his assassination or deposition (as happened repeatedly to the successors of Peter the Great after 1725). Alexander II had to tack and maneuver, and offer concessions, including compensation, to the Russian aristocracy and gentry before he could promulgate the Emancipation Ukase.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: Britain had representative government in Britain, but the slaves weren't in Britain, they were in the Caribbean.
In the US, by contrast, the slaveholder's representatives sat in Congress and they helped elect Presidents -- and between a quarter and a third of Southern white families were slaveholding, depending on what degree of blood relationship you count.
(You'll see much lower figures bandied about, but they only count the actual owner, not his/her spouse, children, etc. Thus a planter or farmer with slaves would also typically have a wife, five or six children, possibly daughters-in-law and sons-in-law and grandchildren, an aged mother living with him, etc.)
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Actually, I agree. The politics were different in the UK and the US. Albeit, I think some UK slave owners lived in the UK, and depended on the profits forwarded to them by their agents in the Caribbean. And some of theme either sat in Parliament themselves or subsidized MPs who spoke for them.
In any case, it was still better to abolish slavery peacefully rather than thru fighting a brutal civil war. Lincoln himself would have preferred that, even if it meant tolerating slavery for a few more decades.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Didn't slave trade profits kick start a lot of British wealth and industry?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I don't know, but probably. It would make sense for some people, if they had large sums of money, to invest it in commerce, industry, new forms of technology, etc. I've done that myself, with my little investment in Tesla!
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Mr. Stirling,
True, people are biased and imperfect in their conceptions of justice, but some do try to go beyond “My opinions are enforced, and yours are not.” There is, for example, the Golden Rule, variations of which are found in multiple religions and philosophies. Some people try to do justice even to those whom they dislike, or are not of their tribe (however defined).
Best Regards,
Nicholas D. Rosen
Kaor, Nicholas!
True, some, even in matters of state, try to live by higher ideals. Your mention of the Golden Rule reminded me of this variant found in the ANALECTS of Confucius, XV.23: "Tzu-kung asked, saying, Is there any single saying that one can act upon all day and every day? The Master said, Perhaps the saying about consideration:'Never do to others what you would not like them to do to you.' "
That was an example of what some call the negative form of the Golden Rule. Christ gave us the positive version in Matthew 7.12: "Therefore all that you wish men to do to you, even so do you also to them; for this is the Law and the Prophets."
Regards! Sean
Sean,
The British government is threatening Draconian new anti-immigrant legislation that would even instruct British ships not to help immigrants in danger at sea. We had a rally against it. A local vicar ministers to Iraqi Christians who came here because of religious persecution. He spoke at the rally and cited the Golden Rule.
Paul.
Post a Comment