The following is a discussion on the philosophy of justice applied in a learning example. We can learn improve each generation to continuously reach for our destiny as a people. The sacred purpose was earned from centuries of struggles that flows like a river just below out national consciousness. A river that connects kids to grand parents and grandparents to the founding fathers/mothers. Take not lightly the purpose of justice as it is foundational to economic and social growth.
The Hypothetical Example:
Sometimes we can better see a problem through a learning
example meant to illustrate where something is working well and something that
could be improved.
Immaturity and a long pattern of bullying mixed with mental
health launched a bigoted network that sought to show their superiority over
others, involved children, encouraged targeting, threats/attempted violence and
much more based on a cultic perspective. Whistleblowers came forward and were
retaliated against and it was ruled to favor/reward the perpetrators
(in-group) over victims (out-group). Perpetrators were immune and people have
complained about clan preference in outcomes at different times, situations and
places.
There may have also been opportunities that came forward to
learn from the oopsies and doopsies of biased thinking. People often assume
that punishment is the ultimate goal but its only a crude tool. Punishment
serves little purpose if people become better (It is a partially useful tool under the right circumstances). The ultimate goal is change,
adaptation, improvement and accountability (personal, professional,
institutional). When we improve, we learn from our mistakes and when we are accountable,
we develop. It is thought experiments like this might help us improve because it helps us see
and correct injustices to encourage effectiveness and accuracy.
In this example we might call it an extreme form
of injustice because the general rules and laws do not allow for this but still
the technicalities of the law were used to undermine trust in the institution
and create deep disparities between people. We have checks and balances because
we have learned that in countries where legal protections (justice institutions) are weak a path can
be created from injustice to collective punishment. We built our nation around
freedom and liberties and most people continue to strive toward that end. There
are oaths we take and social contracts we have created that should be our northern star. The Pledge and Other Historical Documents
Different Stakeholders:
Different people will see different things. The victims who
had their rights wiped away see injustice, community members may see it as the
way things are, the perpetrators gleeful they are treated with such heightened
care, clan members as confirmation of their superiority (in this example
because they were mediocre sports players once in high school and get jealous, childish and spread rumors.), young
officials an introduction to the official and unofficial rules, half of the
country might see it as typical pattern, the other half as not a problem, the children will spounge a
lesson on how things actually function and how they are expected to act, sociologist fathon a risk that undermines solidarity, a philosopher would be horrified as it represents a sell out to the central
philosophical purpose upon which a country exists (democracy goes back hundreds/thousands of years. Justice tens of thousands.), so on and so forth. The statement
resonates much further than the initial actors and comes to define some aspects
of our society (proof in pudding outcomes).
Moral and Economic Costs:
There are moral and economic costs associated with
injustice. We can think of the lost moral authority when poor behaviors are
rewarded and what that could do to an environment when normalized. The rules
and laws don't apply the same and people will begin to know that and it will
have an impact on performance, economics, and outcomes. One might also bring
forward the argument that if the incentives to engage society are not present
there could be a long-term human capital and competitive cost. If consistent
and blatant enough you could have dehumanization and its generational effects
that can weaken the whole.
A Way of Creating Solutions:
We like to think of solutions as some complex thing that
requires years of understanding and depth. While implementation needs a level
of industry knowledge, we do know that it comes down to how we treat each
other. If we treat each other well, fairly, and honestly, we will come to build
bonds and trust while if we do the opposite we might come to expect the
opposite. This is why the best and brightest should be in roles of importance
and career climbers and self-gratifiers left on the sidelines. Our institutions
have important roles, and we need the best to run them who can understand the
deeper needs of justice and its impact on society. Keep in mind that all human
life is precious, and no one should differentiate on race, religion, political
affiliation, etc. (It would be seen as illegal by the central laws.)
People often assume that justice has something
to do with law, but law is a weaker emulator of its higher order justice. This
means that law will be imperfect and therefore needs to be reviewed, adjusted,
and applied effectively to inch closer to the ideal of justice. Our world is
the world of imperfect application. Our own goal is to lower the gap between
what is practical and what is ideal Kants Conception of Justice
Following that dehumanizing thought experiment we may draw
from the wisdom of Immanual Kant. It should be remembered that many of our
gifted philosophers saw things differently than we see them in everyday hum
drum. They are able to switch from the daily distractions to life's deeper
meaning through abstractions. You will find shared characteristics in each
philosopher and the truths upon which they share their knowledge. Almost all have suffered injustice and know what it means.
Think of the central role of justice to ensuring respect for
life and keeping that value central in our decision making. Do you think
Immanuel Kant was talking of dehumanization? The importance of justice to
society? Are we teaching others the right values? What are the long term consequences if injustice becomes common and there are no backstops? 🤷
"If justice perishes, human life on Earth has lost its meaning." Immanuel Kant
*This is a thought experiment learning purposes example. The end result is positive but we are exploring some of the ideas as they relate to default of justice and dehumanization. Take with a grain of salt as it is theoretical and philosophical at the same time.
