To me, to be just is to do right and by right I mean to make an active choice to do the correct thing, or to conduct yourself in the morally correct way given the circumstances. But how is correct or right action judged or measured? Is being right “to act in the socially proper and acceptable or appropriate manner as judged by our peers”? If so right or justice are merely socially relative measures and will differ from culture to culture and again appear to be subjective terms with no universally true meaning. Is there some other more innate meaning to justice that goes beyond this superficial societal one? Like Glaucon in Plato’s Book I of the Republic (357-361), I would argue that our morals are derived from our society and peers. We have discovered our knowledge and perception of right and wrong from our environment and upbringing, it has been taught to us and we carry these taught principles around with us and act with them in mind throughout our lives. Although I do not agree with Glaucon’s argument that should we be left with no laws to enforce right and wrong, we would all become unjust to try and get ahead and to gain advantage. I feel that this may be true for some but for others, the understanding of their own morals (and possibly their self-induced constraints) would cause their own consciences to disregard any wrongdoing purely because the behaviour is wrong to them and goes against their learned values (rather than any innate or natural values inherent at birth) by bringing some sort of harm or inconvenience to others. I believe that people’s values are broader than just looking after their own interests and some choose to put other people first or to look after the interests of others, and this in turn can provide them with satisfaction and reward.
I believe that the morals we are taught by upbringing and society are such that we are unable to see beyond this – we cannot undo our learning. I cannot decide what I would do differently now if there were no laws or social pressures keeping me from acting “appropriately” because my knowledge of right and wrong has already been taught to me. I would prefer to ask the question, what would a person do and how would they act if they had not been taught right from wrong? For an answer to this we could look for examples in nature, for instance, wild (undomesticated) animals, have not been taught right or wrong (as we know it) and here we see clear examples of survival of the fittest (this is evolution in the making); the strongest, fittest animals will fight back the weaker to gain more food to eat for example and so will live longer and pass on their genes. Is this a scenario which supports Glaucon’s claims that the injust do better, gain more and are more successful? Is there an animal etiquette to be found? Are animals just? What makes us different, is it only that we have been taught how to act or be just?
No comments:
Post a Comment