Jamie, in a previous post of hers, shared how her professor asked the question of whether they would choose Justice or Charity. I have been debating in my head of when I wanted to reply to the question and, if I did, how would I answer. I believe the question is unfair because it is asking to abolish one virtue in order for another to remain. Choosing between virtues is in itself, neither charitable to the understanding of virtues (giving room for all virtues to exist as they are necessary as a whole for a better humanity) nor does it give justice to their qualities (exterminating one by attributing impurities to it that are only manifested when compared to others). The problem occurring with a topic like this is to place in one's own mind a subconscious tenet of hierarchal virtues. Moreover, hierarchal establishments of virtues contradict (what I believe to be the harmony within virtues) their systematic formula of unity. Isolation is detrimental to those principles we hold so dear in human relations.
Furthermore, I believe in the correspondence theory of epistemology that says what we can know about truth has to relate (in some form or another) to reality. This begs the question of whether a world without justice could exist (or charity for that matter)? A world without justice is one I can only imagine. Every group of people has some form of justice, even if it is not sophisticated or placed in written form. Without Justice, every society would experience total anarchy, destruction, and violence. Similarly, without charity, poverty would overrun our streets, deaths would increase (no blood drives, no charities for discovering new diseases), and a vast amount of other atrocities would occur.
Under my comprehension of the essence and purpose of virtues, I believe the questions collapses within itself.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
how can one justify charity without comprehending and implementing justice into everyday morality?
I do not believe charity needs to be justified. Acts of charity need no justification to exist beyond the fact of their ability to do good. I would say true justice entails charity. In this sense, charity works alongside the system of justice. Your question can go both ways, how can one justify the system of justice without comprehendig and implementing charity into everyday morality? If there is no charity, the justice systems cracks.
would you walk up to a stranger and give him all your money? why not? because you cant justify giving something to someone without knowing why?
from dictionary.com
justify: to show a satisfactory reason or excuse for something done.
i believe you are mixing up the virtue of "justice" with "justify" which are vastly different.
Justice according to Webster:
the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments
without justice the world couldnt help but to be charitable to whomever was treated unjustly.
sounds pretty heady in here doesn't it? while your comment about the flaw in the question is logical, you avoiding answering it. what would you choose based on which you what rather experience in your life? my class unanimously chose justice because who would want a free handout over being treated fairly and justly? charity in that sense is degrading and assumes a lack of ability. there are people in the world that start their day looking for charity, wouldn't justice serve them better?
Toby's comment is interesting. Would there be a "necessary" strain to do charity without justice? By the question itself (meaning ONLY if these two virtues existed) Then I would have to agree. But for the sake of using my argument of the harmonious nature of virtues, the necessity would be debatable (maybe I will write another blog on that - sorry Toby for not answering it adequately at this moment)
Jamie's comment has some good points, but I do need some clarification. I may not be grasping the concept, but are you saying if charity is chosen over justice (and being treated fairly) charity then becomes a quality that has a lack of power?? If that is what you are saying, I don't see WHY that would be the case.
For the sake of seeing how well my argument stands in the midst of crticism, I will not answer which one I would rather choose (as my argument attests to making this an illogical answer of any kind). But as to your last comment, my first inclination is to say yes. But ultimately that is determined by the type of justice. And a justice without a concept of charity leaves us without the comment of the "well-being of our fellow man." Justice would be nothing more than pure law-enforcement.
Post a Comment