Amartya Sen's latest book, The Idea of Justice, has been on my mind while we've been going through the struggle of piecing together an idea of justice. In its introduction, Sen points out an intriguing paradox in trying to form a modern, comparative theory of justice (something I think we in this class are working towards).
He outlines the idea that multiple forms of particular justice may exist through a fictional anecdote:
Suppose there are three children living in a house and they are fighting over who gets to keep a toy flute. One child, Annie, claims that the flute would be most justly given to her, because she is the only one of the kids who knows how to play it. Bob, on the other hand, argues that he deserves the flute simply because he is the least favorite and the "poorest" child (i.e. he has no toys of his own). Charlotte demands the flute on the basis that she was the one who made it.
If we look at all three claims, we realize that they aren't mutually exclusive; all of these reasons can coexist without one really negating another. Also, if we realize what each child is arguing for, there is the possibility for multiple correct answers. For Annie, those of us who believe in the meritocracy that Aristotle proposes would clearly vote for her because she has the certain virtue of knowing how to play the flute. But Bob's argument has no carrying power with the meritocrats. Bob's plea would be taken up by the egalitarians, by the believers in rectificatory justice. Lastly, Charlotte would get the votes of the libertarians because of the strong argument that Charlotte's labor establishes her possession of the flute.
I'm sure that everyone who is reading this feels a pull toward one argument (personally, I believe in Bob), but what I think is important to understand is that all of the arguments hold some sense of justice within them. They are, in that sense, all correct. But just action in this case would mean all of the kids getting the flute, which is impossible.
And because of this impossibility, we are forced to choose one of the children as our favorite. To me, that is a difficult decision to make. With all of these different correct choices, we must either choose one on the basis of our personal convictions or we must suffer the plight of paralysis.
So thus, I pose the questions that are troubling me every time we get into our heated debates about health care or the honor code or any other system of justice. First, is the process of deciding what justice is a matter rational decision-making or an exercise in asserting personal beliefs? And leapfrogging from that: if our individual conceptions of justice do differ to the point that it forces very opposite actions' being considered just, how do we counteract that to find a theory of justice that works?
I have only completed part one of Sen's book. If I find any more answers, I will let you know...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think this example is interesting, and certainly a way to view the question of justice, but i think that it is clear that made the flute would own it because it is an extension of her being. And, for any one of the other children to possess it they must give something of equal value in return. I do not say that it is hers simply because she made it, but i would say that the block of wood it came from is hers as well, because once we "work" for something (as has been demonstrated throughout human history for centuries) the item in question becomes an extension of the self. However, the other two children do have a predicament on their hands...
ReplyDeleteActually I think the idea of our products being tied to ourselves started with Locke's social theories. It hasn't necessarily been thought of as intrinsically tied to the self "throughout human history for centuries". Using your argument for how humanity views its production (as self-defining), I feel that things in the world would be a little different. Take, for example, the teenage girl working in a sweatshop somewhere in Indonesia making American Eagle polo's for a living (or something close enough to that). She gets paid in pennies while we spend somewhere around $20 for each shirt she makes. Using your view that whatever one produces is an "extension of [their] being", she should be the one who sells her shirts or should be given a better price for her labor. I'm not making any personal attacks against people who wear clothes made in third world countries, I'm trying to apply your logic to the way the world works.
ReplyDeleteI believe that this task of assigning justice to just one of the children's demands/opinions is a very difficult one just as you do Dev. While part of me believes that Annie should receive the flute, considering her virtue (as well as skill if they are not connected) allow for her to use the flute to its greatest potential. I imagine that Bob is unable to play the flute or at least unskilled at doing so. The problem that I face in my opinion is that while I will not admit it sometimes, my reasoning is probably the very force behind Bob's inablility to play the flute. Maybe the reason that Annie can play the flute beautifully is because she is the only child who has been given flute lessons.
ReplyDeleteMaking a connection to the American social and economic structure, it would seem that many of the impoverished individuals in the US do not "deserve" to receive aid or an equal opportunity based on their skill or virtue. But here lies the problem in that they were never really given a choice or opportunity to develop a skill or virtue. They have basically been dealt a card that states that they have a 1/1000 chance (if that) of attaining the "flute" based solely on their economic situation and environment as a child. Meanwhile, someone like myself has the flute on hold, so long as I go to school and work hard enough. Now I want that flute, but I also struggle with seeing the justice in the ease at which I can attain it.
Reading this example and your questions caused me to think back on Thrasymachus' claim that justice is the advantage of the stronger. Especially with your question of whether justice is a result of rational decision making or the assertion of personal beliefs, I though that Mr. T's argument came through even stronger- basically wondering if justice in itself exist or whether justice is always going to be what people say it to be. In the flute example, I can understand all three of the decisions and the rational behind making them. At the same time, since each choice would be an example of a just decision, I think that the making of that choice might just proves T's point that justice is really the advantage or gain of the strongest arguer, as ultimately the choice does have to be made, someone will be unhappy, but the decision will be regarded as just by the person who is given the flute.
ReplyDeleteWouldn't it just be easier for the children to share the flute? Or to take turns? Why does there have to be only one child who gets joy out of the object? Just a thought.
ReplyDeleteI think that there are multiple degrees of justice, and that all of the children have a rational argument for deserving of the flute. Personally, I agree most with Annie. However, I also agree with Hannah's thought of sharing the flute. In this instance the three are siblings which would most likely make it quite easy for them to collectively use it. If one were to actually rate the three on how just their arguments were, they could even decide who should be able to play with the flute most. As most cases are, this situation does not need to be an all or nothing type of deal. In fact, possibly the most just resolve would be to all each child to have their turn. It just seems like the most adult and logical solution to the problem.
ReplyDeleteHannah, if you're only looking at this example on the "children wanting a flute" level, then sure, let them have at. But it isn't intended to just be a game of who gets the toy. The flute stands for something more than just musical enjoyment. What if these were three seniors competing for a prestigious scholarship into grad school? There's only one scholarship - who gets it? The student with the highest GPA, the one who has overcome extraordinary circumstances, or the one who has done research? All have legitimate claims to deserving the scholarship, but it obviously can't be shared. Here is where personal beliefs can be interjected - someone at XYZ University must decide which is most deserving, based on their opinion. Do their personal beliefs cloud their choice, and therefore effect how just the outcome is?
ReplyDeleteI guess the short answer is that no, it can't be shared - someone has to make a choice that represents the most just outcome. As for Dev's original question as to whether justice is rationally or personally defined in such a case, I think that people's personal beliefs do naturally tend to cloud their judgment and effect their decisions as to what is just.