Although our class discussion has moved on from Borges to Plato, I just wanted to backtrack a bit and comment upon “The Lottery in Babylon.”
The question posed in class was this: “Is the lottery just?” While some members of the class presented very interesting and sound arguments in support of the lottery, I still believe that the lottery system in Babylon is not just.
My main sentiments against the justice of the lottery initially stem from the narrator’s opening statement about the pure uncertainty in his life due to the lottery. This, to an extent, is understandable in a game where a man could be sentenced to jail, elevated in society, or even murdered depending on what card is drawn. However, while throwing around ideas about the definition of justice in class, the concept of reciprocity and proportionality were mentioned. The lottery seems capable of neither. A lottery ticket is free, yet a bad draw of one’s card could yield horrible results that affect both the man and possibly the larger community. How does society benefit from an incompetent man serving as proconsul while the elected leader sits in jail for sixty nights? In this sense, the lottery seems unjust because of the direct effect its outcomes have upon the legal state of Babylon and those who do not actively participate in the lottery.
Another argument made in class was that the lottery is just because every draw and its subsequent outcome is ultimately a game of chance. If such was the case, and the lottery was merely a matter of luck, then it would be fair because everyone would have an equal chance at either punishment or reward. But the presence of the Company and the total power it holds over the lottery eliminate the idea of it purely being a game of chance.
The Company is referred to as “omnipotent and astute,” but the narrator goes a step further by stating that the Company, in actuality, left very little up to chance. Instead, in order to “find out about the intimate hopes and terrors of each individual, they had astrologists and spies” to anticipate and fix future drawings (4). The Company created a myth about the lottery serving as a model of how the universe works, so that Babylonians would accept this game of “chance” as fate. However, after each drawing when men receive their new sixty-day destiny, aren’t they merely executing the will of the Company? If the lottery is actually serving the purposes of the Company, then it obviously cannot be just since it doesn’t rely on chance. If there was no omnipotent Company that held total power and instead the lottery was a pure game of chance, then it would seem just. But in my opinion, the simple fact that the Company exists and uses the lottery for its own purposes, proves it is not a just system.
I agree completely with this post. I felt the same way about the Company when I read it and we were talking about the Company representing chance. I think if in fact the lottery was not run by the Company and really left up to chance, it would be a just society, but the way it currently is set up, makes it unjust. The Company does not represent justice, but rather presents a false version that the Babylonians are expected to believe.
If the Company's influence is what really bothers you about the justice of the system, then why is a completely determined lottery or "game of chance" better? If either outcome is unknown to the individual, then why should it matter that the company influences the outcome?
If the system were what we call "random" then it would be fair to all because it would not favor any individual. Yet, according to your statement, that would be unjust too because it would be a detriment to the society to send those who are worthy to jail. It seems that the company's influence may be the most just option if justice is doing what is best for the society. I'm not sure if that's what justice is, but it may be close.
If everything is truly determined by physics, then the all-inclusive lottery is no different than life as we know it.
I think that a simple "game of chance" would be more just because there would be no outside influences on the outcomes, as there is with the Company. I understand your point about the random lottery being unjust because it could send a "worthy" man to jail, but it would seem more just if it was determined purely by fate than a secret organization with private motives.
However, I do have to say that whether as a totally random game of chance or being ruled by the Company, I don't agree with the lottery system. The mere fact that a game, separate from the law, could so tremendously impact society and individual citizens seems like an unjust concept all together. I wrote this blog because I think the Company itself is unjust, but I think there's something wrong with the idea of this type of lottery in the first place.
You guys are drawing a strong distinction between "law" and the "game" of chance in the lottery. Are laws really that much different than a game, the rules of which are clearly defined?
One might argue that laws are aimed toward improving the society. But if the lottery is in place to arrange for justice, then does it not serve the same purpose as laws?
This is the class blog for the Fall 2009 session of PHIL 150: Social and Political Philosophy at Rhodes College. The theme of this course is "Justice."
I agree completely with this post. I felt the same way about the Company when I read it and we were talking about the Company representing chance. I think if in fact the lottery was not run by the Company and really left up to chance, it would be a just society, but the way it currently is set up, makes it unjust. The Company does not represent justice, but rather presents a false version that the Babylonians are expected to believe.
ReplyDeleteIf the Company's influence is what really bothers you about the justice of the system, then why is a completely determined lottery or "game of chance" better? If either outcome is unknown to the individual, then why should it matter that the company influences the outcome?
ReplyDeleteIf the system were what we call "random" then it would be fair to all because it would not favor any individual. Yet, according to your statement, that would be unjust too because it would be a detriment to the society to send those who are worthy to jail. It seems that the company's influence may be the most just option if justice is doing what is best for the society. I'm not sure if that's what justice is, but it may be close.
If everything is truly determined by physics, then the all-inclusive lottery is no different than life as we know it.
I think that a simple "game of chance" would be more just because there would be no outside influences on the outcomes, as there is with the Company. I understand your point about the random lottery being unjust because it could send a "worthy" man to jail, but it would seem more just if it was determined purely by fate than a secret organization with private motives.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do have to say that whether as a totally random game of chance or being ruled by the Company, I don't agree with the lottery system. The mere fact that a game, separate from the law, could so tremendously impact society and individual citizens seems like an unjust concept all together. I wrote this blog because I think the Company itself is unjust, but I think there's something wrong with the idea of this type of lottery in the first place.
You guys are drawing a strong distinction between "law" and the "game" of chance in the lottery. Are laws really that much different than a game, the rules of which are clearly defined?
ReplyDeleteOne might argue that laws are aimed toward improving the society. But if the lottery is in place to arrange for justice, then does it not serve the same purpose as laws?