I have been thinking about our class discussion on chance and our legal system. I would like to propose the alternative view to our class discussion, one that argues for a modern legal system instead of a lottery. I imagine that this viewpoint is in the minority (considering our discussion in class)
When the class began, we discussed the qualities of justice. Among them was fairness, appropriate reciprocity for one’s actions (whether those actions are good or bad), equality, and morality. The vast majority of the conversation focused on fairness, so let me start there.
I should begin by drawing a distinction between two types of fairness. One, the one we considered in class, is about treating individuals with total equality (all people receive equal treatment and no individual is special). Another type is about appropriate punishment for one’s actions (life imprisonment for premeditated murder, for example).
The lottery, admittedly, treats individuals more equally than the legal system in the sense that everyone has the same chance to be punished or rewarded. However, it certainly does not punish actions appropriately. In that sense, the lottery is anything BUT fair.
How does the lottery deal with murderers, rapists, or thieves? It does nothing. Misdeeds are not punished by incarceration or fines because that would require the very legal system that “chancers” argue against. A “pure” lottery demands that everything be governed by chance. There can be no laws to govern citizens. There is no system for punishing criminals. The lottery would not afford citizens any of the protections of a legal system. The laws of chance (or nature) are the only laws. An argument for the lottery is an argument for anarchy.
So consider: Is a lawless society just or is it the antithesis to justice?
Let’s look at a society governed by laws. The modern legal system in the United States is far from perfect. Sometimes individuals are wrongly imprisoned and the guilty are acquitted. That does not mean, however, that the system is unjust. This only proves that we are human. We are capable of error. Minimizing human error is the answer to a more just society, not abolishing our laws. A legal system that works the majority of the time may not be absolute justice but it is one that we can rely on. When an individual breaks the law, we can reasonably expect him to be punished. If one is wronged, he can file suit to seek reparations.
While not perfect, the modern legal system is the lesser of two evils.
Very true. The lottery would be more just than our current system only if the only meaningful component of justice were equal treatment. This completely leaves out any notion that the law should abide by a certain moral code, which is part of what anyone means when they say justice. After all, I can treat everyone equally poorly, but that does not make my actions just.
ReplyDeleteI find it hard to believe that anyone in our class, much less a majority, would earnestly argue in favor of a Babylonian lottery over our modern legal system (especially after reading this argument).
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect to Borges’s story, I can’t envision a society functioning on the principles of the Babylonian lottery. A society would destroy itself before it was able to establish such a complex systematization of chance without a collective understanding of right and wrong. Morality and fairness are both necessary conditions for justice and, subsequently, social stability, but they are not sufficient in themselves.
Very thought-provoking post, but I must say that there are a couple things I must respond to. First, your rhetorical question: "Is a lawless society just or is it the antithesis to justice?" (which assumes an answer of "it's the antithesis") makes a humongous leap. In the transcendental and idealized world of a Babylonian lottery-world, we would have no idea whether murderers and rapists would exist. I think murderers and rapists only exist in the "modern legal system" because there are parts of that very system that allow it to be taken advantage of.
ReplyDeleteAnd on the idea of "being wronged", I'm not sure if you were implying that the wronging must be done by one person to another. But under an impersonal system, such as the Babylonian lottery, the wrongdoing would be done by the impersonal force of chance. (This assumes that there is no Company and that the lottery itself is run by chance as well).
I think a good example of our acceptance of arbitrary injustices (aka wrongdoings that are no one's fault) might be being struck by lightning. Or better yet, being killed by lightning. We would hold no one to blame, we would not consider it a crime worthy of just recourse, simply because the force of lightning is something beyond our control.
I disagree. In the Babylonian lottery, there would be murderers, rapists, thieves. The lottery does not perfect humanity (nor its tendency toward evil if left unchecked) it simply provides an arbitrary system of punishment and reward. Furthermore, the Lottery is not a utopia. What kind of utopia randomly punishes its citizens with mutilation and death? Citizens living in constant fear of torture, pain, and death sounds more like a dystopia
ReplyDeleteSecondly, murderers and rapists do not only exist because of the modern legal system. The system was first established in order to deal with them (otherwise, we would have simply accepted anarchy). What need would there be to create a legal system if it would foster murder and rape?
I think our disagreement on this point is really one about human nature and their tendencies without a structured society (I take Hobbes's view) So our conflicting views on this may not be reconcilable (though they are interesting to consider)
I would argue that the reason why rapists rape and murderers murder is that they are able (or at least have the perception) that they can take advantage of the system of justice. I don't know how justify unjust action in a system (like ours) that claims a better, fuller, more realized version of justice.
ReplyDeleteMuch like the discussion about the Honor System, some people will break the honor code because they have the ability to get away with it.
I wouldn't be so quick to say that humans living under The Lottery conditions would live in fear. This may be an initial reaction to a great change in the conception of justice, but I think over time it has the same opportunity to teach people acceptance of their situations in life.
Also, I think you still neglect to understand my point about involuntary wrongdoing by someone other than a human. I think it would be strange, or at least very primitive, to say that lightning punishes whomever it strikes. "Punishment" carries with it the implication that someone is doing the punishing. But in the scenario that I assumed (the lottery's being run by lottery), the impersonal force of chance would strike people much like lightning. What you call punishment in this system, I would call the arbitrary occurence of chance.
You are right to say that we disagree in our views of humanity. You seem to think that human nature, in the midst of an unstructured world, would cower and hide and fear the universe. I believe that, no matter the circumstances, humans will try to make some sense of their situation.
Also please understand that I'm playing devil's advocate here. I think it is a bit tyrannical (and hence unjust) for someone to think that a system is completely unacceptable before making sense of the motivations for such a system. I guess what I'm saying is that justice is best served through discussion and dialogue (or even polylogue). The "modern legal system" allows for more of this discourse, but I'm sure we can all agree that there is room for improvement.
I was wondering about why Babylon has been depicted as a necessarily chaotic place, with no laws and everything constantly changing. Even if the lottery does not perfect human nature, I don’t think it means life would have to be extremely inconsistent, or even ungovernable. I think that because of the complete dominance of chance in the system, down to the very smallest details, that there exist the possibility that a person could live in Babylon having the life they always dreamed of, doing what they desired, while just not realizing that their dreams and desires themselves might be chance.
ReplyDeleteThis goes for law and legal systems too. I don’t think that the lottery necessarily means anarchy. If the system is really driven entirely by chance, there would be no reason why laws and legal systems could not arise by chance, and then by chance stick around for years and years before changing.
While the lottery is definitely not a utopia, I also don’t think it would necessarily be an awful place, and could look just like our own society. Even though the people in the lottery would fear torture, pain, and death, they would also have good reason to hope for health, pleasure, and life. I don’t know. When I read the story I had in my head a normal city. Even here in our own society, people take what they are given and make what they can with it, living in fear that their lots will be bad, hoping that they will be good, but living the same way in either case.
I guess I’m just thinking that pervasiveness of chance in life ultimately doesn’t have to be a huge factor in how people in the lottery, or in our society, actually live. In the end of Borges story, he brings up the idea that perhaps all the Company does with the lottery is determine bird songs and decide the colors of rust and dust. In this case, we are living in a world of chance without really even appreciating or noticing the chance involved with everything.