Today in class, we spent a lot of time going over the issue of "proportionality" when it comes to justice, a.k.a. Justice in Distribution. As mentioned on our precis, this does not mean "an eye for an eye" but instead is a much more complex issue that we, in fact, deal with in our society today. This is, in my belief, what lawyers' jobs entail: to successfully defend their client (whether guilty or innocent) by upholding the laws of society while making sure that the system is JUST to both parties (I am not claiming that all lawyers do this successfully, but that this is the point of lawyers and in our society we would hope that our lawyer would do this for us). The laws and different precedences make the lawyers' jobs a bit more complex and defined, and it is the hope of the system that lawyers themselves promote "general justice" whilst attempting to distribute justice in the fairest way possible.
At the same time, the law is not the only place in which we see the proportionality of justice. Again-- in class we mentioned a few different examples: car insurance, the Fire Department, the Rhodes Honor Code and, most popularly, the idea of a socialized... I mean national... health care (I assume now there is no doubt to where my sentiments lie!). So, is it up to society (or the government?) to determine which of these things can and will truly benefit all of society for the good? Where is the line drawn between inalienable rights, personal insurance, or consumer goods?
I have a personal example of this kind of confusing notion that will hopefully clear some things up. I live in New Orleans, as y'all know, and in my particular neighborhood in the past 10ish years we have had a Neighborhood Watch system. I do not live in a gated community, but in an area similar to the one around Rhodes where crime is a legitimate issue and the neighborhood is comprised mainly of families and old folks. A guard is on duty from 5pm to 5am, essentially during night hours so that residents can have a guard follow their car to their home, patroll the streets and watch out for any suspicious activity. So far, our guard has witnessed and caught people attempting to break into cars and houses, and allows for the neighborhood to feel safe as the "Neighborhood Watch" signs scattered throughout the streets are in attempt to dissuade potential criminals. NOW... my mother was the treasurer of this Neighborhood Association last year and dealt with those residents in the neighborhood who refused to pay for this guard. In effect, there was nothing that made them pay this annual fee--but at the same time, they were recieving this service at the expense of others. Fortunately for my mom, somehow it was made that this fee will actually be paid in TAXES from the government. So, whoop-dee-doo, everyone is forced to pay for the service, whether they want it or not, and although they get to benefit from the system, there is nothing to say that they would have HAD to use the system in the first place... they might never have been robbed or been the victim of a crime.
Arguably, the Neighborhood Watch is a benefit to all, and this is why I would be behind it. The more people pay for this service, the more the service can do for you. The same would follow for the Fire Department and the Honor Code: the more that invest in the system, whether personally or financially, the more successful the system.
So (and I would LOVE to hear from those who are for national healthcare-- how can I believe something if I don't fully understand the other side?) how does having a nationalized healthcare fit into this arguement? In the same sense, does something like car insurance, which some people choose not to pay for (they might NOT have the funds, but I will go so far as to assume that they own some consumer goods that they chose to buy OVER budgeting X amount a month for car insurance) fit into this issue as well? Can proportionality and distribution BENEFIT more than it hurts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think this is a good, although at points digressive, initial foray into the healthcare reform debate. There is just one clarification that I think should be made with your introduction:
ReplyDeleteI think that our "justice system", as you categorize it through Aristotle's lens, isn't an example of distributive justice. In fact, it is (at least in my reading) rectifactory justice. It is in place for the instances (though there are many) when specific injustices are done by someone to someone else. But don't mind this point of mine, unless you like arguing about semantics.
The idea of Distrubitive Justice in the case of your Neighborhood Watch seems to me to be at odds with meritocratic approach that Aristotle suggests should be the way we determine how to justly distribute "divisible goods". To me, the reason for the establishment of a neighborhood watch is not based on merit. When burglars come into your neighborhood and burgle (is that the verb/) your house, they are not necessarily doing it because you have some virtue other than the posessions you own. And this is what merits your need for protection. I hope I'm not wrong in assuming this, but I will go ahead and make the humongous leap that all of the families and old folk in your neighborhood also own stuff. This is what merits the need for a whole neighborhood watch.
As for the idea of "health for all", I (a confessed believer in the idea) think there is something in all of us that merits our needing access to at least basic healthcare. So much like every individual in your neighborhood's owning stuff makes the collective and distributive need for a neighborhood watch just, there is something in every human being that merits the collective and distributive need for healthcare.
What is that essence? I cannot say that I am an expert on the essence of what makes us human. But I will take another humongous leap and tie what makes the need for distributive healthcare to every human's potential for production. Call me Sartre, but I believe that in every human is an immense amount of potentiality. And I think that this essence merits (although I like the term necessitates) access to basic healthcare.
But much like the point about the need for complete investment (either personal or propietary) of all involved, I think the idea of health care for all, should be expanded from the localized debate going about this country's to the healthcare of the whole world.
Maybe a statistical comparison would help me with this last point. In 2002, the average American paid $5,267 on healthcare. Right now half of the world is living on less than or equal to $2.50 a day. If we do the math, half of the world subsists on $912.50 a year. This means that the average American pays more than 5 times for their healthcare than half of the world makes for a living.
Yes, there is a problem with health care. But I'm not sure if we should simply focus on the efficient running of a rich country's health care system while there is such disparity surrounding us.
I apologize for the long, drawn-out comment. Hope it hasn't felt like a waste of time.