Issues People Living in Low-Income and Poor Communities Face
Discrimination, corruption, police brutality, and racism are the major issues faced by people living in low-income and poor communities. According to Victor, H.O.L.L.A healing justice organizer, their community is discriminative against African Americans (H.O.L.L.A!Tv, 2020). The discrimination is manifested through denial of opportunities and police brutality. Therefore, African American youths are more likely to go to jail than any other race in the U.S. According to Keron, in the video, states that many youths end up in prison through trumped-up charges (H.O.L.L.A!Tv, 2020, 33:24-33:40). The majority of them suffer from physical and psychological torture. Additionally, denial of job opportunities has led to bad choices by them. For instance, the discriminated youth sell drugs and engage in other criminal activities.
Racism and Sexism
Racism and sexism are the major issues faced by the youths featured in the film. Racism involves discrimination against a person’s ethnic background (Haeny et al., 2021). Meanwhile, sexism involves discrimination and stereotyping based on one’s gender (Cortina et al., 2021). The two issues created a negative environment for the youths featured in the documentary. For instance, the rest of the community perceived the Black youths as criminals. Consequently, the police would be brutal on them, and they ended up in jail for crimes they never committed. Women such as those of Asian origin were believed to be weak and incapable of doing things that other Americans could do (H.O.L.L.A!Tv, 2020, 22:50-23:20). Therefore, the affected individual developed a negative attitude toward themselves and their culture. The negative environment exacerbated indulgence in drugs and other forms of crime.
Oppression, Trauma, and Inaccessibility to Opportunities
Oppression, trauma, and unequal access to opportunities can be detrimental to personal success and social growth. Oppression caused stigmatization amongst the youths affected, making them hate their history and culture. Some of the youths thought of committing suicide, while others did not want to be called Africans. The trauma led to drug abuse by the affected youths and increased hatred against other races in the U.S (H.O.L.L.A!Tv, 2020, 29:00-35:56). Meanwhile, the denial of accessibility to job opportunities increased the involvement in selling illegal drugs to the youths. Some of the youths resorted to crimes as a means of meeting their daily basic needs. Therefore, trauma, oppression, and lack of opportunities affected the victims and society at large.
The Community Organizing Goal
“We Came to Heal” was produced as part of the H.O.L.L.A’s Healing Justice Movement. The organization started the movement to bring the youth of color and American communities together to heal and resist oppression (H.O.L.L.A., n.d.). The organization adopted personal story narrations by those who have been affected as an example of the problems associated with oppression. Additionally, the organization promoted self-awareness among the youths to help them accept their cultural backgrounds. Consequently, the youths accepted themselves and promoted socially cohesive activities such as a showcase of individual talents in overcoming oppression.
The powerfulness of the Community Organizing Movement
Healing Justice Movement is powerful because of the strategies adopted to achieve its goal. The organization has used real-life stories as an explanation of the negative influences of oppression and other social issues such as racism. “We Came to Heal” documentary features youths who have been discriminated against in one way or another. The youths featured tell their oppressive stories and how they overcame the influence of their experiences (H.O.L.L.A!Tv, 2020). Additionally, the organization has chosen popular media to send its message to the world. Social media platforms such as YouTube are significant in attracting youths who are obsessed with social change. Furthermore, the Healing Justice Movement is powerful and effective since it uses victims as solution-finders. Therefore, the movement is effective in achieving its goal because of the social change strategies adopted.
According to Rawls, justice is a matter of fairness, and he identifies it as the first virtue of social institutions. In contrast to the conventional utilitarian and intuitionist notions of justice, he outlines his objective for a theory based on the social contract idea. When appealing against what he sees as the mainstream theory, Rawl claims that the utilitarian theory of justice does not directly care about how the distribution of the total amount of satisfaction among people functions (Sandel et al., 2009). This is true because utilitarianism does not take the distinction between people seriously. In this regard, it does not give enough consideration to either equality or freedom.
The Theory of Justice by John Rawls offers a unique, compelling viewpoint for making political assessments while drawing on past intellectuals. Justice theories of hypothetical consent are more persuasive and are more in line with Rawls’ theory of justice. While not impervious to scrutiny, his ideas and findings offer a compelling argument for liberal egalitarianism. His influence can be seen widely in public policy and philosophy, especially in accepting the necessity of distributional effect evaluations. In his works, Rawls offers the theory of justice as a conceptual basis for making choices. In his unique perspective on justice, Rawls also advocates for people to make political judgments based on fundamental moral principles. This demonstrates the values an impartial individual would select and how justice can help debunk incomplete, possibly unintentional preconceptions.
One of the questions to ask Rawls would be whether non-social goods and ills ought to be included in the distributional profiles that establish justice judgments, as well as whether it is possible to create the institutional order so that the distribution of social benefits and responsibilities is adapted to the distribution of non-social goods and ills. Another question would be his second concept of justice, which states that positions of authority and riches must be tied to those open to all people and benefit everyone. In light of this, how should one take these words from Rawls’ viewpoint, and why does he believe that less stringent readings would result in injustice? The other query is whether fair social mobility is a separate, supplementary condition of justice or whether it is exclusively based on the distributional profile. The final question would be whether a differentiation between various causal routes is pertinent to judging an institutional order’s justice.
I once entered into a contract with someone who wanted me to sell a building I had recently purchased, which would be one instance from my life that can substantially help illustrate the principles of justice offered by Rawls. The central claim of Rawls is that fundamental rights and responsibilities and the distribution of social benefits are ascertained by the principles of justice, which are the object of an initial agreement. As a result, those who engage in social cooperation choose these principles jointly in a specific instance. This was the situation since I had consented to sell my property, and the price was mutually agreed upon. It is similar to Rawls’ idea of a natural state in which pre-social but fully rational individuals agree on cooperative norms or in which pre-political beings with prior natural rights coincide on the structure of a political constitution. It also outlines the original stance, which Rawls views as a good starting point for a social contract, but that is primarily an alternative. In general, Rawls’ principle of justice maintains that the formation of society results from an agreement between individuals made for their mutual benefit, as was my case.
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a multi-stakeholder system of corporate governance and target value based on the extension of fiduciary duties towards all of the firm’s partners. Compared to other theories of justice, the Rawls theory’s application to the social contract on CSR yields quite the incorrect conclusion. When Rawlsian notion of justice is added into CSR, it is frequently problematic for the impartial agreement to select the constitution with the most egalitarian solution among all the feasible alternative options in a way that is consistent with the need for self-sustainability. As a result, it is not possible to compare workable egalitarian solutions under different forms using the theory of Rawls on justice which is generally accepted.
The fact that the social contract’s chosen outcome is not a part of the set of impartial equilibria, notably the autonomous institution, compels the conclusion, which is not apparent from the requirement. In this case, efficiency, welfare maximization, and the decrease of overall transaction costs all come before fairness quite an unusual configuration. Intuitively, a Rawlsian redress principle is not the obvious solution to the legitimacy issue with ownership and control rights distributions in CSR. They unfairly disadvantage one party relative to other non-controlling stakeholders to offer an incentive to that party. It is uncommon for shareholders, executives, and the person in charge of making discretionary decisions within the organization to be explicitly bound by the Rawlsian principles of extended fiduciary duties and equitable balance among various stakeholders.
The application of four educational lenses to one concept can provide an opportunity for a detailed analysis of different aspects of one topic. In the case of justice, the application of history, natural sciences, humanities, and social sciences lenses presents different points of view on the topic of justice and its meaning. Firstly, from the point of social sciences, which study human behavior and relationships with other people, justice is perceived as equity and mutual respect between the members of society. Furthermore, concepts associated with social sciences’ perception of justice present such topics as inclusion, diversity, and gender equality (Camiré et al., 2022). Therefore, the social aspect of justice defines what kind of relations between members of society are favorable and fair.
On the other hand, the lens of the natural sciences focuses on the examination of the physical world. While justice is not a physical object, the application of principles and findings from natural sciences presents an important part of the concept of justice. For example, the principle of punitive action for crimes is sourced from natural sciences (Razgildiev & Nasirov, 2019). Furthermore, justice also uses the evidence system based on the principles of natural sciences. Therefore, even though justice is not directly related to natural sciences, it uses the principles of natural laws.
The similarity between the lenses of social sciences and natural sciences is that both use similar data collection methods in observing objects and studying their relationships. However, the application of the lenses to the topic of justice established that the concept uses the information from the two areas of science for different purposes. Thus, social sciences provide an idea of what justice should be in relations between people, while natural sciences provide knowledge about possible mechanisms for the functioning of the justice system.
Viewing any concept or situation through different lenses allows one to look at them from a new perspective. These lenses include history, social sciences, humanities, and natural sciences. These aspects must be considered to understand the concept of justice better. In this case, the assessment of the idea of justice will be as accurate and objective as possible. In addition, a comprehensive evaluation of the concept can help understand what improvements or changes need to be made.
When considering justice through a historical lens, the question arises of how the justice system was shaped. It was not always the way we know it now. Moreover, different countries have different laws formed under the influence of external circumstances and historical events. The historical prism makes it possible to assess the existing facts and objectively analyze justice formation.
In addition, justice always implies a certain type of relationship between people. However, the question arises of how significant the social contribution to the development of justice is. For example, Celermajer et al. (2020) note that children do not make a definite contribution to the system yet demand just as much fair treatment as adults. Therefore, although the basis of justice is interpersonal relations, it was formed based on the individual rights and needs of each individual.
If the individual is at the center of justice, then, analyzing it through a humanities lens, one can ask whether justice is always good. What to do in cases where justice is contrary to personal morality? To maintain the political and social system, justice must be universal. However, people differ in culture, traditions, and ethical and moral standards (Celermajer et al., 2020). Therefore, at a minimum, social justice must consider these factors to guarantee equal and fair treatment for all members of society.
From the perspective of the natural sciences, it would be interesting to know more about the psychological aspect, particularly how much of an influence fear has on people’s compliance with the norms of justice. It primarily applies to criminal justice. Laws, regulations, and punishments are designed to prevent people from violating generally accepted social standards of behavior. Theoretically, the punishment system should influence the psychology and subconscious of a person, instilling fear. However, people continue to commit offenses, indicating that the system is not working as expected.
References
Celermajer, D., Chatterjee, S., Cochrane, A., Fishel, S., Neimanis, A., O’brien, A., Reid, S., Srinivasan, K., Schlosberg, D., & Waldow, A. (2020). Justice Through a Multispecies Lens. Contemporary Political Theory, 19, 475–512. Web.
Quality scientific papers have different goals; however, all authors must consider and adhere to ethical codes when writing their papers. Such an aspect as confidentiality is one of the most important when studying any group of people and various aspects related to their lives, professional activity, and health. Thus, an analysis of the correctness of compliance with ethical codes is necessary to understand their importance and the principles for their adherence.
Discussion
The article in question by Semedo, Stålnacke, and Stenberg is an example of a qualitative study conducted to explore coping with chronic pain and depression in immigrant women. The authors describe in detail the ethical principles observed during the study. Semedo et al. (2020) claim that in their work, all interviewed women were thoroughly informed of the basic rules of the survey, among which was the provision that the identities of all respondents would be hidden. This is an example of a measure that has been taken to uphold the ethical principles of qualitative research.
Another example of a measure aimed at ensuring confidentiality and fairness is signing an agreement by all participants. After a written review of the experimental conditions, the researchers confirmed all the principles and ethical measures taken aloud for better clarification (Semedo et al., 2020). Thus, this confirmation of all the consequences of the paper by the authors for the interviewees is proof of the implementation of the principles of confidentiality.
Conclusion
It can be concluded that the authors of the article adhered to the established ethical principles of fairness in conducting their research. This is an indicator of a quality paper that is written, taking into account the basic requirements for scientific work. Thus, we can assume that scientists have tried to take all possible measures to achieve the best possible scientific result.
The debate between peace and justice has been a longstanding and complicated matter. Amnesties, aimed at promoting national reconciliation and ending civil wars, are seen as a means to achieve peace. However, amnesties can also be controversial as they may protect perpetrators from being held accountable for their actions. The appropriate circumstances for using amnesties might be in cases where the crimes committed are less severe. Amnesty may be more appropriate as a means of resolving a conflict, also worth bearing the likelihood of successful prosecution. The examples of Argentina, Spain, and Brazil illustrate the complex nature of amnesties and the potential consequences they may have.
The Lei de Anistia, or Amnesty Law, passed in Brazil in 1979, granted immunity to individuals responsible for political crimes committed during the 1964-1985 military dictatorship from facing legal consequences. The law was initially intended to provide a framework for national reconciliation and to allow activists in exile to return to Brazil (McAnarney & Montgomery, 2019). However, military officials abused the law for their shield from being held accountable for human rights crimes.
In Spain, a 1977 amnesty law was enacted to help move the country away from its past during the Civil War and Franco’s dictatorship. The law provided amnesty for political prisoners and ended trials against Francoist officials, but it also prevented victims from seeking justice for crimes committed during the dictatorship. Today, Spain is grappling with the consequences of the amnesty law and how it has prevented the full accountability of the past (Democracy Now, 2018). Argentina provides a different example of the effects of amnesties. In 1986, a presidential amnesty was given to individuals who engaged in human rights violations during the 1976-1983 military rule in the country. The pardon sparked a public outcry and led to a push for accountability and the eventual repeal of the amnesty.
In conclusion, the examples of Argentina, Spain, and Brazil suggest that amnesties have both positive and negative effects. These developments may result in national reconciliation, but they can also shield perpetrators from prosecution. The consequences of amnesties are felt not only by the victims of the past but also by potential future victims. A strong judicial system that protects the honor of victims and prevents atrocities is essential for achieving the goals of human rights, citizenship, and democracy.
John Rawls has outlined two principles through which he has based his views concerning justice, in the first one; a person who is involved or affected by practice has the right to be liberated from it. In this principle, there is always a justification if one proves that they had all the reasons not to behave as required. The second one states that; inequalities are subjective and they cannot always work to one’s advantage. (Rawls, 2001) This principle describes a set of different societies that have to follow certain practices which make them be judged according to what is required of them at their respective positions. It is to be noted that although there is a difference in how resources are distributed in this principle, the results will always work out for the good of everyone concerned. The two principles present justice as freedom, equality, and the compensation of the good done. When for instance a society has set guidelines, the responsibility depends on a person’s capability and social status. In such a setting, therefore there is no feeling of discrimination. In situations where the society comprises of people of the same ability and status, they will come together and define principles that will be comfortable to them. These guidelines will always be referred to in case of a problem. Conflicts come about when the set rules cannot work and a certain party feels undermined. In that case, when found appropriate, they are revised and a fair line is drawn to suit all. (Rawls, 2001)
When it comes to moral principles, it is expected that one has to act accordingly, whether it will be of benefit to him or not. The question of justice will mostly arise when the interests of individuals are self-centered and none of them is willing to give it up for the benefit of the other. Each one of them expects judgment to come in their favor. When it comes to a group of people with similar practices, they will follow a particular routine that has been generally agreed on. All their actions are aimed at fulfilling a particular goal. Failure to accomplish this by any of the members will be looked at as a letdown to the group and in such cases, the member may decide to detach himself from the group if he finds the conditions unbearable. Fairness and justice are connected in a way that people will feel being treated fairly when the circumstances and situations around them are satisfied and none of them feels burdened by the other. A point of justice and fairness is reached when both parties mutually acknowledge their responsibilities and are ready to work hard to achieve their goals. When it comes to justice, it is all about an individual benefiting from certain procedures. (Rawls, 2001)
Fairness involves merging the interests of individuals and drawing procedures that will equally benefit all. The interests of some individuals may not be adequately met because it is all about sacrificing for the majority. A practice is considered to be just if it is by the laid down criteria. However, may not always work and they have to make adjustments that will be accepted and agreed on.
From the two concepts, we find that when a group of people is governed by set guidelines; those guidelines are to be followed and adapted in every aspect of their lives. The rules are made collectively by these people who share similar interests. As they are being made, care is taken to ensure that they are acceptable and practical. When a conflict arises, these guidelines are referred to find a solution that will be accepted. In this case, no consideration is given to a party concerning what is suitable for him or her. However, if the set guidelines become less practical to a certain extent, they are amended and the seemingly suitable ones are put in place. When the set laws have to be frequently changed to suit a certain situation, a lot of issues may be compromised which will affect a group of people who are not influential. The rules end up favoring only those that are in a good position to protest. On the other hand, when they are strictly followed, there will be no time wasted to solve a problem; this is because the guidelines have been written down and can always be revisited in case of doubt. They also make people personally take responsibility for their actions, knowing that failure to do what is required will lead them into problems.
When we look at fairness, the procedures that are followed are not discriminative; judgment is reached after because each person has different responsibilities and capabilities. It is expected that these individuals receive what they deserve even if it is of the same measure, yet acceptable as appropriate. This principle does not require any adjustments because every case is treated as it comes considering the factors. It may be difficult though to find an appropriate solution in situations where one has to be on the losing side for the other one to gain. Something is considered fair when no one is made to suffer for the sake of the other. It may not be easy to bring together or find people who share the same interests because we live in a society of diversity and there are specific rules that will always work out justly for all. If each person has to be considered according to the need of the hour, mistakes are bound to happen that may be difficult to correct. (Rawls, 2001)
Rawls’ view of justice is contradictory and is not practical if true justice has to be found. According to him, justice is determined by laws that have been laid down by the people who share interests. However, these laws are subject to change if the parties feel that their concepts cannot work. This implies that the laws are made according to the prevailing situations which render them unreliable by the parties who depend on them. A society needs rules that they can always rely on to administer justice to them, as much as they need to be dynamic, they should not be changed to compromise the morality of the society.
The public administration has a greater role to play in ensuring that the public receives fair judgment on their actions. (Richard, 2007) When setting rules to govern the people, the administration office should have an analysis of the people’s way of life. They should understand that people have different lifestyles, cultures, and backgrounds. They should try as much as they can to provide equal services that will not prove discriminative to any individual. (Richard, 2007)
The administration should ensure that the set guidelines are adhered to and those found with any offense should be prosecuted and punished accordingly. By doing this, they will always ensure that law and order are maintained. Each person found with an offense should be given punishment to discourage repetition of the same mistake. Corruption has been a major drawback in administering justice; it has been a means that has always been used by the fortunate in society to undermine the needs of the less fortunate. If the administration takes its stand and completely refuses to engage in practices that will promote this deed, the dream towards a just society shall be realized. Peoples’ cultural and religious practices should be considered when administering justice. This will ensure that the religious values are maintained by the individuals being prosecuted.
In conclusion, no rule will always be justified as fair. With a diversity of culture and the changing values, laws are subject to change to fit the current demands. It is also true that the laws of a group of people are made by the opinions of the majority. In this case, the rights of the minority are compromised yet they are accepted as the only means of displaying fairness. (Rawls, 2001)
References
Rawls J. (2001): Justice as Fairness: Harvard University Press.
Richard C. (2007): Democracy and public administration: M.E Sharpe.
The issue of justice is one of the most actively discussed questions in the area of political philosophy. In his book Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do?, Michael Sandel discusses different theories of justice with reference to real-life examples and controversial questions that can be posed with the focus on this or that theory and their realizations in the fields of politics and social life. Thus, Sandel (2010) concentrates on discussing utilitarianism, libertarianism, and the theory of Immanuel Kant in the first part of the book, and in the second part of his work, the focus is on describing the principles of John Rawls’s vision and Aristotle’s views. The purpose of this review is to discuss Sandel’s ideas presented in the second part of the book and analyze such main points provided by the author as the role of equality, outcomes of affirmative action, loyalty, and the common good.
Background Information
Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? is the book written by Sandel in order to support his Harvard course. In this work, the author presents the summary and analysis of the most important ideas regarding justice in the context of politics that have been discussed by Sandel for about thirty years. As a result, the book is aimed at providing the author’s clear vision regarding the idea of justice with the focus on the theories that support this concept. From this point, the criteria for judging the book are the following ones: the author’s approach to discussing the theories of justice and attractiveness of the proposed form of narration to the reader.
Summary
In the second part of his book, Sandel concentrates on discussing the problem of respecting people’s rights and freedoms with the focus on Rawls’s theory. In the sixth chapter of the book, Sandel (2010) poses the important question regarding individuals’ equality in society and asks: “why are we obligated to obey the law?” (p. 140). The author pays attention to the concepts of ‘consent’ and ‘reciprocity’ in this context. Sandel (2010) concludes that, according to Rawls, “the way to think about justice is to ask what principles we would choose in an original position of equality, behind a veil of ignorance” (p. 151). Thus, it is important for people to determine the principles of justice and equality while accepting the specific position in society, the ‘veil of ignorance’.
In the seventh chapter, the author also discusses the problem of affirmative action in the context of equality and justice. Sandel (2010) states that there are two rationales that determine the development of debates regarding affirmative action, and they are “the compensatory argument and the diversity argument” (p. 170). While following these arguments, the society draws conclusions on whether it is just to compensate the mistakes of the past with the focus on current racial relationships and whether it is just to promote diversity without paying attention to the needs of whites.
The eighth chapter presents the author’s argument regarding Aristotle’s theory. According to Sandel (2010), the society is just if its members are focused on cultivating virtues and following obligations. It is possible to achieve the good life if the society is not only just but also interested in discussing moral issues. Following Aristotle’s ideas, the just society can be developed with the help of actions taken by politicians, and politics is important to achieve the good life (Sandel, 2010). The reason is that politics should promote virtues that are set by the society as important to build the good life.
In the ninth chapter, Sandel continues to discuss the problems of justice, and the author focuses on the problem of loyalty and apologies usually given by authorities for actions or steps that were not committed by them. As a result, the author draws the reader’s attention to the important problem of individuals’ and authorities’ responsibilities in the context of society. Thus, Sandel (2010) asks the question: “Should government be morally neutral?” (p. 215). The final chapter of the book is aimed at summarizing the author’s main idea and his approach to discussing justice with the focus on the theory of cultivating virtues. From this point, according to Sandel, justice is a way to guarantee the common good in society through the ways of promoting virtues.
Evaluation
The goal of the book is to analyze theories of justices with the focus on real-life examples and outcomes that are referred to the field of politics. It is important to note that the author has achieved his goal since the book provides the detailed analysis of the key theories that is supported with evidence and discussions. As a result, the book directly targets its audience that involves students and other people interested in questions of justice in the context of modern society and politics. Furthermore, it is also possible to identify the key lesson of the book. According to Sandel (2010), justice in society should have the goal that is to cultivate virtues to achieve the good for all people. Therefore, politicians and other individuals should concentrate on such issues as affirmative action, equality, and loyalty among others and address them while determining the principles of the just society that can lead people to the common good.
The book’s strengths are in providing not only strong arguments but also thought-provoking questions. Thus, Sandel’s arguments are associated with the theory of justice, and they are supported by real-life examples. In addition, the author involves readers in a discussion of moral and political conflicts and dilemmas with the help of asking controversial questions. As a result, readers receive an opportunity to explore complex theoretical aspects of justice in the context of political philosophy with the focus on detailed but interesting summaries of these theories. However, some readers can argue that the provision of summaries of the theories is a weakness of the book because more aspects of justice can be discussed in the context of the explored issues. Still, it is possible to state that the book is interesting while being presented in that specific form it has because it includes a range of stories, anecdotes, and descriptions of historical events that add to understanding the material and associating it with personal experiences.
Conclusion
In his book Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do?, Sandel pays much attention to discussing political and moral aspects of the idea of justice through the lenses of theories that exist in the field of philosophy. As a result, his idea that the purpose of justice is to guarantee creating the common good with the help of cultivating virtues by means of politics seems to be convincing. For further research in the field, it is possible to address more theories, including modern ones, in order to receive the complex vision of the problem of justice in the contemporary society. The book is important to be examined by students and other categories of readers because of a clear manner of presenting significant arguments and questions regarding the problems of equality, affirmative action, just actions, and loyalty.
Reference
Sandel, M. J. (2010). Justice: What’s the right thing to do? New York, NY: Macmillan.
By virtue of the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy entries, both justice and social equity can be explained in relation to distributive justice and justice as a virtue. Justice can be defined as the concept of the rightness of morals. These morals are based on inter alia law, equity, ethics or natural law backed by sanctions in case of breach. On the other hand, social equity refers to the just and fair distribution of resources in a given society.
The Concept of justice and Social Equity
The concept of distributive justice is governed by normative principles that have been designed for purposes of guiding the allocation, as well as benefits and detriments of economic activity. The concept of distributive justice tends to observe strict egalitarianism that calls for the allocation of material goods in equal amounts to all.
For example, where a resource of public utility like electricity is in question, then all parts of the society should benefit from this resource as opposed to it being enjoyed by only a portion of members of the society.
Furthermore, distributive justice also maintains the ‘different principle’ that permits allocation in cases where it is contrary to strict equality, but its effect is not detrimental. This means that its effect must be in such a way that the least advantage in the society is in better condition materially than under the strict equality (Lamont 2007).
Justice as a virtue is further reflected in the Stanford Encyclopedia (Lamont 2007). It refers to individual’s traits that could be good or bad. The phrase is evidently ambiguous and may thus vary depending on individuals or social applications. Historically, both Aristotle and Plato’s perceptions of justice as a virtue proved that they were rationalists.
The two scholars employed the role of reason in their perception of what was just and fair. A good example is the fact that, it is considered unjust when one refuses to pay a debt or steals.
Ethical thinkers have thus supported the fact that, justice is not based on mere sentiments. Instead, they advocate for a more intellectual and constructive rational in determining what is just. More scholars have also presented their distinct opinions about justice as a virtue using both virtual and non-virtual approaches.
Threats to Justice and Social Equity
In his article, Frederickson reveals the existing connection between social equity and justice (2008). Additionally, he also outlays the challenges that befall social equity in both society and public administration. The author talks about Philip J. Rutledge in his leadership implemented in public administration and social equity (Frederickson 2008).
Evidently, social equity can be influenced by the changing attitudes existing towards fairness and governmental programs that are aimed at bringing equality. The challenges that affect social justice are said to be based on racial and gender prejudices, as opposed to existing economic differences. Ethnicity and race therefore puts the ‘poverty face’ on and also gives it an identity.
A good example in where it affects the Hispanic, African American, Indians and also native Americans who, according to the article, were only 3 percent of enrolled students in the University of California (Fredericks 2008).
In the book “The State of social equity in America Public Administration”, more is revealed about threats that are faced by social justice and equity. Over the years, public administration is said to have led the way when it comes to social equity.
Historically, this concept of social equality in public administration was emphasized on matters concerning service delivery, gender and race in employment as well as democratic participation. The situation has since then improved but still ought to be addressed because equity is today defined in a much broader way (Frederickson 2010).
Conclusion
In a nutshell, the concept of justice and social equity is inevitable when it comes to public administration and thus of high importance. Despite the fact that justice and social equity has improved over the years, there still exist certain threats that act as a stumbling block as discussed above.
References
Fredrickson, H. (2008). Social Equity in the Twenty-First Century: An Essay in Memory of Philip J. Rutledge. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 14(1): 1-8.
Fredrickson, H. (2010). Social Equity and Public Administration: Origins, Developments and Applications. New York: M.E Sharpe.
Lamont, J. (2007). Distributive Justice. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web.
The Mahabharata covers the concerns faced in everyday living and provides solutions to them. It clarifies the definitions of happiness, health, pleasure, wealth, and truths. It relates one’s mentality and daily deeds to one’s future as well as defines freedom, captivity, wisdom and foolishness, death, governance, and their foundations. The Mahabharata deals with just about everything that affects people in life (Dharma 54).
The Mahabharata challenges the obvious view of violence. It advocates for non-violence towards the others and to oneself. The highest dharma is non-violence, and the greatest gift is freedom. The Mahabharata shows that everything in life is interconnected and interrelated. Every aspect of man’s life is relational. A person has one enemy, ignorance of which is worsened by the existence of cruelty in him and the others.
The Mahabharata traces the roots of violence and shows its impact on an individual and society in general. It also gives remedy to situations and sentiments, such as anger, revenge, enmity that may otherwise lead to violence. Below is an illustration of how the Mahabharata approaches the topic of non-violence.
Benefits of non-violence
Revealing one’s love can save the life of the others. One should be kind to the people as another person is a replica of oneself. Death is a disaster. Death is a fearful tragedy to every living being, thus one should strive to avoid causing death to anyone as the other person is his/her own reflection (Mahabharata-parva 116.8,17). The intelligent man should advocate for non-violence as it is a show of one’s value for one’s life and seeing that life in the life of the others (Dharma 24).
Anger is justified when it is to restore justice
The goodness or badness of the deed is dependent on the place and timing of such an action. This is to mean that a good deed may be considered bad with a slight variation of the circumstances the deed occurred. Force and forgiveness are two conflicting truths which are enshrined in all sought of human relationships, both personal and societal. Force can be used only for self-defense and justice, whereas forgiveness liberates oneself from the power of hatred and vengeance. In Adi parva of the Mahabharata, three stories of Aurva enable us to acknowledges that anger is justified in certain situations of life. Revenge is the ultimate justice to causing such anger.
The Mahabharata explores the morality of revenge by using the persona of Ashvasthama who is Guru Drona’s grieving son. Ashvasthama’s anger is a result of the war where he and two other kaurava survived. At the end of this story, the Mahabharata shows that the world can be easily destroyed with help of anger and revenge. These two great powers exceed the impact of physical weapons even if they seem to be irrelevant and small. Just like firing a gun, using the weapons of anger and revenge can only be managed by persons with self-control, with a heart of forgiveness and reconciliation.
Lord Krishna depicts forgiveness and reconciliation as the greatest pilgrimages. Forgiveness is the surest way of showing compassion and the one element that units the world. However, constant forgiveness may be a sign of weakness and defects, according to Draupadi. Forgiveness may be the source of contempt to one who is seen to always forgive.
The case against war and enmity
According to Yudhister, there is no victorious side of a war. The winner feels just as bad as the loser. Even with a victory, the winning armies suffer great losses and experience the same feeling of loss and grieve as the defeated party. The destruction of prosperity for both the sides is alike. The obstruction of peace resonates to war. In the family set up, once the enmity starts, the memory of such a feeling is in the family history forever. The enmity does not stop even if the member who was its initiator dies; in fact, it can last without obvious reasons for quite a long time.
Violence in words
We use language to express affection, friendship, and love. The Mahabharata asks those who wish to cultivate appropriate speech ought to speak the truth avoiding violence and condemnation of others. The words are likened to arrows that can burn the life of a victim hurt by the word down. Those who are wise enough should avoid using hurtful words because the tree pierced by arrows can still grow, but one’s wounds caused by hurtful words can never heal. Whereas the head of the spear can be removed from the flesh, the spear of hurtful words cannot be pulled off from the heart. A wise man should not use harsh words that demean or agitate another individual. Hurtful words create enmity. Speech that is untrue is deemed a hurtful speech.
Women, wealth, natural conflicts, previous offences and speech are the five causes of enmity. Of all five, speech comprises all. The characteristics of good speech, however, include silence, truth, pleasant speaking and one that is founded on dharma (Dharma, 56).
Violence to oneself
Samnyasa means the state of upholding the foundations of dharma or simply developing and possessing a self-control. This does not mean that a person should deny of the joys of life but rather gain the knowledge of the right places of doing anything. Pain and denial of one’s bodily passions are not the necessities of finding out the true nature of oneself. Greed, anger, insincerity, falsehood, vanity, and pride are innate personal traits that injure one before the impact is felt by those around us. There is a relationship between the mind and one’s body. Thus, the mind is the root of all the violence.
Liberty from fear
Liberty from fear is a gift to life. It is said that kindness liberates a person from fear in as much as one liberates another from the same kind of fear. People with compassion towards the others or those who are open in their relationship with the world are establishing inner unity with dharma. Unhappiness can only be cured if one stops thinking about the past and focuses on other things in the present. the Mahabharata concludes that for enjoying the material prosperity, there must be peace and freedom from death (Dharma 2006 p 340)
The insights and the lessons learnt from the Subtle Art of Dharma
Important insights can be derived from the Subtle Art of Dharma and adopted by all people in their daily life, especially nowadays when the financial crisis has hit everyone in the globe. The book written by one of the leading management experts Gurcharan Das offers important lessons that are founded on dharma. Dharma, which means virtue or law that guides one while deciding what is morally and ethically right, sets order to every human being. The art guides people through the current economic crisis as it describes a real situation opposed to an ideal one. Dharma appreciates the fact that true happiness is the result of maintaining a certain balance of life and morality.
The balance is achieved when one lives within a certain structure of beliefs that protects the person from acting wrong and gives solutions to the issues of our mind and body (Das par.2). It is, therefore, a practical reference to seek lessons of life and public policy formulation in the case of governance. The story of Draupadi best illustrates the true essence of dharma. Draupadi is queen and wife to Yudhishthira. She questions need to be good in the world where there exists the possibility of seeking wealth at the expense of fairness and goodness. She ponders over why the good is reduced to those on the streets and not given to them as the price of their good deeds. Her husband responds to these questions claiming that it is their responsibility to be good.
His response is based on dharma. According to the king, karma is the produce of good deeds. These deeds restore the balance of dharma in the world in the end. Failure to honor commitments would lead to the collapse of the social order and the governing law (Dharma, 234).
In the face of the recent economic crisis
Dharma laws have been inherently ignored because all the individuals involved made the choice of rationality. In the United States, everyone got the opportunity to get a mortgage at the low interest’s rates. Irrespective of the fact that house prices were at the time rising, it could be a great chance for all the participants to gather lots of return, thus in the event of the collapse of the estate market, all participants are to be blamed. A fine boundary is drawn between self-interest and selfishness in dharma. The economic crisis was caused by people who were not credit worthy receiving loans for which they did not have an ability to pay.
Shareholders were exposed to losses as the financial institutions bought the shaky products (Das par. 7). The financial regulators came into effect too late and upon public persuasion. All parties involved in this crisis were seen pushing for their self-interests. Guided by rationale, the leaders sought to punish the extortionists through taxation of the bonus. Guided by dharma, the authorities would have requested a voluntary return of the bonuses.
The sin of capitalism is greed; therefore, as capitalism grows in a society, it weakens it having a negative influence on it. A society of savers is replaced by one of spendthrifts (Das par. 9). Completion results from the free market. While this kind of competition may be destructive, it is beneficial in stimulating economic growth and human welfare as well in some way. Dharma calls for a needed balance between destructive and constructive competition.
Policy makers should not merely concentrate on the capitalism or communism but put their attention on creating a balanced mix of regulations. Dharma does not advocate for ideal situations but give guidelines for doing only good. It recognizes that man has self-interest to enrich himself, thus dharma gives a coherent guide to these desires in the discipline of ordered existence (Das par. 10).
In conclusion, dharma teaches that man should live with the imperfections of daily living but seek for regulation that identifies the bad ones and rewards those who adhere to dharma by practicing nobility. The book shows the reasons why the Mahabharata is all time classic and considered.
An epic that guides in all matters relating to politics, morality and public policy
The comparison of Simone Weil’s reading of the Iliad in the Iliad or the poem of force.
In her essay, Simone Weil examine the recklessness of a conqueror that has no respect for all the things and people who are at his mercy. She talks of despair in a soldier that leads him to destruction. She writes of the helpless state of the slaves and conquered person. All these elements in her work are combined to create a picture of horror where force is the only main character. Force, according to Simone Weil, means not only physical power or its scientific calculation but the thing that turns somebody who is subjected to force into someone worthwhile. Force is the entity capable of reflective but negative implications on the lives of those it touches.
Heroes resort to force when their rational sensibility is replaced with the need to kill their enemies. This type of force is referred to the one that kills. Weil’s view of the hero who has slain a person as an inevitable consequence of a force has been generated by war. Weils uses Homer’s description of death to juxtapose these with the serenity of a home. Weil alludes that Homer prefers peace to war. This is illustrated in her text at the point she alludes to force as a gross way of inflicting death on someone.
The Iliad is marred with bloodshed where a two hundred and twenty Trojans and Achaeans are killed. A dozen others are divided between the two sides and injured. Homer describes the killings by either giving a detailed description of a killing or approaches this by giving the lists of persons who died as a result of the war. Weil uses the descriptions provided by Homer of the killing taking place in the battlefield to describe her own situations of love as shown in the Iliad.
She concludes that pure love does not exist. Yet it is in those moments of love when the souls are united. She states that that all forms of love, for beloved ones, parents, friends and even the dead, live in the hearts of men. Her view is that the Iliad does not have moments of grace but that lack is sufficient to make the reader regret the killings that are the result of violence.
Homer’s use of grotesque illustrations of decapitation along tender deeds of care is an indicator of his assertion that the illustrations provide a checklist showing the way in which man can be reduced to objects that can be destroyed. Weil’s view on these inductions is that they are based on animal instincts (Dharma 249).
Weil also talks of the peculiar lack in presence. She asserts that anyone, who is not presently in the vicinity, cannot exercise any sought of power over one. This is because people possess a presence that demands to be treated according to a type of living. This is indicative of the human need to be recognized by those around us. The situation between Priam and Achilles calls her to make this conclusion. Hector prefers to be dead instead of witnessing the enslavement of his son and wife. Death would be a better option as opposed to slavery. Weil agrees with Hector’s sentiments that death would be more meaningful than a life as a shell (Dharma 340).
The associations Draupadi in Mahasweta’s story with Draupadi in The Mahabharata?
Draupadi in the Mahabharata is a prominent Hindu woman who displays her character by the deeds in the epic. Draupadi, in this epic, is portrayed showing her individuality, determination for justice, and strength. The woman’s character has become a source of empowerment and a renowned role model of the Hindu woman as a wife and religious woman. She is a prominent heroine in the Mahabharata. She has a magnetic beauty that made her irresistible.
As such, she is glorified by her five husbands, and these lead them to seek vengeance on the Kauravas on her behalf for the embarrassment she faced in their hands. She has human feelings of love, hatred, anger, grief, and happiness though she is viewed as the mother goddess of fire. The completion of her vengeance conforms of her divine nature, thus, transforming her into the goddess of fire worth worshiping by all those who wish to emulate her virtues (Dharma 240).
Draupadi in the Mahasweta is not romanticized. Draupadi, in this story unlike in the Mahabharata, is a palimpsest and a living contradiction. She suffers in the arms of the army officer who degrades her. She is not presented as a historical figure but just like in the Mahabharata, she loves her husband and possesses political faith, which is her way of showing her faithfulness to him.