ETHICS PART 8: THE VIRTUE OF JUSTICE
A few years back, I got selected to be a juror in a criminal trial. The charge: attempted murder with a firearm, not something to be taken lightly for sure. Overall, I was pleasantly surprised by how our criminal justice system works (or at least how it's intended to work), as it aligns closely with the virtue of justice. The defendant is presumed innocent, and the prosecution must prove that they did the alleged crime. Proof doesn't mean hearsay, maybes, I think so's, or emotional pleas to the jury. Any competent attorney would see that these are thrown out, stopped in their tracks, or attacked and shown worthless as evidence. Evidence means facts based in reality, or live witness testimony. I was glad to see that even in a serious case, emotions were all but thrown out in the courtroom, and it was nothing like what we see on television, which usually portrays extensive drama between the attorneys, judge and witnesses. All efforts were made by the judge in our case to instill the understanding of our role as jurors, which was to look at the evidence presented and make a decision based on the law, not other considerations or emotions we might have. The fact that some jurors strayed from these ideals once deliberating was unfortunate, but that's probably beyond the control of the court. Laying judgement on another person when it means possibly taking away their life or liberty requires the utmost respect for reason and the truth. Overall, our criminal justice process is a good blueprint to follow for one of the most important responsibilities we have in our lives, judging others. (The fact that there are many unjust laws and enforcement measures is certainly a problem and not ignored here, just commenting on the process in the courtroom as it relates to ethics.)
Apparently, this guy isn't so enthralled with the justice system.
JUSTICE
In previous posts, integrity was shown to mean the refusal to fake one's consciousness, and honesty was the refusal to fake existence. Justice is the refusal to fake the character of other people. It's the virtue of judging character and actions objectively and acting accordingly. Most of us find it easy to judge inanimate things, as it would seem absurd to not identify their nature properly. In most situations we judge gold to be much more valuable than copper, because we identify its nature in reality. Both metals have value to us and can be used to make different things, but gold is far more scarce which gives it a higher value to us. To pretend copper is more valuable than gold would be foolish in most cases, as it goes against reality. It could even prove quite harmful and destructive if you traded your life savings of gold coins for copper ones! Similarly, not identifying the nature of fire could get you burned (or worse). When it comes to judging other people, most of us have difficulty doing it objectively. We may see evil and do our best to avoid acknowledging it, or see good and do our best to ignore it. The reality is that other people can have great, or horrible, effects on our life, so it's crucial for us to be able to judge them objectively. Misjudging the nature of fire can result in great harm to us, but so can misjudging other people. It could range anywhere from getting a poorer quality haircut, to getting your heart broken, to allowing Hitler to gain power. Justice means treating others as they deserve to be treated. It means not treating a moron as a genius, a lying politician like a noble statesman, or a great composer on par with Jessica Simpson. Every person should get the respect they deserve according to their true nature; nothing more, nothing less. Contrary to some prevailing views of morality, ethics demands that we judge others.
In previous posts, integrity was shown to mean the refusal to fake one's consciousness, and honesty was the refusal to fake existence. Justice is the refusal to fake the character of other people. It's the virtue of judging character and actions objectively and acting accordingly. Most of us find it easy to judge inanimate things, as it would seem absurd to not identify their nature properly. In most situations we judge gold to be much more valuable than copper, because we identify its nature in reality. Both metals have value to us and can be used to make different things, but gold is far more scarce which gives it a higher value to us. To pretend copper is more valuable than gold would be foolish in most cases, as it goes against reality. It could even prove quite harmful and destructive if you traded your life savings of gold coins for copper ones! Similarly, not identifying the nature of fire could get you burned (or worse). When it comes to judging other people, most of us have difficulty doing it objectively. We may see evil and do our best to avoid acknowledging it, or see good and do our best to ignore it. The reality is that other people can have great, or horrible, effects on our life, so it's crucial for us to be able to judge them objectively. Misjudging the nature of fire can result in great harm to us, but so can misjudging other people. It could range anywhere from getting a poorer quality haircut, to getting your heart broken, to allowing Hitler to gain power. Justice means treating others as they deserve to be treated. It means not treating a moron as a genius, a lying politician like a noble statesman, or a great composer on par with Jessica Simpson. Every person should get the respect they deserve according to their true nature; nothing more, nothing less. Contrary to some prevailing views of morality, ethics demands that we judge others.
"Judge not that ye be not judged" is not the proper position to take. The proper position should be "judge, and be prepared to be judged!". However, the reason that the first quote often seems like a truism is because people judge improperly. When judging another, just like in a jury, emotions should be taken out of the decision making process. Judgements made without evidence, like those based on prejudice, racism or other biases are always improper. Only one's actions in reality should be used to make judgements. Since everyone is born tabula rasa (blank slate) both in respect to knowledge and morality, every individual should initially be given the benefit of the doubt and treated as a potential value. Innocent until proven guilty. Again, the proof should be evidence based on reason, not hearsay or other possibly faulty information. Is your child ditching school? What's the evidence, and who's story is more likely, the school's or the child's? In the real world, this means don't assume all your neighbors are evil, start with the assumption they are good until they prove beyond a reasonable doubt otherwise! On the other hand, emotions can be just as powerful to influence us to overlook evil. Our judgements shouldn't be made on what we hope or wish someone might be. If a man cheats on or beats his wife, that can't be overlooked because his wife hopes he will turn into the perfect husband someday, or because she "sees the good in him". Judgements have to be made according to reality.
In order to make proper judgements, one must first have a proper foundation in ethics. The whole purpose of judging is to identify those who are good versus those who are evil, which can only be done by first determining which values and virtues to look for in another (which is what we've been doing for the last 7 posts). If another person is rational, honest, productive and has integrity, then chances are they will be of great value to associate with and should be treated accordingly. On the other hand, if a person is irrational, a liar and a parasite on others, then chances are they will be harmful to associate with and won't enhance one's life. It should be fairly obvious that if one wants to achieve values in their life, they should seek out those who are virtuous and avoid those who practice opposite of these virtues.
In order to make proper judgements, one must first have a proper foundation in ethics. The whole purpose of judging is to identify those who are good versus those who are evil, which can only be done by first determining which values and virtues to look for in another (which is what we've been doing for the last 7 posts). If another person is rational, honest, productive and has integrity, then chances are they will be of great value to associate with and should be treated accordingly. On the other hand, if a person is irrational, a liar and a parasite on others, then chances are they will be harmful to associate with and won't enhance one's life. It should be fairly obvious that if one wants to achieve values in their life, they should seek out those who are virtuous and avoid those who practice opposite of these virtues.
SANCTIONING THE GOOD AND DENOUNCING THE EVIL
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
-Edmund Burke
Abstaining from judging others is not an option if one values the good. Being indifferent to good and evil, and never speaking up on the behalf of either is not "middle of the road", or harmless as some may believe. By taking no stand, one is betraying the good while encouraging the evil. If we look at it more broadly, the purpose of justice is to sustain all the men of virtue who think and create (i.e. support human existence), while condemning those who destroy it. In essence, justice is the policy of preserving those who preserve life. It is a "pro-life" policy in the truest sense of the word.
Most people view justice as the process of punishing the evil. While this is certainly an important part of it, justice should begin with affirming and admiring the good, as the good is what sustains life. First, one must intellectually discover the good (by reason of course!) and then make it a point to fight for it, defend it, and admire it explicitly when they see it in action. This can be done in many ways, but primarily it consists of giving someone moral sanction. Moral sanction and praise is the way we offer spiritual value to others. It's kind of like a spiritual currency of sorts. If someone writes a book, and you buy it, you have economically sanctioned their work. However, if you tell them that you liked the book, and give them your approval of it, you have sanctioned them in spirit. Often, the spiritual "currency" is more appropriate and even more valuable than economic currency. If a child brings home straight A's, they might appreciate a monetary reward, but probably not as much as a spiritual one (even if they don't admit it!). Encouragement and praise of the good is essential, and even more important than denouncing evil, because the reality is that good is more powerful than evil.
As far as spiritual currency goes, there are different "denominations". Respect, admiration, praise, friendship; these are all sanctions that can be given on various levels, and are the result of the emotions one gets by seeing the virtues of another. The highest "payment" one can give to another is love. Love, in its proper sense, is the highest acknowledgement one can give to another. It's the ultimate in praise and approval. As such, it's an emotion that carries with it a responsibility to each party. The one being loved must live up to the ideals of love, while the one loving must be rational and make sure their love is warranted. With the exception of a parent's love for their child in their youth (which we won't delve into here), there should be no such thing as unconditional love or causeless love. While some romantics view such notions as idyllic, ironically it would make the concept of love meaningless. If you are loved unconditionally, what are you being rewarded for? For just existing? It's nonsensical, and love can only have meaning if one loves another for their virtues. By pretending to love everyone, or to love indiscriminately, cheapens the value of it. Loving thy neighbor is not a virtue, unless the neighbor has done something to earn it. Of course, respecting and being amicable to thy neighbor should be the default, unless the neighbor has done something to negate that. Conversely, "Love thy enemy" is not a virtue, if an enemy has been rationally identified because of their vices. Giving love to an enemy is against the virtue of justice, as it fails to treat others according to their nature.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
-Edmund Burke
Abstaining from judging others is not an option if one values the good. Being indifferent to good and evil, and never speaking up on the behalf of either is not "middle of the road", or harmless as some may believe. By taking no stand, one is betraying the good while encouraging the evil. If we look at it more broadly, the purpose of justice is to sustain all the men of virtue who think and create (i.e. support human existence), while condemning those who destroy it. In essence, justice is the policy of preserving those who preserve life. It is a "pro-life" policy in the truest sense of the word.
Most people view justice as the process of punishing the evil. While this is certainly an important part of it, justice should begin with affirming and admiring the good, as the good is what sustains life. First, one must intellectually discover the good (by reason of course!) and then make it a point to fight for it, defend it, and admire it explicitly when they see it in action. This can be done in many ways, but primarily it consists of giving someone moral sanction. Moral sanction and praise is the way we offer spiritual value to others. It's kind of like a spiritual currency of sorts. If someone writes a book, and you buy it, you have economically sanctioned their work. However, if you tell them that you liked the book, and give them your approval of it, you have sanctioned them in spirit. Often, the spiritual "currency" is more appropriate and even more valuable than economic currency. If a child brings home straight A's, they might appreciate a monetary reward, but probably not as much as a spiritual one (even if they don't admit it!). Encouragement and praise of the good is essential, and even more important than denouncing evil, because the reality is that good is more powerful than evil.
As far as spiritual currency goes, there are different "denominations". Respect, admiration, praise, friendship; these are all sanctions that can be given on various levels, and are the result of the emotions one gets by seeing the virtues of another. The highest "payment" one can give to another is love. Love, in its proper sense, is the highest acknowledgement one can give to another. It's the ultimate in praise and approval. As such, it's an emotion that carries with it a responsibility to each party. The one being loved must live up to the ideals of love, while the one loving must be rational and make sure their love is warranted. With the exception of a parent's love for their child in their youth (which we won't delve into here), there should be no such thing as unconditional love or causeless love. While some romantics view such notions as idyllic, ironically it would make the concept of love meaningless. If you are loved unconditionally, what are you being rewarded for? For just existing? It's nonsensical, and love can only have meaning if one loves another for their virtues. By pretending to love everyone, or to love indiscriminately, cheapens the value of it. Loving thy neighbor is not a virtue, unless the neighbor has done something to earn it. Of course, respecting and being amicable to thy neighbor should be the default, unless the neighbor has done something to negate that. Conversely, "Love thy enemy" is not a virtue, if an enemy has been rationally identified because of their vices. Giving love to an enemy is against the virtue of justice, as it fails to treat others according to their nature.
On the other side of the coin, evil should always
be confronted and condemned when appropriate, and it should never be
given approval. Evil is always looking for spiritual sanction to
justify itself, and can only survive if it's given that approval.
Unlike the good, approval for evil can be given by simply ignoring it.
If a guy starts torturing people in the street and no one attempts to
stop him, he might need no more approval than that to continue his evil
actions. Depending on the context, certain situations might not call
for directly confronting evil (just as last post explained honesty isn't
always the best policy). If someone is under the rule of
Stalin, it's not expected that they confront and condemn him publicly or
to his face. If someone spouts an irrational ideology or view at a
party and they don't seem receptive to reason, then it's not an
obligation to engage them in a debate. However, one should still never
give an endorsement in these situations by going out of their way to
help the communist government or encouraging a party goer in their
irrational views. Denouncing evil should be done, but only if
the context allows it.
Don't "psychologize" unless you're a psychologist!
MERCY AND FORGIVENESS
In judging others, it must be emphasized to stick to the facts one is able to discern, and not try to "psychologize". If a man steals a television to get money for drugs, he should be judged on that, not on what his father might have done to him when he was 5 years old. This isn't to say that his fathers' actions didn't have some influence on his life, but this is something only a trained psychologist has the ability to ascertain in a clinical setting. With the exception of some psychotics, every person has the ability to perceive reality and control their actions, and should be judged accordingly. In the criminal case I observed, the defendant was a gang member who shot a fellow gang member in the chest. My guess is he didn't have the best parents growing up and was probably influenced negatively by his surroundings, but he wasn't crazy, and still had control of his actions when he fired the shots. Even if I found out he had a deadbeat dad growing up, it still wouldn't affect my decision to find him guilty, nor should it affect my decision to avoid a person like that in my personal life. It's certainly ok to encourage others to seek therapy or other help to deal with their mental struggles, but not to excuse their evil actions. To do so would be to ignore reality and the evils committed. It would be unjust.
Forgiveness is a necessary action in human affairs because of the nature of man as a volitional consciousness. Just as we have the choice to commit evil, we also have the choice to learn from our mistakes and choose good. If someone shows that they have truly renounced their evil ways and won't commit the same act again, the virtue of justice would demand the rational person to forgive. However, the key here is that forgiveness must be earned. To earn forgiveness, one must show that they understand the roots of their immoral act, have reformed their character, and will not commit a similar act again in the future. Forgiveness is unearned if the guilty tries to achieve it by preying on emotions, hopes, or waiting until enough time has elapsed that the person who was wronged forgets. The more serious the evil committed, the harder it should be for the guilty party to gain forgiveness. In minor discretions, like a kid stealing candy from a store, it might not take much for the child to show the elements necessary for forgiveness by the store owner. For more serious vices, like first-degree murder, it may be difficult, or impossible for the offender to ever achieve forgiveness, as the evidence to prove they have truly reformed might not be possible to provide. This may be agonizing at times for the guilty party if they truly are reformed, but it's one of the penalties of committing evil. It's a problem for the evil to face and deal with, not for the good. It's the good's responsibility to only forgive based on solid evidence, not fleeting emotions, to avoid being the woman who keeps taking back her rotten husband only to be hurt again.
In judging others, it must be emphasized to stick to the facts one is able to discern, and not try to "psychologize". If a man steals a television to get money for drugs, he should be judged on that, not on what his father might have done to him when he was 5 years old. This isn't to say that his fathers' actions didn't have some influence on his life, but this is something only a trained psychologist has the ability to ascertain in a clinical setting. With the exception of some psychotics, every person has the ability to perceive reality and control their actions, and should be judged accordingly. In the criminal case I observed, the defendant was a gang member who shot a fellow gang member in the chest. My guess is he didn't have the best parents growing up and was probably influenced negatively by his surroundings, but he wasn't crazy, and still had control of his actions when he fired the shots. Even if I found out he had a deadbeat dad growing up, it still wouldn't affect my decision to find him guilty, nor should it affect my decision to avoid a person like that in my personal life. It's certainly ok to encourage others to seek therapy or other help to deal with their mental struggles, but not to excuse their evil actions. To do so would be to ignore reality and the evils committed. It would be unjust.
Forgiveness is a necessary action in human affairs because of the nature of man as a volitional consciousness. Just as we have the choice to commit evil, we also have the choice to learn from our mistakes and choose good. If someone shows that they have truly renounced their evil ways and won't commit the same act again, the virtue of justice would demand the rational person to forgive. However, the key here is that forgiveness must be earned. To earn forgiveness, one must show that they understand the roots of their immoral act, have reformed their character, and will not commit a similar act again in the future. Forgiveness is unearned if the guilty tries to achieve it by preying on emotions, hopes, or waiting until enough time has elapsed that the person who was wronged forgets. The more serious the evil committed, the harder it should be for the guilty party to gain forgiveness. In minor discretions, like a kid stealing candy from a store, it might not take much for the child to show the elements necessary for forgiveness by the store owner. For more serious vices, like first-degree murder, it may be difficult, or impossible for the offender to ever achieve forgiveness, as the evidence to prove they have truly reformed might not be possible to provide. This may be agonizing at times for the guilty party if they truly are reformed, but it's one of the penalties of committing evil. It's a problem for the evil to face and deal with, not for the good. It's the good's responsibility to only forgive based on solid evidence, not fleeting emotions, to avoid being the woman who keeps taking back her rotten husband only to be hurt again.
Forgiveness, which may be legitimate in certain cases, should not be confused with mercy. Mercy is the policy of unearned forgiveness. It means recognizing evil, and then reducing the appropriate punishment, or failing to punish at all. It means letting someone off the hook for their actions by substituting justice with pity. Not pity for the innocent and helpless, but pity for the evil. When the unearned is granted to the evil, it is not a virtue, but a renouncement of justice, and the avoidance of reality. The truly reformed offender doesn't desire mercy, but wants justice. He wants what he deserves and what's coming to him (assuming it's a fair punishment). Interestingly, in the trial I was in, the judge told us numerous times that we couldn't consider what kind of punishment the defendant would get in determining our verdict. This is a wise policy (assuming the law is just), as it brings the element of mercy into play, something which I personally found can be a powerful emotion. As a jury we had no role to play in the sentencing, which is for the best as far as justice is concerned. That was left to the law as written, and the discretion of the presumably objective judge. Whether or not he made the correct decision for punishment is something I do not know, but at least the process was structured in a way that upholds reason, which is the only way justice can be accomplished.
The next post will deal with the virtue of productiveness.
The next post will deal with the virtue of productiveness.