Individuals who oppose justice pretend they need not conform to the-objective-truth. The-objective-truth is the ineluctable evidence by which objective truth, truth, or other human construct is measured. Fidelity to the-objective-truth invites benefits and infidelity begs woe.
In a culture of responsible human liberty, fellow citizens communicate, collaborate, and connect to develop fidelity to the-objective-truth. The-objective-truth benefits from the laws of physics. The consequence of fidelity is mutual justice. For example, if a typhoon is reported, people excepting dissidents-to-justice communicate, collaborate, and connect to move to higher ground.
For another example, "equality" in human existence may be traced back to the viable ovum---a unique entity. It is preposterous to think an institution such as government can or should make unique ova equal. Equitable? Maybe. For the ovum, equity and dignity starts with the woman’s care for her person and the man’s appreciation for both the woman and her ova. When spouses encourage the family to develop mutual equity and dignity not only within but beyond themselves, justice is served.
If this is so, it seems justice is a human responsibility. There remains the question of how human responsibility came to be. Perhaps it is a consequence of evolution, but some humans pretend to solve the mystery by constructing a God: whatever-God-may-be conforms to the pretneder's doctrine.
So far, the mystery of God has not been disproven. Perhaps mankind will discover senses beyond seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, smelling, and imagining. Already, some have proposed dimensions beyond four---space (x, y, z), time, energy (interchangeable with mass), and imagination---to universes beyond the laws of physics.[1] For now, it seems advantageous for humankind to take responsibility for the peace that is possible through justice.
Many thinkers have addressed justice, but none have proposed the-objective-truth as the standard by which justice is measured. I don’t know the-objective-truth about justice, so can only count myself an independent thinker who holds humans rather than their hopes responsible for justice. Unfortunately for the people, most scholars construct a standard or attribute justice to a mystery such as whatever-God-is. A review of the theories is available at “Justice,” by David Miller[2], a British scholar. I do not think an Englishman is likely to understand American justice. American justice transitions as humankind discovers the-objective-truth.
Miller’s subjectivity is expressed in “We can get a better grasp of what justice means to us by seeing the various conceptions that compete for our attention as tied to aspects of our social world that did not exist in the past, and are equally liable to disappear in the future.” Justice neither submits to opinion nor responds "to us".
Theories Miller covers
Miller gives the reader a glimpse of the controversies scholars create and debate in proprietary terms to resist the-objective-truth as standard by which justice is measured.
He begins with Christian tradition. Four virtues include prudence, temperance, fortitude, and justice. (Added are three emotions: faith, hope, and charity.) He introduces Rawls’ arbitrary attempt to institutionalize justice as fairness. He then addresses what philosophers think about justice’s features, justice’s distinction, justice’s forms, to whom justice applies, individual responsibility, and leading theories. He concludes that there is no transcendent theory. I disagree, suggesting the-objective-truth as standard by which justice is measured.
FEATURES
“Aristotle . . . noted that when justice was identified with ‘complete virtue’, this was always ‘in relation to another person’” (but said nothing about “rights”). Sixth century Roman Law held justice as “the constant and perpetual will to render to each his due.” Does "his due" equate to "rights"? But how is compliance weighed for everyone in the community? And how are the competing obligations impartially enforced?
Statutory law develops just enforcement. Enforcement begins with the responsible citizen but is overseen by an "impartial" agent---either government or a higher authority. Miller at this point introduces the mystery of whatever-God-is as “a Divine Being” and asserts that “we should resist” attributing misfortune to “cosmic injustice.” Extending to the human ovum Miller’s concern for cleft lips, the reader may sense Miller has religious-socialist leanings.
DISTINCTIONS
Miller reviews competing justice-enforcements: conservative vs ideal, remediation vs reward, process vs result, and equity.
FORMS
Miller considers the limits of justice: within human animals, within a civilization, and among/between individuals, returning to Rawls’ materialism with favor to the disadvantaged regardless of cause.
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
Miller questions not only materialism but responsibilities and standards for the distribution of domestic products. His arguments about utilitarianism skirt humankind’s obligations to conform to the-objective-truth.
COMPETING THEORIES
Miller discusses contractarianism as an alternative to utilitarianism. The reader has to go elsewhere to learn about Pericles’ notion that, in my interpretation, humankind may communicate, collaborate, and connect for equity under the mutual pursuit of statutory justice. Miller reports proprietary ideas of Gauthier, Rawls, and Scanlon.
Next, Miller discusses equality as justice, equality and responsibility, and relativism.
MILLER CONCLUSION
Miller seems to spring from Rawls’ admission to a mere theory to judge the various arguments and conclude “no comprehensive theory of justice is available to us.” Unfortunately, Miller did not consider the-objective-truth as standard for justice. The U.S. preamble’s proposition is less essential yet advantageous in its simplicity and directness. Citizens aid only five public institutions in order to secure responsible human liberty to living people: the goal is freedom-from oppression so that individuals may accept human liberty-to responsibly develop happiness with civic integrity.
The U.S. preamble’s proposition
Returning to David Miller’s British propriety,[3] I earlier said an English person cannot understand American justice. Few Americans understand it, because few consider the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (the U.S. preamble) as a people’s proposition. Few Americans do the work required to use the U.S. preamble to order their own lives. I encourage every person to study the U.S. preamble and consider their individual interpretation to help order their civic life if not their opportunity to develop integrity.
My latest interpretation of the U.S. preamble’s proposition is: Civic citizens communicate, collaborate, and connect to provide five public institutions---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity---in order to encourage responsible human liberty to living people. My interpretation is for my life, and I thrill to read in public the actual U.S. preamble in unison with civically-engaged fellow citizens.
The idea that law enforcement offers a path to statutory justice, a perfection yet a worthy endeavor, is a consequence of dissidence to the U.S. preamble's proposition. For example, some Christians perceive that communicating, collaborating, and connecting for civic integrity somehow denies their allegiance to Jesus-God. Further, the U.S. preamble's goal, responsible human liberty, is unattainable without a standard that is not subject to human error. The-objective-truth provides the discoverable standards.
My interpretation of the U.S. preamble’s proposition is for me only, and I am open minded to both a better interpretation and a better preamble. However, conformance to the-objective-truth is essential for justice.
Gratitude
I appreciate Kenneth Damann for motivating this study, especially since I had not previously noted the British influence if not dominance of this philosophy resource. [4]
Copyright©2019 by Phillip R. Beaver. All rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted for the publication of all or portions of this paper as long as this complete copyright notice is included. Updated on 9/10/19.
[1] Online
at https://www.universetoday.com/48619/a-universe-of-10-dimensions/.
[2] Miller, David, "Justice", The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2017
Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
<https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/justice/>.
[3]
Online at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Miller_(political_theorist).
[4]
Online at https://plato.stanford.edu/.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I want your opinion and intend to respond.