|
Volume 1 (1999/2000)
Issue
1 (March 1999)
Issue
2 (Nov. 1999)
Issue 3 (Dec. 1999)
Issue 4 (Feb. 2000)
Issue 5 (March 2000)
Issue 6 (April 2000)
Issue
7 (May 2000)
Volume 2 (2000/2001)
Issue 1 (Sept. 2000)
Issue 2 (Oct. 2000)
Issue 3 (Jan. 2001)
Issue 4 (March 2001)
Issue 5 (April 2001)
Issue 6 (May 2001)
Volume 3 (2001)
Issue 1 (Sept. 2001)
Issue 2 (Nov. 2001)
Categories
Sport: 1
2 3
Lifestyles: 1 2
3
Commentary: 1 2
3
Review: 1 2
3
Writing: 1 2
3
Event: 1 2
3
|
Eoin Hughes
Templeogue College
TY Philosophy
As our society evolves, so do our concepts of the world, how it works
and how we should interact with it. As it evolves new things are discovered,
either as a result of this evolution or, more frequently, as a cause of
this adaptation. Our society might seem to be at a standstill at the moment
as it always seems but, now, we are evolving faster than ever before.
As an example, just before the 1900s alcohol was perfectly acceptable
in America. During the 1920s, the 19th Amendment was passed in Congress,
banning the possession, consumption or sale of alcohol. This was because
their society believed it was wrong to drink alcohol and damage oneself
in such a way. When illegal sale and possession were rampant, the 19th
Amendment was repealed. This was because, quite simply, everyone was doing
it.
This is the essence of the start of the speech made by the main character
in 'Midnight Express'. His words were 'What is wrong in this society?
Who is to decide what I did was wrong? Something is made illegal because
some society thinks it's wrong. Something is made legal again because
everyone is doing it and you can't arrest everyone...'. That is what happened
with the 19th Amendment.
In my eyes, Justice is equality and as a result, Punishment is the execution
of justice. But I feel that Justice is not standard everywhere, not even
in the same country, county, town or even village, it is almost never
exactly the same. It is like the human body, it may be similar in some
cases, but each one is individual. If someone has done someone else an
injustice, that other person will try to punish the first. Punishment
is, as I said earlier, the execution of justice, and if justice is perceived
differently by each person, then the act of 'righting the wrong' will
rely solely on that person's perception of justice.
The form of punishment that the Old Testament believed was 'proper' was
the concept of 'tit-for-tat', which was covered in Exodus 21:22 - 'if
me who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely
but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the
woman's husband demands. But if there is a serious injury, you are to
take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, burn
for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise'. This concept was then changed
to 'if someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also'.
(Matt. 5:8), which a man, to live a pious life, must do. This was not
a good form of justice in the eye of the common man, because it does not
give the man the satisfaction of punishment.
For men like that, justice is an excuse for violence. They claim that
it is a form of punishment. Wars start because they are punishing others
for punishment. One party (Country 1) feels justified in taking some action
against another party (Country 2). Country 2 feels that Country 1 was
not justified in taking that action and therefore punishes Country 1 for
taking that action and therefore feels justified as 'they did that unto
them'. Naturally, Country 1 feels that Country 2 have no call doing that
to Country 1, and responds with a larger action and Country 2 might respond
with an even bigger action so as to deter Country 1 from trying a larger
action as this could lead to Nuclear War and Mutually Assured Destruction.
Sometimes, one party continues to aggravate the other and war breaks out,
or they may back down, although that shows weakness and could lead to
further exploitation by the other Country.
This shows how justice can lead to suffering, the very thing it was set
up to prevent, and how a third party is necessary to prevent further war.
If Country 1 takes action against Country 2, the third party takes action
and dictates to both Countries who is justified. The situation, if caught
early, might not happen, as both parties will see who is right and who
is wrong, if it is possible. Of course, this is only in the ideal world,
and this, being an imperfect world, means that it may be in the third
party's best interests to support Country 1 in most or all situations.
For example, let us assume that Ireland is the third party, and Iran and
Iraq are the two other parties. If Iraq takes action against Iran and
Ireland is called to intervene, and Iraq sells oil cheaper to Ireland
than Iran, the it is Ireland's best interests to lean towards Iraq's side
of the story. As a result, Iran will take offence and will sell oil at
a higher price than usual to Ireland. By doing this, there is a greater
incentive to take sides with Iraq, because of the hate barrier building
up between Iran and Ireland. This will lead to a vicious cycle of taking
sides with Iraq. So, Ireland will be closest to impartiality the first
time, but at no time other than that.
That leads to a problem with dealing out justice. But the solution is
simple. If the problem is about oil and prices between Iraq and Iran,
then an oil-rich country should be the third party, because it has nothing
to gain. A good example of a third party for that would be Saudi Arabia.
However, real war may break out between the two parties, the third party
and one of the others. So that country has no incentive to be the third
party so someone must police these 'police' and so on ad infinitum.
There must be one party to oversee how justice and the appropriate punishments
are dealt out. This means a common idea of justice, but it is like beauty.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as is justice. No matter what the
intervention, no party will ever truly be satisfied. The reason is human
nature and it is hard to change that.
According to Marx, at least two hundred years would be necessary for
Communism to become a feasible idea. That two hundred years is a cocoon
for society to metamorphose into a society ready for Communism, and with
this concept of Communism is that of a common idea of justice. I am not
implying that Communism is an end in itself, but a means to an end. That
end is true justice. However, our society is rapidly moving in the other
direction, driven by greed for money and power.
The age of Marx's dream is a distant speck on the horizon, and we are
travelling further away while still looking at it in disgust. We are travelling
backwards, away from this speck. Maybe that world which has Marx's dream
on the horizon is round and we will achieve true justice without need
for its implementation. We might arrive at the point of true justice through
Capitalism, but it will be a longer journey. But whichever route humanity
as a whole chooses, I wish it good luck and I hope it reaches the true
destination before our destruction as a result of our differing views
of justice.
Back to the top
|