Thursday, August 25, 2022
Justice
Definition of justice
1a : the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments meting out justice social justice
b : judge especially : a judge of an appellate court or court of last resort (as a supreme court) a supreme court justice —used as a title Justice Marshall
c : the administration of law a fugitive from justice especially : the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity a system of justice
2a : the quality of being just, impartial, or fair questioned the justice of their decision
b(1) : the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action
(2) : conformity to this principle or ideal : righteousness the justice of their cause
c : the quality of conforming to law
Above is the definition of justice, I think that it's not unreasonable to summarize justice as dealing with people according to what they deserve as a result of their actions.
What I don't understand is under what definition of justice is it reasonable to make one person or group of people responsible for the actions of another.
For example, Would justice have been served if instead of Chauvin being charged, tried, and convicted for the death of George Floyd, the court would have simply announced that some random MPD officer or officers were responsible and would serve Chauvin's sentence?
If justice is served by taking the privately incurred financial obligations of a select group of people, and transferring those obligation to the entire US citizenry, then where does this stop? Are car loans, mortgages, and credit card balances going to be transferred to the national debt?
Finally, is choosing to incur tens of thousands of debt to pursue a college degree that has virtually zero value a wise financial decision?
Better yet, when are we going to have a serious discussion about how screwed up the higher education system is in the US and why we encourage kids to get worthless degrees?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Craig...
" Above is the definition of justice, I think that it's not unreasonable to summarize justice as dealing with people according to what they deserve as a result of their actions."
Not sure that's a sound summary. It sounds like it's a vengeance-based, looking for the other guy to fail approach.
"According to [Dr ML] King, justice, in its most basic sense, means giving persons what they are due. Fulfilling this demand often means treating everyone the same. But sometimes it calls for treating people differently. This point has particular relevance with regard to serious injustices, whereby a certain class of persons has suffered mistreatment and is disadvantaged as a result.
'our society has been doing something special against the Negro for hundreds of years. How then can he be absorbed into the mainstream of American life if we do not do something special for him now, in order to balance the equation and equip him to compete on a just and equal basis?'"
https://www.abc.net.au/religion/tommie-shelby-mlk-what-justice-demands/13068392
I imagine you've seen the picture of three people trying to watch a ball game from outside a fence, all three standing on a box to better see the game. The first tall person is able to see perfectly fine. The second person can just barely see over it with his one box. The third person is too small to even see it with his one box. So, they take the box from the tall guy who didn't need it at all and gave it to the very short person. They noted that this is the difference between equality and equity.
So, to your summary, I think it is important to add something like,
"summarize justice as dealing with people according to what they deserve
as a result of their actions
AND
making accommodations for systemic/endemic inequities to assure something closer to equity, rather than blind equality."
The real world circumstances matter, as King notes.
Craig...
"What I don't understand is under what definition of justice is it reasonable to make one person or group of people responsible for the actions of another."
If one does not believe we are to be our siblings keeper, to watch out for one another and it's every person for themselves, that might make sense. But if one believes we're all in this together, then taking the box from the tall guy (ideally, him sharing it) who didn't need it to give to the small guy who did, that's a closer ideal of justice, seems to me. And certainly more biblical and Christ-ian, for those of us who name Jesus as our Lord.
Perhaps you and I can agree to all of this?
"Not sure that's a sound summary. It sounds like it's a vengeance-based, looking for the other guy to fail approach."
What a devastating example of trying to pass off your prejudice driven hunches as something else. As usual, I don't really care.
It's interesting the you assume that my summary is entirely about punishment.
"making accommodations for systemic/endemic inequities to assure something closer to equity, rather than blind equality."
Of course this presumes that Kendi approach that assumes that every single difference between racial and ethnic groups is automatically due to racism regardless of any evidence to the contrary. If those things can't be accurately measured and quantified, then your hunch will likely result as injustice to one group passed off as justice for another. Completely vitiating the notion of individual responsibility for individual action. But, you're more comfortable assigning people to groups and treating individuals based on your perception of their group.
As that fellow from the student loan article said, Dan doesn't understand justice and injustice. "Equity", as the SJWs express it, is injustice, because it isn't equitable for those who are soaked to provide it to whomever the SJWs wish to pander. "Equality" is justice when laws and policies are applied equally to all without regard to race, sex or ethnicity. Giving a tall guy's box to a short person to stand on isn't equality or equity, but charity and something one does by one's own choice.
Anytime I'm tapped to provide for those who were treated unjustly, when I played no role whatsoever in their unjust treatment, is injustice to me and those like me equally innocent of any wrongdoing. Justice only demands those responsible for harm to be held accountable for that harm they caused.
Art,
You bring up an interesting point. If the tall guy's box is his private property (he legally purchased it and was using it in a legal manner), and the government takes it from him (potentially in violation of the 5th and 14th amendments) then he is being treated inequitably. Now if the boxes are public property, or unowned, then it might be a different situation. But clearly the taking of one person's private property to give to another, or the foisting off of one person's private debt on others, is not equitable.
Now, if it was proven that these federally backed student loans were somehow fraudulently sold to prospective borrowers, or were made in violation of federal law, that might be another thing entirely.
The more I think about it the more I believe that this is simply the mortgage bubble version 2.0. When the feds told the banks that they were going to guarantee mortgages, and lower the requirements to qualify, the banks went nuts. Why? Because they knew that they could write risky mortgages, make money from them until they defaulted, collect the rest from the feds and sell the properties for something. This feels similar. The feds are essentially saying that these loans will be covered no matter whether or not they were good loans, and people jumped at the opportunity to borrow money they literally couldn't lose.
Why aren't the feds targeting the billions of dollars that colleges have in endowments?
Why aren't those endowments used to hold down the costs of education or used to make loans to students who attend those institutions?
Why has the cost of higher education grown exponentially faster than inflation over the last 50ish years?
Why aren't more of the billions from college sports used to underwrite other aspects of student life?
Why do people think that 10k of "forgiven" loans are really going to make a significant dent in people with high loan balances?
Why aren't we seeing a push to do something about the usurious interest rates that student loans carry?
Why aren't student loans dischargeable in bankruptcy?
This 10k shell game is the equivalent of putting a band aid on someone who's legs are gangrenous. It's one more vote buying ploy that most experts agree won't actually help, and will probably cause harm, that the DFL voters seem to clamor for more and more often.
"Why aren't the feds targeting the billions of dollars that colleges have in endowments?"
Because they are in bed with each other.
"Why aren't those endowments used to hold down the costs of education or used to make loans to students who attend those institutions?"
Because if the institutions were doing their own loans, instead of relying on government to do so without regard to the costs, the institutions couldn't raise their costs guaranteed by the government. They'd still have to compete for business, even though they'd likely make a good buck by charging interest if they loaned their endowment riches to those looking to get whatever passes for an education at such schools. Of course, it would require providing a good education which will result in good paying jobs for graduates, and that's too risky.
"Why has the cost of higher education grown exponentially faster than inflation over the last 50ish years?"
Because federally funded loans have removed the incentive to keep costs low so as to attract business.
"Why aren't more of the billions from college sports used to underwrite other aspects of student life?"
Because the corrupt professorial staff and administrators need to be paid big bucks for...something.
"Why do people think that 10k of "forgiven" loans are really going to make a significant dent in people with high loan balances?"
Well, every little bit helps, but I'd wager even enough Dems thought they couldn't get too carried away with making Americans pay for ALL the stupidly contracted student loans unlikely to result in jobs to repay them.
"Why aren't we seeing a push to do something about the usurious interest rates that student loans carry?"
From a taxpayer point of view, I would prefer that a hefty interest rate be attached to any loans of my tax dollars. Too bad it isn't used to pay off the national debt.
"Why aren't student loans dischargeable in bankruptcy?"
Great question. So I looked it up. Here's one explanation.
There's no spending of our money Dem politicians won't enact and none to which Dem voters will object.
Post a Comment