this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2024
146 points (98.0% liked)
Overseas News
510 readers
109 users here now
A place for Australians and friends to share news from the other countries. Like all communities here, we discuss topics from the Australian perspective.
If you're looking for a global /c/worldnews instead, search for the many options on federated instances.
Rules
- Follow the aussie.zone rules
- We are not a generic World News clone. News must be relevant to Australians and our region. Obvious disregard will earn an warning and then a ban if continued. (If an article isn't from an Oceanian news outlet, and it doesn’t mention Australia, then it’s probably off-topic)
- Leave seppocentrism at the door. If you don't know what that means, you're not ready to post here yet.
- Avoid editorialising headlines. Opinions go in the comments, not the post.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
How would you describe the difference between just and unjust without a reliance on a higher power, andcalso accounting for the fact that 'what is moral', while often similar across the world, isn't always the same.
In other words, would you have an interpretation of the same concepts, but able to be applied more universally?
That’s a great question. MLK is absolutely appealing to a higher power in this letter, which you’re picking up on. Pretty much anything under the “natural law” perspective sort-of requires that belief. Some try to go without it, but it’s rare in this branch of philosophy.
I also think it’s notable that just about every “western” legal system in some way sits on the ideas of natural law ethics (either through Thomas and Augustine or Locke, etc… and there’s a lot of variation there. Thomas and Locke have very different ideas about property and individual good, for example). I think it’s important to wrestle with that, especially in our pluralistic societies that can’t impose a belief in said higher power.
But, back to your question. I’m not personally a natural law thinker, mostly because I chafe at the idea of law to begin with. It just doesn’t quite square with my more anarchist tendencies. So, I’m less interested in “just” and “unjust” and more in what makes something wholly “good.”
On that front, I borrow my definition of good from a guy named Ivan Illich: something is good when it is uniquely and incomparably appropriate in it’s given setting. This accounts for the situational nature of things, but also for the variance between cultures. There’s also more of a simplicity to asking if something is good then if it’s just. Justice can be hard to define, but goodness is pretty easy and obvious.
It’s rarely good to be hungry, thirsty, and tired, for example; so it’s good to give people food, water, and rest.
If I remember correctly, this definition of the good comes from a paper of his called “Needs.”
Thinking with something like the US healthcare system, we can ask if it’s good (that is, uniquely and incomparably appropriate) to receive lifesaving care. The answer there is an obvious yes.
If we ask if it’s just… then we find ourselves dealing with what people deserve, what can be afforded, and a million other ways of weaseling out of responsibility for doing the right thing.
Interesting. Sorry its been so long with a reply, that time of year.
Had to go to the wiki article on Ivan Illich to see what he was all about. Certainly interesting ideas, although the wiki doesn't go into depth so i can't say whether i'd gel with them or not.
The one thing i'd say is he seems a little hard on institutions. Unfortunately the only reason we've made such advances to be able to have conversations about modes of education or over medicalisation is because of the boring, unseen and largely forgotten works of millions of individuals tied into an institutional framework of one sort or another.
For example, institutions like the British East India company did terrible, (fucked up) things; but also made connections, both social and mechanical. Through the company's actions many trade routes or ties we still use today. (Picked this one because of its controversial nature).
But as i write all this i'm well aware i might be overstating what i believe Ivan Illich' problems with institutions to be, so i should leave it there.
But the main point,
"Something is good, when it is uniquely and incomparably appropriate in its given setting."
I'd say the above quote about your response, thank you. You answered my question searching for a more universally applicable statement very well.