I do see the danger in revenge, and especially in CRAVING revenge. Justice is based only in fact, not in how we feel, and short of taking back something that is actually ours.... punitive justice needs to be left to the courts.
But there are many other ways to be Just. When Angel's little BRAT was being a hellion and getting into the box of donuts that wasn't his, without asking, without remorse, and after being told "no" -- Justice was not giving him the donut (even though he went to mommy and got permission to take it anyway).
I suppose revenge could be me calling him names as he shrieked at the top of his lungs and thrashed in the arms my partner who was carrying him away from someone's house he was not supposed to be at where he had been doing something he was not supposed to do. But, you know, I didn't say anything that wasn't TRUE, even though I made the shrieking and the thrashing worse until eventually he calmed down and went to sleep. I would have felt bad if he had passed out or something. Its hard to know what effect my words might have if any... but he's a very hearty kid, and hearing the unpleasant truth in a moment of shrieking emotion probably did him good if anything at all.
I do indeed suggest that altruism and justice are incompatible.
And productivity is only compatible with dishonesty if one's purpose allows dishonesty! The purpose could be amended to not permit dishonesty, and it does not fundamentally change the rest of the purpose, whatever it was. That was a great example... a real trade off that probably a lot of people can relate to in a world where everyone else is over-stating their accomplishments and trying to spin themselves the best they can to be marketable, to get the opportunities in which they can be most productive!
But that conflict does not compare to the conflict inherent in Altruism (effort to alleviate the need of the needy, because they are needy) versus Justice (effort to reward the deserving). That said, there IS some overlap of purpose-inspired action between the two, but the underlying purposes are fundamentally different.
I know the Church does profess Justice as well, but I'm not buying it. As a unified force, they care about Justice for the needy only. They couldn't care less whether a brat gets his donut or whether Ma Bell is broken into pieces by the state or not.
Now, I believe that YOU really truly do want to stand for BOTH.... to advance BOTH.
You say:
The challenge of an ethical and moral life is to know when the exclusive pursuit of any single value is at odds with pursuit of another and to seek the wisdom and imagination to know how best to make a defensible trade-off when that's required.
and I get that.... as applied to Honesty vs. Productivity. It can be quite a challenge, but it is one imposed by a specific circumstance -- and I do believe there is always a right answer, though it may be quite hard to find. But in the end, I believe there can be no "defensible trade off" between the abstract values of Justice and Altruism. They are inherently opposed.
As with many exchanges of views, the definition of terms is critically important. Were I to embrace your chosen definitions for both justice and altruism, it would be difficult to disagree with the conflict because the definitions are chosen to create that opposition. Simple logic would require that to be so.
Where I think we differ is in definitions. In my own personal definition of justice, which I realize is substantially different from yours, it's more about making sure that systemic wrongs or inappropriate behavior is corrected. Not surprisingly, the kind of justice which my own church seeks is the former type. I don't trouble myself with the search for justice on behalf of the powerful because they have their own means and resources to obtain it. I, and the church to which I belong, concerns itself much more with adding our voices, resources, and efforts to those who need justice but who are powerless on their own to obtain it.
The best example of this I can think of for myself is the whole Michael Vick dogfighting matter that has surfaced. As one of the most richly (and to my way of thinkly overly so) rewarded professional football players, he has ample means to seek whatever he imagines justice might be for himself. I don't do much fretting on his behalf. But the dogs who have been made to suffer, perhaps with his tacit approval or explicit involvement, only can have justice if people take up their cause. Of course, I want to see the truth emerge and the appropriate remedy surface if he should be convicted. Regardless of who is culpable, I want justice for these animals.
Regarding tradeoffs, I used productivity versus honesty as the first and perhaps most easily articulated example of my larger point. Values don't operate perfectly or in a vacuum. In the right contexts, conflicts can arise between most any pairing of them. When that happens, we are faced with moral choices; to optimize action completely in favor of one value at the expense of the other or to find a middle course that tries to balance them. No matter what values a person embraces, such things are very rarely handled in absolute terms and certainly not all of them at once.
Now, I believe that YOU really truly do want to stand for BOTH.... to advance BOTH.
Whether or not you intended it, I receive this observation as a compliment and from you a very high one :)
While you and I may not always agree about particular values, I respect very much your efforts to be mindful about them and to craft a path for yourself that seeks to be guided by them and which tries to honor them. I see you as someone who very much wants to walk his talk, which is something a great many people don't do.
But there are many other ways to be Just. When Angel's little BRAT was being a hellion and getting into the box of donuts that wasn't his, without asking, without remorse, and after being told "no" -- Justice was not giving him the donut (even though he went to mommy and got permission to take it anyway).
I suppose revenge could be me calling him names as he shrieked at the top of his lungs and thrashed in the arms my partner who was carrying him away from someone's house he was not supposed to be at where he had been doing something he was not supposed to do. But, you know, I didn't say anything that wasn't TRUE, even though I made the shrieking and the thrashing worse until eventually he calmed down and went to sleep. I would have felt bad if he had passed out or something. Its hard to know what effect my words might have if any... but he's a very hearty kid, and hearing the unpleasant truth in a moment of shrieking emotion probably did him good if anything at all.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I do indeed suggest that altruism and justice are incompatible.
And productivity is only compatible with dishonesty if one's purpose allows dishonesty! The purpose could be amended to not permit dishonesty, and it does not fundamentally change the rest of the purpose, whatever it was. That was a great example... a real trade off that probably a lot of people can relate to in a world where everyone else is over-stating their accomplishments and trying to spin themselves the best they can to be marketable, to get the opportunities in which they can be most productive!
But that conflict does not compare to the conflict inherent in Altruism (effort to alleviate the need of the needy, because they are needy) versus Justice (effort to reward the deserving). That said, there IS some overlap of purpose-inspired action between the two, but the underlying purposes are fundamentally different.
I know the Church does profess Justice as well, but I'm not buying it. As a unified force, they care about Justice for the needy only. They couldn't care less whether a brat gets his donut or whether Ma Bell is broken into pieces by the state or not.
Now, I believe that YOU really truly do want to stand for BOTH.... to advance BOTH.
You say:
The challenge of an ethical and moral life is to know when the exclusive pursuit of any single value is at odds with pursuit of another and to seek the wisdom and imagination to know how best to make a defensible trade-off when that's required.
and I get that.... as applied to Honesty vs. Productivity. It can be quite a challenge, but it is one imposed by a specific circumstance -- and I do believe there is always a right answer, though it may be quite hard to find. But in the end, I believe there can be no "defensible trade off" between the abstract values of Justice and Altruism. They are inherently opposed.
Reply
Where I think we differ is in definitions. In my own personal definition of justice, which I realize is substantially different from yours, it's more about making sure that systemic wrongs or inappropriate behavior is corrected. Not surprisingly, the kind of justice which my own church seeks is the former type. I don't trouble myself with the search for justice on behalf of the powerful because they have their own means and resources to obtain it. I, and the church to which I belong, concerns itself much more with adding our voices, resources, and efforts to those who need justice but who are powerless on their own to obtain it.
The best example of this I can think of for myself is the whole Michael Vick dogfighting matter that has surfaced. As one of the most richly (and to my way of thinkly overly so) rewarded professional football players, he has ample means to seek whatever he imagines justice might be for himself. I don't do much fretting on his behalf. But the dogs who have been made to suffer, perhaps with his tacit approval or explicit involvement, only can have justice if people take up their cause. Of course, I want to see the truth emerge and the appropriate remedy surface if he should be convicted. Regardless of who is culpable, I want justice for these animals.
Regarding tradeoffs, I used productivity versus honesty as the first and perhaps most easily articulated example of my larger point. Values don't operate perfectly or in a vacuum. In the right contexts, conflicts can arise between most any pairing of them. When that happens, we are faced with moral choices; to optimize action completely in favor of one value at the expense of the other or to find a middle course that tries to balance them. No matter what values a person embraces, such things are very rarely handled in absolute terms and certainly not all of them at once.
Now, I believe that YOU really truly do want to stand for BOTH.... to advance BOTH.
Whether or not you intended it, I receive this observation as a compliment and from you a very high one :)
While you and I may not always agree about particular values, I respect very much your efforts to be mindful about them and to craft a path for yourself that seeks to be guided by them and which tries to honor them. I see you as someone who very much wants to walk his talk, which is something a great many people don't do.
Reply
Leave a comment