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.
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