Theories of Universal Ethics: Justice and Contemporary Social Issues
With respect to a contemporary, pluralistic, and multicultural society, the idea of a ‘definitive’ ethical basis or a defined basis of ethical structures would not suffice, clashing with a myriad of ideas and ethical holdings of society. Should justice be viewed under the first categorical imperative and be equal throughout society, despite who it affects and what it affects as long as it's within the framework of the imperative? Would justice look at whether the action is wrong or right in its origin, regardless of consequence? Does the act – the duty of upholding the idea of that act – hold more power over the consequence of the act? For something that was classically considered one of the 4 cardinal values, does justice hold a stronger obligation on act or consequence? Do you consider the consequence as a utilitarian would, the act and will as a deontologist, or simply the intent and goodwill of the person?
It is a challenge to define what exactly is considered a ‘morally just act’. Is it an act that follows moral obligations or an act that follows legal principles? Am I just in the murder of a rapist, or am I committing manslaughter and should be punished? If the act is seen as a morally correct act, does that then build pretense for any and all sorts of murder to be seen as justified, as long as it has a reasonable ground? You might wake up and think “Hey, that person bullied me the other day. If I go beat them up today, am I not justified?” and you might be correct because you are simply justifying the action that had happened to you.
What principle is used for this? Looking at it from a deontologist lens, the act of going and ‘beating’ someone up is, in its nature, a bad act. It is not morally acceptable to cause harm to someone. If you do beat someone up, are you then consenting that this must become a universal maxim? As stated by Immanuel Kant “Nothing in the world—indeed nothing even beyond the world—can possibly be conceived which could be called good without qualification except a goodwill.” A good person acts simply out of will and respect for the law, but how does this apply to contemporary society? In a society that has no state set of beliefs, the legal justice system does not cater to every individual's separate beliefs, does this theory even hold any power? Can an ‘act that is in accordance with the law of the land’ necessarily be in accordance with the law of the person? When acting in maxim to assume that you are a legislative member of the universal kingdom of ends, does this assume the broad aspect of the land?
The concepts of Kantian ethics are simple. If you commit an act, then you are acting in a way that you think is fine for that act to become a universal maxim.
A universal law.
If you are committing the act of murder, regardless of circumstance, you are presuming that it is now definite and objectively allowed, despite its scope. This theory upholds equality within justice, focusing only on the act.
Although I’d argue that is the flaw when applying it to a contemporary society. When something that is so circumstantial-based is taken into consideration, such as the concepts of justice in a large society, should there not be a marked departure from Deontological views?
The other side of the coin – and arguably the stronger side – is utilitarianism. The idea is that the consequence is stronger than the act. It focuses on the aspect that the only relevance that a ‘good or bad’ action has is with respect to its consequence. What is deemed a ‘bad’ act by deontology may be considered a morally justified act for consequentialism, dependable on the consequence of the act. When you factor society as it is into the equation, it is vital to consider the consequence of an action. Just as in the court of law, there is a heavy emphasis on possible repercussions and the consequences of the act.
Torture is an act that is deemed inherently immoral. Utilitarians argue that it may be justified if it allows for the larger part of society to be happy. Had a terrorist been threatening the lives of a couple of hundred people, it would be justified to enact torture upon him to protect those lives – because surely the larger amount of innocent people hold a higher priority of protection over the single man with sinister intent. A deontologist sees it as an act that is, undoubtedly immoral. Surely no one believes that torture may become a universal law, disregarding any consequence that may occur.
However, it is not always one versus a hundred. An infamous case that looks over an ethical dilemma and justice is the case of R V Dudley Stevens. The case sees 5 men lost at shipwreck, with no hope to return and no nourishment to sustain themselves. On the brink of starvation, they decide to kill and eat one of the crew members, and it just so happens – it is a 17-year-old boy, the youngest on the crew –. A few days later they are saved and taken to trial over the murder of the boy, on the pretense that despite the circumstantial basis of the situation, murder is murder. They are later tried and found guilty on charges of murder and cannibalism. This is what is a prominent ethical dilemma within the justice system. On one hand, the murder of the young man and the act of cannibalism are illegal and immoral acts, for no man just goes around killing and eating any person they see. Though here, it was vital for their survival. The act was stronger than the consequence or why the act happened.
This case, although a strong case to showcase the concept of morality and justice, is not a case concerning a contemporary and broad society. Modern society is abstract and applying a definite form of thinking is what will cause problems, and some may say injustice to arise.
There are also virtue ethics that we may consider. Is an act just if it is done with good intent? Is the moral character and concepts of a person stronger than the consequences or the will of the action?
Because there is little to doubt that no two individuals hold the same virtue, albeit minor in difference.
If you view virtue as a personality trait, is it not in a way saying that a virtuous person, a person that holds all good deeds and moral traits is not capable of doing wrong? I can go and commit heinous crimes and yet I may be defended if I am maintaining a virtuous personality. In the eyes of justice and society - one that is so large -, you can not simply label someone as virtuous or not. How can I even think of applying eudaimonia to a society that holds such contrasting examples of success and virtue?
There is no saying that all ethical theories can’t be applied and there is no doubt they will be applied towards the laws of justice. Regardless, utilitarianism provides the most compelling, just, and admirable framework for justice.
Because there truly is no justice if there is no consequence of the act.
Sources:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice/