We will never have a perfectly just society but when do we call our society unjust?

 

Smith in chapter 3 develops an argument of why there is a common approbation for punishment of injustice. He states that a society cannot exist unless laws of justice are followed and individuals in general do not injure each other. Thus, for that to happen, we need to create punishments for those who violate the laws of justice.

 

This line of reasoning will, in Smith’s account, appeal to an individual because his interest relates to the interest of society. As a “man has a natural love for society” and wants to live in an “orderly and flourishing state of society” rather than in “disorder and confusion.” Moreover, because of this connection between an individual and the state. One will do everything one can to prevent the society from being destroyed and thus, injustice. When one will witness injustice, one should do everything in their power to stop it from happening even if it requires the use of force and violence (even capital punishment). Because if it is not stopped then everything he cherished will be gone.

 

Smith paints injustice in very dark tones and believes that without justice a society will just “crumble into atoms.”  However, as he still discusses injustice at large, he understands that there will be individuals who will not follow the laws of justice. This made me think about to what extent laws of justice cannot be followed and the society will still be functional in Smith’s view.

 

Smith does create a “scale” of how bad certain injustices should be viewed. He states that when we are deprived of what we possess, it is worse than to be deprived of what we have only expected. Thus, breach of property is worse than a breach of contract.

 

Therefore, when do we have a functional just society and at what point do we call it unjust. Do we punish enough people and then call a society - unjust? (This seems like a very dumb idea) Or when we will know. The possibility of everyone breaking the law is very improbable because of the punishment mechanism. However, there can be a situation when an increased number of people do break the laws of justice. And what happens if they break the laws of justice without hurting and injuring each other. Their offences would be so minor that they would have no impact on another whatsoever or bring about any remote consequences. What happens then?

 

I think there are a few steps before society will fall apart. And these steps would involve different degrees of injustice, and I think there is an argument to be made that we are living in what Smith would call an unjust society. And, yet, we have not “crumbled into atoms.”



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Development as White Saviorism

Sen’s take on viewing development as freedom seems coherent when the developing body is a part of the community that is being developed. There are troublesome aspects (like the implicit acceptance of unequal distribution of freedoms), but those can be justified and or fixed with minor alterations. However, the account’s flaws become prominent when applied to situations where the developing body is external to the community that is being developed. Because Sen does not factor in the context of when the development occurs and does not outline who can even be a developer, his account would allow for white saviorism.  The issue is not with what Sen’s account includes, but what it does not. Sen’s account does not argue for an equal distribution of freedom. While he believes we should expand freedoms in the most effective way, if this does not expand freedoms equally, it is not clear that Sen would view that as a bad thing. This leaves room for marginalized people in society to be even...
Read more

I used to be a libertarian and i think Nozick is full of shit

In Anarchy State and Utopia, Nozick argues that patterned principles of justice will require “continuous interference with people’s lives” to continually realize their pattern of distributive justice (162). As an alternative, he argues for an unpatterned principle of distributive justice (PDJ) based on the principle of entitlement. I want to examine some of the key assumptions and concepts he makes in his account in this blog post.  Nozick’s entitlement theory views just modes of interacting with one’s holdings as necessarily leading to a just pattern of distribution. Namely, once justice in acquisition and justice in transfer have been achieved, the resulting distribution is just. As Nozick puts is “whatever arises from a just situation by just steps is itself just” (151). He also touches on “the rectification of injustice in holdings” but goes on to say that the exact nature of that principle is unclear and not discussed by him or others (152). This seems like a bit of a dodge to...
Read more

The other face of the father of capitalism?

I found reading Smith's theory of Moral Sentiments interesting because a lot of it felt nothing like what he's purported to be according to all the "father of capitalism" stuff. I see how he developed something like the invisible hand because of how he develops his theory: based on observation. He makes empirical claims above human behavior in relation to which actions we approve and disapprove based on how much we can sympathize with the actor. Both this theory and the one about the invisible hand seems to be an explanation about an observed phenomena.  While I think that the method he uses to develop his theories are similar, the ideas present in this piece seems radically different than ideas on capitalism. The ideas that he present in Chapter two remind me a lot of Kantian ethics. The specific passage that reminded me of this was:  "When he views himself in the light in which he is conscious that others will view him, he sees that to them he is but one of the...
Read more