More Subjects
Concept Of Freedom And Equality In Philosophy
Submitted by
Affiliation
Date
The selected article is from “The Atlantic, “ titled, “America Moved on From Its Gay-Rights Moment—And Left a Legal Mess Behind,” published on 17 August 2019. The House of Representatives passed the Equality Act, a sweeping bill that would prohibit anti-LGBTQ discrimination in all aspects of public and commercial life, without any religious exemptions. Emma Green provides a point of view of both groups, and now it is n the hand of the senate to pass the bill or leave it.
At the initial stages of the development of human societies, the phenomenon of justice understood as universal equality. As an independent element of social life, it begins to be fixed by human consciousness with the development of the first hierarchical collectives. “It was manifested as a reaction of mythological consciousness to inequality in the distribution of vital goods that arose with the development of the initial structure of primitive society” (Chaffee, 2005). From this moment of human history and up to the present day, justice understood as the first virtue of human social life.
The moment has been repeatedly noted by the most authoritative authors. The phrase by the American researcher John Rawls is widely known, saying that “justice is the first virtue of social institutions, just like truth is the first virtue of thought systems. The theory, no matter how elegant and economical, should be rejected or revised if it is not true. In the same way, laws, and institutions, no matter how effective and successful they are, should be reformed or liquidated if they are unfair ”( Chaffee, 2005). This thesis, entirely accepted in different philosophical thought, is gradually beginning to exert its influence on domestic researchers. Today, there is no doubt about the fact that, in general, interest in issues related to the study of the phenomenon of justice is growing. Nevertheless, at the moment, it is necessary not only a gradual quantitative increase in the number of publications exploring the nature of justice but a definite qualitative leap: a general understanding of the importance of the phenomenon of justice.
The reflection of the phenomenon of equality was first observed in the culture of ancient Greece. The philosophers of this period: Aristotle, Heraclitus, Plato, Socrates, Chrysippus, are characterized by an understanding of justice as a kind of natural law of nature, a blessing, according to which a person must coordinate his own life. Another essential feature of this period is the orientation toward the whole (society) as the primary subject of social life. An understanding of the phenomenon of justice in this form (with one or another minor change) has been preserved in the teachings of most philosophers up to the New Age: Aurelius Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Cicero.
All the most significant existing models of justice can be divided based on whose benefit they consider as a priority. The family of holistic theories indicates the preference of the good of society as a whole. All rights and obligations in society are distributed based on the idea of maximizing such a good. The individualist liberal theory emphasizes the dignity of a person to make his own choices and, accordingly, maximally limits the power of society over an individual; the benefit of the latter becomes primary. Utilitarianism is the first and most significant attempt to combine the indicated directions of philosophical thought into a single consistent whole.
The study of the issue allows us to conclude the priority of the use of the term "justice" in the meaning that gives priority to individual freedom, the human right to their own choice. Justice is the result of an honest, enforceable, and non-funeral (concluded freely and giving the benefit of each of the parties) agreement between individuals.
Most theories of social justice, in particular, the most famous version - the second principle of justice as J. Rawls's honesty, rely on the idea of using political tools to determine the order, methods, and volume of redistribution of material goods. Meanwhile, legislative instruments, by their very nature, are unsuitable for achieving justice. Thus, using the idea of the contractual kind of the phenomenon of truth, we can conclude that the concept of social justice, which involves the participation of political power in its final definition in real life, would be recognized by individuals in a natural state as unfeasible. At the same time, social justice can be considered as a condition for the non-ability of a social contract.
All legal norms that exist in society can be divided into three groups: historical, political, and justice. Moreover, the first two categories (historical and political rules) do not appeal to judge as their justification. Political norms, being an expression of the idea of the common good, limit individual freedom, and therefore, oppose justice. This classification involves the separation of sources of political norms and norms of justice. The body of adoption of the former should be parliament (as the highest representative body), and the source of the emergence of the latter is the judicial interpretation of legal norms.
"The Problem of Justice in Philosophy: An Inventory of Approaches," is devoted to an analysis of the main historically developed ways of studying and interpreting the phenomenon of justice. (Diener, 1997) The first paragraph, "Justice as a common good. Holism". The issues of justice of public institutions were first raised by philosophers of ancient Greece: Hesiod, Heraclitus, Socrates, sophists. However, the first to put the problem of justice at the center of his reasoning was Plato.
It is essential to say that Plato's theory of justice was, in a sense, a response to the relativistic-individualistic views of the sophists. The latter, having seen the anthropological origins of the phenomenon of justice, nevertheless, could not substantiate the value of individual freedom and, as a result, concluded that truth is what is suitable for the strongest. Meanwhile, the holistic-collectivist theory of Plato, among other things, had a value justification under it - a common good. It is this fact, as we believe, that enabled her to prevail in the historical struggle against the views of the sophists.
An essential characteristic of a just society of Plato is to bring the power of the whole over the individual to the absolute. An ideal state penetrates all spheres of life of each of its members, without leaving the latter the right to independent choice. Plato's model became the first utopia and at the same time, the early totalitarian society. At the same time, Plato became the first philosopher to justify the connection between justice and laws: in an ideal state, rules should be structured in such a way as to fully realize the idea of justice.
Consideration of the idea of justice was continued by the student of Plato, Aristotle. In the history of philosophy, the views of Plato and Aristotle are often opposed, which is due to their mostly opposite positions on common ontological problems. Moreover, Aristotle, often in his works on society, often criticized his teacher, in particular, pointed out the harm that would result in the abolition of private property, family, etc.
Strictly speaking, there is no doubt that Aristotle's teaching on a just society allows for greater freedom for individuals. Still, we should not forget that for Stagirite, an individual outside the organization is just an animal that is not capable of realizing human potential. Moreover, the state in the metaphysics of Aristotle is not just a mentor in business teaching their citizens the forms of the virtuous life and forcing them to such a way of life, developing a habit of it. (Morris, 2009).
Thus, it was evident that both Plato and Aristotle adhere to holistic views: they attach particular value to a society which, when arranged in a fair way, becomes something more than a simple collection of individuals. Moreover, the whole, acting on its parts, gives them new properties.
Another common ground between the views of Plato and Aristotle was the position on the role of legislation and the origins of justice. Both philosophers believed law (law) as a form of justice in the world, and they understood the norms of justice as natural and independent of the will of man. Cognition of truth, in turn, should be carried out by rational methods. The combination of these positions formed the basis of the first direction of legal understanding - the natural-legal doctrine, the founders of which were Plato and Aristotle.(O'Meara, 2015).
In its development, the ancient society, of course, stepped over the border of the traditional society (this becomes all the more obvious if we take into account the fact that the Renaissance, first of all, was guided by the ideals of antiquity; the very term "Renaissance" implied the revival of ancient culture ); however, it could not become non-traditional. We believe that it was the holistic language for describing the relations between the whole and the parts, as well as the idea of the existence of the natural foundations of people's life together that did not allow the individual to build his life regardless of public opinion, if not the exhaustive reasons that prevented the antics from switching to an unconventional way of life, essential components for this outcome.
A peculiar modification of the views of the representatives of the ancient philosophy of the classical period was the political and legal ideas of the Stoics, in particular, Chrysippus. The origin of the Stoic school occurred during the period of decline in the polis organization of social life, which at the theoretical leveled to the replacement of the polis with another, much larger community - the world state. Meanwhile, despite the expansion of the scope of justice, its nature remains the same: "The just exists from nature, and not according to the establishment, as well as the law and faithful mind" (Morris, 2009).
Strictly speaking, utilitarianism, as set forth by I. Bentham, can be understood as one of the varieties of ancient Greek holistic theories, since in a similar way, society is considered as the fundamental ontological unit of social knowledge. The merit in giving utilitarianism qualitative differences from holism belongs to J.S. Mill. The British thinker suggested that the requirement to achieve benefits in the long-term calculation indicates the need to provide each member of society the maximum possible freedom, provided that it does not violate the freedom of other members of the society. However, a detailed analysis of the teachings proposed by J.S. Mill shows that the British author does not draw an equal sign between the categories of "maximum public benefit" and "individual freedom." (Diener, 1997). For example, the connection between freedom and benefit, according to J.S. Mill, acts only in those societies where individuals have reached a certain level of culture. For societies that are in an "infantile state," the best solution would be to obey the tyrant.
Moreover, the principle of maximum equal freedom does not always work in modern British author societies that have already reached the required level of culture. In particular, arguing about the best forms of electoral systems, J.S. Mill points out that specific categories of citizens (illiterate, bankrupt) should be deprived of voting rights, and, on the contrary, the most educated citizens should be given the right to double voting. Thus, in utilitarianism, J.S. Mill uses the term freedom as a fundamental principle of building public institutions. It becomes possible only when one's benefit is understood as inextricably linked with the public benefit. As a result, the justification of universal freedom by use became possible only after adjusting the term "freedom." (Chaffee, 2005).
Utilitarianism, having set a goal that is the priority over individual freedom, could not axiologically justify it by resorting to holistic values. On the contrary, paradoxically, the ideas of one of the main ideologists of the utilitarian doctrine, J.S. Mill, were aimed at the glorification of individualistic values. Moreover, the term "freedom" in liberal theory is understood in a negative sense, as freedom from coercion, which is another limitation from an overly broad interpretation of the idea of conventionalism - as the justice of everything that was established by agreement. Thus, we see that if the truth is the central element, the "soul of law" at the domestic level, then, at the state level, the law does not contain such an item as justice in general, which means that in specific particular cases law is possible without judgment.
References
Chaffee, J. (2005). The philosopher's way: Thinking critically about profound ideas (p. 640).
Pearson Prentice Hall.
Diener, P. W. (1997). Religion and morality: An introduction. Westminster John Knox Press.
Green, E. (2019, August 18). America Moved On From Its Gay-Rights Moment-And Left a
Legal Mess Behind. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/08/lgbtq-rights-america-arent-resolved/596287/.
Morris, M. (2009). Social justice and communication: Mill, Marx, and Habermas. Social Justice
Research, 22(1), 134-155.
O’Meara, W. (2015). The Aristotelian Principle in Mill and Kant. Athens Journal of Humanities
and Arts.
More Subjects
Join our mailing list
© All Rights Reserved 2024