|
THE JUSTICE CULTURE
FROM JUSTICE TO PEACE
By
Joseph Sguigna
Preface
For the conscious transformation to prevail, structure and direction must prevail. Its structure consists of its fourfold root: a human-transcendent wisdom. a critical-creative thinking education, a public benefit society, and a Love spirituaity. Its direction consists of the integral implementation of this fourfold root. These two essentials – structure and direction – need to be housed, so to speak, need to be cultured, in accordance with the whole quest and growth of this conscious transformation.
Accordingly, this fourfold root has an environment, of its own. This is its culture; its unique identity.
And because, this culture exists for the well-being, the good, the edification, the aspiration, of everyone concerned – both indiviually and socially – it is essential that this "everyone concerned" is solidified into an integral whole; or in other words, into a unity with others to form a greater whole; and whatever goes contrary to this unity is excluded from its culture.
For this unity of purpose and direction to prevail, there must be an underlying concord among "everyone concerned"; otherwise, randomness will break down this unity, if for no other reason than the diversity of human nature itself.
__________________________________________________
1
1. Let me start off with this extemporaneous, word for word, little oral exchange between my wife and me:
She: "Come on, Joseph, be just; I can't do it all myself."
I: (humorously) What! Be just in an unjust world!
She: In our world, yes.
2. This situation makes two essential points regarding justice, not only in a domestic setting, but a social one as well. First, that justice entails "doing or taking your proper share"; and second, that those who do not do or take their proper share, cause various forms of conflict – tension, anger, friction, resentment – and all the dissension that follows from this conflict. Actually there are three points, the third one being a subtle distinction, which I'll get to later.
3. Thus, not doing or taking one's share, we can easily consider as unjust behavior; just as we consider doing one's share as just behavior.
4. Conflict puts us on the defensive – we are motivated to defend ourselves from it, either passively or offensively.
5. Conflict we identify with aggression, warranted, and otherwise – You don't do your share, then: "You're fired"; "You're grounded"; "You fail"; "I'm leaving you"; "I quit"; "I'll get even with you;" This last statement, especially, leads to revengeful violent, even criminal behavior often enough; whether domestic, social, or political.
6. We overlook a person's not doing his share often from fear of reprisal of one sort or another, from preferring to "leave enough alone" rather than break the calm, so to speak.
7. We certainly overlook our teenage-to-adult children's omissions and commissions "seventy times seven," that's for sure, in matters of what they should but do not do, and vice versa. Why is that? does familial love precede justice? And if so, do we unconsciously realize the basic unjust inclinations of human beings due to their human frailties, and so, realize that if we took offence at every unjust act of our children, how would it be possible to love them, to live with them, to forgive them? So, because of our blood bond with them, we tend always to forgive and forget. What about this matter, this moral conundrum?
8. This doing or taking one's share regarding our commitment to others implies that we do the right thing; and that we do so, consistently is more than can be expected from our frail human nature, however well-intentioned we may be. And thus the ever on-going conflict between people. Today we do our share; tomorrow we do not, for whatever reason or justification.
9. Not-doing-your-just-share includes all the devious ways by which a person lives by, gets by, this manner of living: lying, cheating, stealing, deceiving, and the like.
10. The difference between "what you should do," and "what you're supposed to do." What we should do is mostly a matter of personal responsibility, expectation, what we consider as right or wrong concerning our own autonomy; what we're supposed to do is mostly a matter of interpersonal responsibility regarding what others expect from of us regarding set rules or laws, whether or not we consider them right or wrong for us personally. If we do not do what we should (or ought to) do, and vice versa, we normally are in conflict with ourselves. We are not being just to ourselves, to our well-being. If we do not do what we are supposed to do, we are not being just to the household or legal system.
11. Now of course the household or legal system might not be just itself; in which case, there is conflict between the just-minded person and the unjust household rules or legal system. And why does this conflict arise between the just-minded person and the unjust system? Is it not because the unjust system is not doing its share regarding the consideration of those under that system. And in what way is it not doing its share? It is taking more than its share of rights and means (funds, property, labor, and like) over the rightful freedom of choice from those under its system. It is meting out arbitrary dictums for its own sake at the exclusion of the rights of others. It is using others as a means to their own ends by taking from them more than they should, or, are supposed to. "Should," "Supposed to," in what sense? Is it not a matter of, say, you standing on my shoulders to pick the last three apples from an apple tree. Now how are we going to share those three apples between the two of us? Obviously, we each receive one apiece. How is the other apple divided between us? You needed me in order to reach the apples so that they could be picked, and I need you to do the picking the apples. In either case, neither of us would have the apples without the other. The obvious answer to this situation, as to appropriate, proper, sharing of this third apple, is to cut it in half: one half for each of us. This appropriate sharing of the third apple is not a matter of we should share it equally, but that we are supposed to share it equally. Why are we supposed to? According to what standard? Equality. One side of an equation equals the other side of the equation (e.g., 2 = 2 or 2 = 1 + 1) In this case, both persons gave an equal share in receiving the three apples, because one without the other would not have yielded them. Abstractly, it is a matter of numeration (e.g., 2 = 2 or 2 = 1 + 1). Relatively, it is a matter of human differences; that is to say, what if the person ascribes to the viewpoint "might is right,""survival of the fittest," philosophy, and thereby, takes more than his proper share of the third apple; in which case, he gives you a third or fourth of it, and he takes the larger share? Or if he is of a tyrannical disposition, takes the whole third apple. In this situation, conflict predominates, since that person has taken more than his proper share, according to both the mathematics and humanity of the situation.
So, again, justice is identified with a proper, proportionate, sharing (distribution) between the equal participation of two or more persons; injustice, with an improper disproportionate, sharing (distribution) between the equal participation of two or more persons. This latter situation – injustice – engenders conflict; the former situation – justice – engenders harmony. Or from another perspective, the latter engenders fight, war, psychologically or physically; the former situation engenders pacification, peace psychologically or physically.
12. We could take this simple three-apples situation and apply it to the social, political, business, corporate fields, with all their complexities, so far as justice and injustice are concerned. It would take considerably intricate reasoning to balance out the multiple variations involved; but it can be broken down to a simple matter of justice as the doing and taking one's proper share, and injustice as doing or taking one's improper share – "proper" meaning equally proportionate and "improper" meaning unequally proportionate both in relation to sharing responsibilities; and "proportionate" understood objectively that all persons would agree to, as they do arithmetically that 2 = 1 + 1; or in our three-apples situation in which both persons contributed proportionately, and so, should - and more strongly - are supposed to proportionately share evenly, equally the third apple.
2
13. In the matter of human affairs, situations are so intricate and convoluted that this simple three-apple situation obviously does not, nor cannot, apply; but it is not in the scope of this discourse to explore these psychological and social complexities. My main points are, to repeat myself, that (1) injustice normally engenders conflict, and (2) justice normally engenders concord; and that this conflict can lead from a quarrel to a war, and that justice can lead from agreement to peace. And it is concord not conflict that we identify with our culture; it is a culture concerned with peace not of war: peace of mind rather than war in the mind, or war of mind.
14. This peace can be sustained only through justice – which is, by now quite clear. And since justice is the foundation of our culture, it is appropriate to consider it as a justice culture.
15. This justice culture encompasses the framework for the four-fold undertakings of the conscious transformation underway:
 a human-transcendent wisdom – Human-Transcendence – so that we act wisely amidst these complexities
 a critical-creative thinking education – Studies in Meaning – so that we think clearly through these complexities
 an independent-beneficial society – The Public Benefit – so that we secure this wisdom and education
 a Love spirituality – Our Love Divinity – so that we keep in touch with the source of this conscious transformation
Human-transcendent wisdom guides us in matters of behavioral justice; the critical-creative thinking education trains us in understanding justice in its all-inclusive sense; the public benefit society secures the ascendancy of social justice; and transcendent Love inspires us toward the meaning of justice.
17. These are the hallmarks that will establish and sustain justice in our culture
18. We have to consider the following crucial question considering the vast range of human types that will be part of this justice culture: Why would a person prefer inustice to justice? Well, the answer is far too complex to even try to answer it except in outline. I mean, we can consider a host of reasons on the surface of it: a person's drive for power, for wealth, for ego-gratification, for lust, for recognition, for the sheer love and thrill of being unjust
We know that we all have a degree of these traits in our own individual natural composition; but when this degree extends to such an excess that the drive and impulse of these natural traits unjustly harm the welfare of others (does or takes more than his/her share), then there is nothing by conflict, war, with this person. Needless to say, such persons are excluded from our culture lest they incubate dissension that breaks down the good that is built up. There will be enough of us in our culture to effectively deter these few. Yet the threat is ever there.
We have to recognize and expel from the culture this type of person before he/she becomes too entrenched into the fiber of our culture. It is a matter of ongoing vigilance, like a spotlight ever searching, seeking out, being aware of, these harmful individuals; and this is where our four-fold undertaking prepare us for this ongoing task.
3
19. As justice is related to the right thing to do, just as we cannot always do the right thing in our everyday actions, so if follows that we cannot always be just in our everyday actions. Our human frailty determines this state of affairs.
20. Justice is the first step toward freedom; for without justice prevailiing in a particular setting, there is little or no opportunity of attaining or maintaining freedom, whether it be social, personal, or self-freedom.
... continued
|