One of the recurring themes that keeps cropping up in my thesis is the notion that justice is a contrary goal to achieving a greater good, or to maximise utility. They aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, but quite often they both can't be had at the same time.
The problem is that both are needed, and what to do when faced with this dilemma.
For example, suppose a national hero is found to be a traitor; justice demands they stand trial for their crimes (and be executed, if you have the same dim view of treachery as I). However, if the public find out that this hero is a traitor, there would no doubt be a signficant negative effect on the population at large. Justice may be done, but at a very high cost.
The opposite end of this spectrum has instances of injustices such as with Guantanamo Bay, where the rights and liberties of individuals are infringed in order to protect the populace. Or perhaps, in a dictatorship, executing random and innocent civilians to ensure the acquiescence of the rest.
Putting aside issues of truth of intention, I have to conclude that justice must be valued over the greater good. The lives of the citizenry will end up being worthless if they have no moral value. No matter how difficult the world become, an unsafe world with a guarantee of fairness and justice would have to be preferable to one of safety and incorrigibility.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment