Hugh Himwich: Justice exists from the moment we search for it and while we never arrive at an objective account, still it is justice that catches us as though by surprise, from behind, and winds itself through our existence. Or in less poetic terms, the search for justice changes neural arrangements. We seek justice and thereby become just. Originally, there was only the desire to know.
Jordan Fleischer: I am having a bit of trouble following this. You are saying that by searching for justice, we create it? If we never arrive at any sort of conclusion, how is it possible to act justly? "We seek justice and thereby become just." What if our search leads us in the wrong direction, and we do the wrong thing? Or is there perhaps no wrong direction? This would seem to imply that justice is subjective. I think this is what I tend to believe, that we create our own definition of justice, whether it be through our own journey or through the teachings of our mentors. Either way, justice is defined by the individual. You say that "we never arrive at an objective account," but what I am more curious about is whether an objective account of justice exists. Forgive me if some of what I have said doesn't make sense, I'm still struggling through this one!
Hugh Himwich: The key thing is that we remain open about a possible objective basis of justice. This active openness with respect to a matter of ultimate importance shapes and molds us in the very image of the thing we seek. This is an understanding that transcends subjective and objective.
Jordan Fleischer: How do you conclude that being open shapes us into what we seek? I think if you could provide some sort of example it might help me understand. I'm not sure how being open guides us in the right direction. If this is the case, how do we know that we are doing the just thing?
Hugh Himwich: First, being open is a kind of non-action whereby I take care to do no harm. Second, being open allows for my natural desire to understand to emerge unattached to any notion of any specific notion of what justice is. The result is I am tolerant where another might be judgmental. I grow gentle, kind, and generous towards others. I think we would all agree that this is what it is to be a good person, and it does not come simply from parents or anyone else telling us what justice or goodness is -- rather it results from the search for justice itself. I do not claim this is an objective concept of justice, but it is not subjective either in the sense that it is whatever I want it to be. Rather, it is something that happens to an individual without the individual intending it to happen. That's why I say it transcends objective and subjective concepts. You are yourself proof of its validity. Yes, you are!!
Jordan Fleischer: It seems to me that rather than searching for justice you are simply accepting that there is no justice. You do not claim to know what it is, but do you claim that it exists? I had a long discussion with my mother about this and some very interesting things were said. I argued that our notion of justice is based upon what has been taught to us, either through experience or from mentors, but one way or another we have learned it. So, as you suggested, knowing that it has all been taught to me, perhaps I can set it all aside and now think for myself as to what justice is. Now I wonder, forgetting all of the things I have been previously taught, how can I try to determine what is just? I would now look at myself almost as an animal, acting according to instinct and nature. Now, if I were not part of society, I would likely do what is best for me. For example, stealing would seem perfectly acceptable. This can be seen in animals; for example, a dog taking another dog's bone. This would certainly be viewed as unjust in today's society, yet it is entirely natural. This brought me to the realization that justice (or what we consider to be justice) is NOT natural. Think of the countless acts of injustice that occur each day around the world. To me, that seems to prove the idea that we create justice. One of the questions I wished I could have asked David Eagleman when he came to our class is if acting justly is one of those instinctual parts of the brain, similar to sexual attraction. I am almost certain it is not. I feel that the society as a whole creates a justice in order to preserve itself. So for me to act justly is really to act in accordance to what society requires. If you are outside of society, I'm not sure there is a justice. For example, would someone living in solitude even consider justice? I don't think so. Therefore, justice only exists when there is more than one person involved (also known as society). Now of course the question comes to mind what if you do not agree with what society considers just? In this case, you have your own opinion of what is just within society. Yet, it still depends upon the existence of society.
I'm not exactly sure how to conclude this idea. To connect my ideas to yours, it seems as if the "non-action" you speak of, is essentially the act of removing oneself from society. Following from my ideas, one who lives outside of society has no need of justice.
Hugh Himwich: I would argue that our sense of justice is not simply natural but the very ground of our being. The notion of the lone one, the self, is not our original experience of the world. Our first human relationship is our bond with our mothers and all that this bond biologically and psychologically implies, and we come equipped with mirror neurons and the capacity for language, suggesting that the very design of our brains binds us to others. We come into the world by, for and with others. I suggest that our yearning for justice expresses this deep bond we feel emotionally from the maternal-child bond and from the very design of our brains. We seek to be at one with each other and with the universe itself. It is also true that we are different from each other and from the universe, and so the journey -- the hero's journey, I would suggest -- is to know ourselves at once as separate and at one with our fellow man. Life makes this journey inevitable and necessary. When we say that justice is just subjective, we are making a judgment on one set of facts alone. It is true that we can choose not to acknowledge our bond with others, even though by nature it plainly exists. We do so at the cost of our humanity.
Jordan Fleischer: Certainly one's bond with their mother does naturally exist. However, I find this bond to be very different than the relationships one has with other people. Regardless, being part of society is natural, because the majority of people are part of society. You claim that our sense of justice is natural. If so, how do you explain all of the injustice that exists in our world? This question obviously can only be asked assuming society’s definition of justice is true. Notice that what most people consider justice has only taken place in certain parts of the world for a very short period of time. These undeniable facts prove that there is no sense of justice that comes to us by nature. Additionally, it seems to me that your argument has now contradicted itself. You previously stated that we must search for justice in order to become just, yet now you say that our sense of justice is natural. If a natural sense of justice exists, there would be no need to search for it; we would simply know by nature what is just. That both you and I do not claim to know what justice is proves that there is no natural sense of justice. We may search for what justice is... yet, we do not know what it is we are searching for. Our last resort is to define justice in the way that we BELIEVE is what is best for society. In my opinion, this is how justice comes about. It for this reason that when you tell me to set aside what society has taught me, and think for myself, I conclude there is no justice.
Hugh Himwich: I will do my best to respond to all your challenges. When I say that our sense of justice is natural, I do not thereby mean that this sense compels our actions. We are so designed so as not just to know what it is like to be “me” but also to understand what it is like to be someone else. Indeed, we intuitively and spontaneously experience a fundamental equality with others. Justice is trying to work out the implications of that intuition. There is no natural imperative that requires us to act in any particular way – thus, it is possible that we could see others as a threat. What the mother-child relationship establishes within us is a profound and positive experience of reciprocity. Sadly, for some this experience does not occur or does so only briefly. Ultimately, as we grow in our experience of the world, we have to make a choice about how we are going to respond to the reality of others. Our upbringing surely influences this choice, but it is not determinative. Our choice is also based on our rational understanding of how it is best for all of us to live together. But it is a choice and by that choice we fundamentally shape the world in which we live. So justice presents itself as a choice -- that it does so is the result of our biological design and the mother-child relationship. Our two positions are not that far apart. What I do claim is that there is an intuitive sense of the fundamental equality among all human beings. When I tell you to set aside what society has taught you, I am telling you to base your understanding of justice on this intuitive sense and on your rational understanding (thinking for yourself!). Society may very well seek to contradict the intuitive sense and urge you to consider some other human beings as inferior. Remaining open (re: my previous comments) allows for the full exercise of that intuitive sense and keeps the contradictory counsels of society at bay.
Jordan Fleischer: As for the “fundamental equality” you speak of... I think that is debatable. After all, look at the nature and history of human beings. Self-preservation is the central goal of humans. Ultimately, our natural instinct is to put ourselves first. Equality seems to be a relatively new idea to humans, and appears to be something that we must be taught. That being said, I think where we differ in how we look at our rational thinking. When someone applies reason to something, they are using their previous knowledge and experiences. Now, if we "think for ourselves," there is no way to know if whatever conclusion we come to is right unless we compare it to what we have previously learned. It is in that way that our past influences how we think. If "thinking for ourselves" is what we call justice, and therefore we make decisions regardless of what we have learned, then justice would not be defined as any action, but rather the thought before an action. Consequently, any action could be just, provided that one applied reason before acting. Now I would suppose you would suggest that this idea is correct, only to act justly we most reason in conformity with those natural ideas of equality in mind. Perhaps this is where our differences lay. You say there is no imperative that requires us to act a certain way, but do you claim just actions are those that strive to preserve the equality you speak of? In that case, your definition of justice would emerge. You seem to have a definition of justice in mind. Please elaborate. Bear in mind, however, that if your definition depends on equality being a natural instinct then we may have much more to discuss.
Hugh Himwich: I don't know that I can answer all your concerns and questions in a single response. I think you and I have somehow left out the most important element: choice, whereby we create the very justice we seek. I would agree that there are competing motives within every human soul (I use that word with some trepidation): self-preservation being among them -- but it remains for us to chose among those competing motives and decide for ourselves what self we find most worthy of preservation. We certainly have aggressive and narrowly selfish motives, but there is also our intuitive knowledge of the reality of other people and of our fundamental equality and there is also our reason, which causes us to judge the consequences of our actions both with respect to others and ourselves. Out of this mix, we make a choice for which we are solely responsible and thereby create our world. You may respond: then justice is a completely arbitrary choice. I would respond that the choice is not made in a vacuum -- we make choices given the relationships and experiences we necessarily have, our generous and narrowly selfish impulses, and our reason. It is true that these given conditions will vary with individual experience and so will our choices. But what remains the same is that we understand ourselves as responsible for the world our choices create. We can, of course, choose to ignore all of this and just flip a coin or act completely in accordance with our narrowly selfish impulses -- but if we do so, we lose our humanity and thereby will an inhuman world. I repeat: everything depends upon the self we choose to preserve. Let me ask you directly: What is the self you choose to preserve? I ask this not to be argumentative, but because I believe that it is not just choice that has been missing from our discussion, but "your choice." There is, of course, another discussion to be had concerning whether this choice I am speaking of is illusory. It may very well be so, but what remains true is that we cannot dispel that illusion by any act of will. Any such act of will would itself experience itself as free and so confirm the very thing it seeks to deny. We are not free not to experience ourselves as not free. And so we have moved into existentialism.
Jordan Fleischer: It surprised me to hear you say, “We create the very justice we seek.” I am confused as to how this coincides with your idea of justice being natural. However, you seem to be speaking of a personal justice. Suppose your previously presented idea is true. We have all these things weighing upon us when we have to make a decision. Now, how can one tell if you made the right decision? I do not see how being responsible for a decision correlates to making a just decision. Yes, one is responsible for whatever choices they make; yet, I do not see how one can be considered right or wrong. I think the reason why this debate is so difficult is because we have been unable to set a definition of what justice is. At the beginning of our conversation, neither of us claimed to know what justice was. Do you feel that you can now give it a definition? If so, please put it in as explicit terms as you can. Or possibly you could explain how making choices creates justice. Are you saying that making a choice using reason makes the decision just? This makes me think of the discussion in class today of the artist. How does the artist know the meaning of his work? If you say that “he just knows” or “he sees it,” I’m sorry but that is not enough of an explanation for me to be convinced that it is true. It is the same when it comes to creating morals. I do not understand how one could know that they are right.
Hugh Himwich: This is an excellent response, Jordan Fleischer. Good, straightforward questions. I think we may soon be able to come to some agreement. I think we agree that there is no standard by which we can know that what we choose is right. Justice is a choice. Speaking for myself, Justice is the fundamental right of all human beings to have the same opportunity to lead a fulfilling life. This right does not exist in nature. It exists only by the creative act of my choice. It is natural justice in the sense that it is not created ex nihilo, but based upon all that it is to be human. Once again, you are free to choose against this, but only at the cost of your humanity. It is never a question of knowing whether your choice is right -- it is a question only of what kind of world you choose to live in. So again, Jordan Fleischer, tell me what kind of world do you choose to live in. You make choices everyday that create a world of fair play, truthfulness and compassion. You cannot help but make choices. Even if you define justice differently, it will still partake of values that are inherent in the one I offered. Of course, you can choose to live in accordance with your narrow self-interest. Is that your choice? Is that the world you want to create? Or do you choose to act upon that which is just as natural -- your compassion? That we can so choose against our own deepest feelings only argues our freedom; that there are a few who appear to have no conscience at all argues for validity of the general rule. Finally, your choices create a world by the simple fact that they take place within a community who are witness to and affected by your choices.
Jordan Fleischer: I am trying to grasp this idea. Let me start with what we agree on. There is no way to know if what we do is right. Now, you clearly define what justice is in your opinion. Can we conclude that you do not know that acting in accordance with this standard is right? I sense a contradiction here. How can we define justice if we know that we cannot be sure that we are right? I see how our choices create justice; yet, the fact that we are creating it makes it seem very unreal. You have mentioned several times now what our humanity is, and what it means to be human. It seems to be a large part of your argument. I wonder if you could go a bit further into this discussion. I will now answer your question about the world I choose to live in. I too choose to live in the world as you do. I value others and equality. I strive for truthfulness and compassion. Where we seem to differ is in our motives. I do not believe that the characteristics of the world you and I create are inherent to humanity. I agree that there are many sides of us, for example the compassionate side and the self-preserving side. I think those facets can be seen in nature. If someone or something does not pose a threat to us, we naturally respond with a sort of peace. However, if we do feel threatened, we naturally do whatever it takes to preserve ourselves. It seems to me that both of these sides have a reason for existing, and thus neither one is just or unjust. In my personal experiences, I think my upbringing has guided me towards the compassionate side. In other words, I feel that I have been taught that one side is just, and the other is not. The reason behind being taught this goes back to preservation of society. Without this education, I cannot say I would know which side was the right one. I sense that you recognize that the compassionate side is the right one, by means other than education. Yet, you have stated that we can't know. This is where my confusion lays. After writing this response, I have realized that we have approached this question beginning with something that we do not know. Perhaps we need to start with something we know to be true? This is a difficult question for me. What is there that we can truly be certain of? Perhaps that method will allow me to know that justice exists.
Hugh Himwich: I am reluctant at this time to go off on another tack (What, if anything, we can know for certain?) since I believe we are close to agreement. Let's wait and see. You say that you see how our choices create justice, but that fact makes it seem unreal. I agree -- that is all there is. Your argument, however, goes further -- you want to say that your choices are really determined by your upbringing, etc. I would argue, however, that you have chosen to allow your upbringing, education, etc. to so determine your choices. There is prior, fundamental choice that one makes about how one is going to live in this world and that choice involves accepting, rejecting or otherwise revising what you have been taught. It may seem to you that you have never made such a choice, but I would argue that it seems that way because life has not yet directly challenged you in a way that requires you to make that choice explicit. Or it may have . . . . but that choice may be experienced as something so internal that you didn't recognize it because its nature is so different from the usual choices we make.
Jordan Fleischer: We often hear that someone is "too young or naive to make choices for themselves." Is it possible that this is the case when it comes to choosing to allow society to impact the choices we make? Perhaps as a child, I did not have the capability to make my own choices. I had no option to do anything other than what society required of me. As a result, that became the norm for me. Knowing this, I have the ability, as you say, to accept, reject, or revise everything that I have been taught. I recognize that whichever I choose to do, I will be responsible for that action. However, I see no way of determining if my choice is just or not. Given that we do not know what justice is, how could we possibly know if our decision was just, other than by defining justice by the action we choose? Suppose you decide you want to live in a kind and peaceful world. Consequently, kind and peaceful actions would seem just. However, those actions only seem just because of the way you defined justice. Perhaps we need to discuss how you decide the type of world you want to live in. If the world of equality is an innate desire for you, that may be your justice. Yet, if someone's nature promotes violence and a desire to dominate others, would that not be their justice? It seems that justice only exists as we define it.
Hugh Himwich: I thought that we had agreed that there is no objective standard by which one can decide whether any action or choice can be said to be just. It is a choice, as I have said repeatedly. My definition of justice is a choice based upon experience, rational thought, intuition, desire, and most importantly on the recognition that others exist for themselves as I do for myself. It is not correct to say simply that "justice only exists as we define it." You need to add: and we stake our entire lives on that definition. That others choose otherwise relieves me not one whit from the responsibility for my own choices. My life is a witness to that responsibility.
Jordan Fleischer: Yes, we have agreed that there is no objective standard by which one can decide whether any action or choice can be said to be just, which is exactly why it seems foolish of us to go ahead and define justice as we have. It is essential to remember that justice itself is only an experience. If someone makes a choice based on the parameters you have provided, they will indeed experience an act as if it is just. However, when it comes to determining if there is any truth behind that experience, there is simply no way to know. It reminds me of the phenomenon of color; it exists in our consciousness as something undeniably real, yet, the truth is that color is simply created by our brain and truly only exists as waves of light. No one can say what the truth is about justice. Yet, I think we can agree that living as if justice existed is the best way to live a fulfilling life. We must not forget that our guidelines for justice will create a different justice for everyone. As you stated, "we stake our entire lives on that decision." For that reason, we must rely on our individual experience to discover what justice is.