by B.J. on 11/03/2002 07:30:00 PM 0 comments Print this post

Comments: Post a Comment
Subject A is coming up on November 16th. Damnit. IF YOU EVER GET the time to READ, give me your honest opinion on my tag-board or message my ass. Even if you just read a SENTENCE, I'm still open like Christina Aguilera after seeing Fred Durst in a thong to your suggestions.

Conventional Justice Versus Universal Justice

Without universally accepted rights and wrongs for different cultures and generations to draw upon, the idea of conventional justice cannot exist. Universal justice defines itself as justice that extends to every culture and every era. In sharp contrast, conventional justice is justice that fluctuates with every culture and/or era, which applies only to varied customs and laws. As humans, our senses of wrong revolve around the basic rule that no one can or gets hurt as a result of an action. Thomas Jefferson, writer of The Declaration of Independence, exploits the idea of universal justice first and foremost to implant into the audience�s mind that the cry by the tiny colonies represents a broad common problem of injuries committed against men in general. Even the foremost champion of conventional justice, Thrasymachus, antagonist to Socrates in Plato�s The Republic, concedes to the idea of a universal thought process. Neither Maxine Hong Kingston, author of No Name Woman, nor Elizabeth Cady Stanton, writer of Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions would have been able to determine the wrongness of their subversion as women had it not been for their trust in the universal truth that no one gets hurt. In general, different cultures and eras, interpret right and wrong differently with ongoing developments in their respective societies, which is where conventional justice blurs the line with universal justice. Conventional justice judges new issues itself primarily on universal wrongs such as stealing and cheating, on whoever is violated, the results of the subject getting violated, and the frequency to which the subject gets violated. However, not many cultures and/or eras view their justice as conventional justice, which if unacknowledged would cease to exist.

In determining wrong for a certain action, all cultures and eras center the basic, universal rule that no one gets hurt. In the midst of an era that accepts the subversion of women as norm, Stanton states, �The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her� (Stanton 173). In the preceding paragraphs, she submits the concrete effects of how women have suffered as a result of their subversion to men, such as man making her morally irresponsible (Stanton 173). Like Stanton, Kingston defies the conventional thinking on women�s roles, this of her own Chinese ancestry, by devoting a paper replica to a forgotten aunt, lost because of village-wide resentment (Kingston 16). She knows the neglect is morally, universally wrong, which is why she devotes her narrative to the forgotten aunt (Kingston 16). The audience also sees that Thomas Jefferson defies Britain and the world�s conventional thinking of the time that no harm was done to the colonies, by complaining that the universal truths of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were stripped away by Britain (Jefferson 78). Like Stanton, he names all the harm, in this case, Great Britain has committed upon the colonies (Jefferson 79-80). Even Thrasymachus, sole believer in conventional justice, believes in the notion of determining justice by gauging if anyone gets hurt. �And when it [governing body] passes these laws, it�s defining the honest thing for a subject to do: what benefits the ruling class; and when someone breaks these laws they whip him and call him a criminal and dishonest,� notes Thrasymachus (Plato 338). He concedes to Socrates that as a result of the selfish people always in power, the weaker people get hurt (Plato 339). By simply acknowledging that weaker people get hurt, Thrasymachus admits that it is wrong to exploit weaker people. In conclusion, the generic way in determining rightness and wrongness lies within the simple premise of anything getting hurt in the process. However, the simple premise complicates itself when people try and determine exactly what gets hurt in the process.

Different cultures and eras interpret universal law differently in regards to various developments within their societies, making tangible the notion of conventional justice. For example, Jefferson uses the fact that the King of Great Britain refuses compliance to laws as a conventional concern, based on the universal right that they are being denied liberty (Jefferson 79). He uses concrete, conventional details such as the King of Britain imposing taxes on them without consent to further his argument of abuses while basing his argument on the general, universal idea that people deserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (Jefferson 80). Similarly, in The Republic, the quick-witted Socrates throws Thrasymachus off with specific, conventional examples of how those in power primarily address the needs of the incompetent rather than addressing themselves first and foremost (Plato 343). Socrates inquires, �Is the doctor you mentioned a while back a businessman earning a fee, or a healer of sick people,� to which a confused Thrasymachus confirms as a healer of sick people (Plato 343). In effect, Thrasymachus agrees with the specific, conventional example that doctors are healers of sick people and, eventually the universal principle that honesty in whatever a person does sets that person free of restraints (Plato 348). Stanton, in Jeffersonian fashion, cites the conventional wrong that man �Allows her in Church, as well as State, but a subordinate position, claiming Apostolic authority for her exclusion from the ministry, and with some exceptions, from any public participation in the affairs of the Church� (Stanton 174). Some people, in the current day and age, may not care one bit of the church, but her problem centers itself in the universal truth that the women are being subverted and forgotten (Stanton 172). Similarly, Kingston�s perceived dilemma of combating Chinese tradition by making mention of her forgotten aunt, centers itself on the universal truth of not hurting her aunt anymore by ignorance (Kingston 16). As much as conventional justice is omnipresent in conjunction with universal justice, many people do not view their justice as conventional, homely, and near-sighted. Jefferson and Stanton both claim that everyone is created equal and establish that principle as universal truth (Jefferson 78, Stanton 172). Depleting their establishment is the fact that not everyone believes that we are created equal and underneath God. Even Thrasymachus, father of conventional justice, when asked to �Look at any form of knowledge and ignorance and see if you think that anyone at all who knows what he�s doing would choose to do or say any more than just what anyone else would do or say. Wouldn�t he act in exactly the one who like him would do,� to which a dazzled Thrasymachus replies �. . .Well, I suppose, in cases like this, he�d have to act like that,� admitting a sense of universal action given a world with eerily-similar people (Plato 350). Thrasymachus shows his own bias for his own time and age, discounting other possible factors in that perfect world. Unlike the other three writers, Kingston makes no establishment of universal law because she does not argue a point, but rather reports occurrences in a spontaneous fashion. However, she relies heavily on the basic, universal principle that no one gets hurt when she establishes that her aunt has been wronged.

The idea of universal justice upholds any type of conventional justice to be served because people outside of a circle of society can relate to a general aspect. As humans, laws and whatever is right and wrong is determined by if anything is harmed. People then misinterpret whether or not anything gets harmed, which leads to discrepancies between universal and conventional justice. Further complicating the situation is the fact that not many people believe that their ideas of justice may be short-sighted. Without this acknowledgement of conventional justice, it cannot exist.

Labels:

 



Home Page