Ethical

Continuing the discussion of how we know what we know, I think that justice may roughly be defined as “the verified true way to live.” One might argue that this statement implies that there is a definite and absolutely right way to live “the good life,” however, I think that by examining part of Alasdair MacIntyre’s theory from After Virtue, and John Rawls’ theory from, A Theory of Justice (keeping in mind the previous discussion regarding the application of knowledge as the means by which it is verified), will serve to explain what I mean by “the verified true way to live.”

MacIntyre’s central theme in his discussion of how human life should be lived is the theme of the individual as part of a community, both presently and historically, to provide a unified identity or narrative self. This connection to the past, the current community, and the ability to reflect on one’s experience and the motivations that have shaped one’s actions make life intelligible. These relationships also allow for the cultivation of internal goods through the practice of complex, cooperative activities such as the arts, sciences, games, or politics. The pursuit of internal good is a progression of human excellence or a kind of human telos.

There are other elements to MacIntyre’s theory that I do not entirely agree with, but I think his emphasis on relationships to present and past communities as a necessary way of informing one’s own internal good is extremely interesting. For MacIntyre, the greatest fulfillment comes out of human relationships with others and an ability to reflect on those relationships as part of one’s narrative of self.

Now, consider again Arendt’s discussion of action. She also emphasizes that engaged, active, public relationships (similar to MacIntyre’s practices) are the most satisfying/fulfilling parts of life and what make us truly human. Arendt also suggests that action (public speech or cooperative discussion) as a means of discovering truth – the true nature of something (see above discussion in under “Epistemology”). This concept can be correlated with the discovery of what justice (or, the “verified true way to live”) is. Additionally, as I also mentioned above, applying theories to the community to which they refer as a means of verifying their truth applies to theories of justice. When some form of justice is applied in a community and the members of that community assemble (literally or figuratively) to communicate to others how this particular system of justice effects each of them (Arendt: looking at a thing from all perspectives), each one can gain a sense of what this system of justice really is and whether it is “good” – enabling the “true,” or the best way to live.

This system of knowing justice from all perspectives is essentially John Rawls’ theory of the original position.

Rawls, unlike MacIntyre, does not assume that humans have any intrinsic teleological end. But he does assume that each individual has his/her own conception of “the good” and can form a plan to rationally achieve that end. Naturally individuals’ conceptions of the good vary and conflicts arise which have the potential of severely limiting the interests of some while exponentially advancing the interests of others (i.e. an unjust system). Rawls wants to discover a system of justice that would maximize every individual’s ability to achieve his/her good life. Rawls argues that two specific principles of justice would certainly arise if justice could simultaneously be evaluated from every possible perspective. This takes place in the hypothetical original position where individuals are blinded to their own specific goals behind the “veil of ignorance.” This is a way of examining a system of justice from all perspectives and shaping a thing with an understanding from multiple different perspectives. In a way this is what Arendt was talking about: public debate (action) allows for a truer understanding of “what is,” and in this case, “what should/ought to be.”

Although some of Rawls’ theory is problematic, for example the practicality or even possibility of abstracting oneself for ones narrative life/community (to borrow MacIntyre’s terminology). However, the exercise, of being behind the veil of ignorance seems similar to Arendt’s ideas of knowing a thing from all perspectives (which in this case come from each individual who is differently affected).

Furthermore, the justice or principles by which we govern our lives not only represent the best way to mutually and simultaneously advance individuals’ goals, they also serve to foster within society a collective notion of cooperation and a reinforcement that individuals’ positions in society are fair. These principles therefore, provide a kind of justification/reason (or narrative) for why social positions or wealth are as they are. To again borrow MacIntyre’s language, Rawlsian principles help in making our lives intelligible.