Injustice We Trust: In response to hidden's 'what if all you ever knew' post (1081 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 1.75 on 20 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by T.chow <trcose.at.wisc.edu> (View user info) at 2004-11-07 22:43:47 EST
This was actually a short writing exercise for a class I'm taking but I think that some of those who read hidden's post might find something of interest here. Sorry that it sounds so academic, but too fucking bad.
In the natural world injustice abounds in countless capacities. Life starves, kills, is killed and generally suffers from the point of inception. In this feral world of limited resources only defeating the competition guarantees survival. It is not a game of chess, nor even rock, paper, scissors. There is no strategy and there are no rules of conduct. The human world though, however similar in earthly limitations and desires, is different. Humanity's laws are not nearly as powerful as those of physics or biology, nor are they as tangible; but they should suffice to separate mankind from the animal kingdom. These ideals of Justice are ingrained in society and as such are necessary for the preservation of it. Unfortunately, frequent lapses will inevitably occur, as Man is yet prone to natural drives. Mankind must compete just as any other form of life in order to survive. In the interest of self-preservation though, Justice should be upheld inexorably; but in the interest of self-preservation it often is not.
The animal world is a fierce race. From the initial unpleasant surprise of the gunshot to the often-untimely conclusion of the finish line, life is a struggle of mortal implications. Survival contests food, shelter, water, and sex at the pain of death with every tooth and nail. These commodities are the very underpinnings of animal instinct, a trait shunned by human society, essential as it is. Uncompromising competition, a vehicle for injustice, is basic to animal instinct. For this reason it is an undesirable element, despised by the average person. Animal instinct is a throwback to an embarrassing time in human evolution, one that some might sooner ignore than combat.
Entrenched in securities of economy, national defense, and social norms, society should not stoop to its basest urges. However, when these securities are at risk, society follows the one most basic absolute: competitive survival. With animal ferocity and unsympathetic disregard for what is just, a threatened society defends its way of life to the utmost. But seldom will society put itself in harm's way to oppose that which would otherwise not immediately threaten it, unless it might gain from the situation. The events of September 11th 2001 for example compromised the intellectual security of the entire world. As a result, leisure of safety and personal freedom was taken from society in order to protect national interests. Had two planes not flown into the World Trade Center, the threat to security would not have been met with the social modifications. Ergo, these measures of protection, which stripped society of certain rights, would never have been allowed. Akin to much of the rest of the animal kingdom, social enterprise more often than not requires an urgent mechanism, immediate gratification or imminent danger, to overcome its moral inertia.
But this is not to say that individual constituents do not posses higher ethical standards, just that society does not operate along the same ethical guidelines. Society is not a function of Justice; Justice is a function of society. Though Justice is necessary within the bounds of a social group to maintain order; society on a whole does not always act accordingly. Communal insects such as ants or bees commit little of what might be considered injustice (as defined by human standards) within their hive, though they kill any foreign insects that are perceived as a threat. In much the same way, war is accepted as human nature but murder is not. What is just is relative to the contiguous social medium; a society that allows murder within its bounds would not survive, but a society that allows murder outside of its bounds will thrive by eliminating competition. This, of course, is a simplification of competitive survival, but it stills holds some truth.
If humanity is ever to overcome its animal instincts it must rely more on every individual instead of only the summation of its individuals. To stave off the onset of apathy and complacency on social stratums it must simply deny the social mindset. Unfortunately, mankind has not yet found exemption from the common natural necessities, and societal discourse is a thus far matchless form of security. It is not enough to say that mankind is flawed in nature, but that nature is flawed in mankind. To ever reach the humanist ideals aspired to on the individual level, society must stop running the race of life as if there's money riding on it.
User Reviews
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2004-12-17 20:13:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
i am interested as to why you capitalised 'Justice'.
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2004-12-17 20:11:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
In the interest of self-preservation though, Justice should be upheld inexorably; but in the interest of self-preservation it often is not.
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2004-12-17 17:45:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
this is very interesting to me, and relates very much to what i've been thinking abut in things like the rank and vile story.
it's a strange mixture of things i agree with and disagree with, but i'm going my best to understand it.
will comment more when i've finished it a bouple of itmes
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2004-11-08 15:32:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
This is strangely reminiscent of my law school application essay. Only this is way better.
Submitted by T.chow (user info) at 2004-11-08 13:17:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
i think it's funny when people ruin perfect scores for no reason. it's like kicking down a sandcastle or smashing a bird nest. it really speaks of a deep connection to the id, clearly a major player in the very injustices i spoke of in the post.
you, sir, are the essential human. the pinnacle of raw life. you must be a very happy person.
bravo whatthehell, bravo
Submitted by WhatTheHell (user info) at 2004-11-08 13:06:26 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
I like to smear animal feces on my testicles and masturbate into a tennis shoe.
Submitted by T.chow (user info) at 2004-11-08 12:30:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Teephphah--that's just the point. we can't expect justice inter-societally or extra-societally until we can rise above the level of simple animals.
it funny you mention apes because before i wrote this i had just written papers on how to classify humanity and what role essential securities play in free will. this was really the culmination of those ideas, so it doesn't quite stand on its own i'll admit.
i'll post them if anyone is interested.
Submitted by shandy at 2004-11-08 08:48:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
i liked the final line.
must try and read it all properly when sober
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2004-11-08 08:20:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
We are all just naked apes.
Actually, that is something that this piece doens't quite address. It takes as given that there IS something seperating us from the animal kingdom. Frankly, I'd like to see some objective proof for this. Maybe someone could also address the erroneous nature of expecting "justice" from base-natured "animals."
Now to be a total link-whore. I'm only doing so because this reminds me of something I wrote quite a while ago. I'd like to hear your thoughts on the matter.
http://www.ubersite.com/m/12587
Submitted by Quasiplasmohedron (user info) at 2004-11-08 07:40:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"i'm not sure i agree with everything i actually wrote"
Not sure I do either but this was very interesting and looks to have sparked a great discussion.
Submitted by Amusingly_shaped_semen_stain (user info) at 2004-11-08 04:50:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Nice writing, but I think you put too much emphasis on 'society' as a singular, cohesive entity that makes its own decisions and justifications.
Society is composed of individuals, groups and myriad sub-cultures it is not some kind of vast consensus. Was the American response to 9-11 a social response or was it a government directed response?
Submitted by celine (user info) at 2004-11-08 04:16:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I like how this is getting some +2's solely on quality of writing. It is good. Very well written. I'm sure your teacher/prof/instructor would +2 it if they saw it here. All said I'm sure you'll get an A.
So +2 for having some grammar skills. You're my hero!
Submitted by William_Q_Percy (user info) at 2004-11-08 01:30:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
In the same vein, one can argue that the pursuit of truth is the point of life, and that truth will never be found.
If so, then what purpose does the concept of justice, and the actions carried out in the name of justice, serve?
Submitted by William_Q_Percy (user info) at 2004-11-08 01:28:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"Do not confuse justice and truth. Justice is
done in the name of truth. And truth remains to
be found."
- Edmond Jabes, The Book of Questions
Submitted by T.chow (user info) at 2004-11-08 00:43:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
very interesting and i'd like to respond to that, but i need to go to bed.
i will say only that my essential assertion was that there is no such thing as an international (read inter-societal) justice, so our actions outside of our borders need no justification. i was reffering only to those within our borders (i.e. Patriot Act). perhaps justification is the wrong word though, more like propellant or catalyst. society doesn't try to justify itself, that is a job the individual takes upon himself (for whatever twisted reason).
also though, i don't remember ever voting to start sending troops off to kill people. that was a decision made by one man. there was much more than simple self preservation involved.
that said, i'm not sure i agree with everything i actually wrote. it was more an essay for the essay's sake, an exercise in idea development.
your response was insightful to say the least. thanks.
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2004-11-08 00:15:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
What this fails to acknowledge is the De Vrann instance where humanity has modified an environment to an extent that atavistic imperatives such as tribal competition are irrelevant.
Homo sapiens as a species has such overwhelming control over its resources, environments and inter-species relationships that the prevalence of traits such as "Instinctive preservation of personal environment" becomes secondary to the more fundamental psycho-philosophical problem of "Now that i have food and shelter provided until death, what is my job as a part of this species?"
It is this problem, an inability to comprehend it as well as the insecurities that are mandatorily attached to such a fundamental paradox that leads humanity to so many poor tribal decisions.
The fact is, September 11th cannot be viewed from any natural angle as a justification for its aftermath. There is no biological prerogative for the "Pre-emptive strike" especially when the links that exist between the original attackers and the subject of the retaliation are so tenuous.
This is possibly why the compassionate element was catalised among so many people when the War on Terror moved to Iraq. It is very difficult for a moral entity to justify the brutalities committed when viewed from the more general perspective of that individual's well-being and levels of necessity. Put simply, it is very difficult for the average American to justify how war in Iraq is going to protect them from a further instance of 9.11.
Furthermore, the situation is paradoxical from a natural perspective again when you consider that the damage caused by 9.11 was far more on a psychological level than it was physical. September 11 did not put a large proportion of the population at risk of famine, disease or lack of shelter. As such, it is difficult to quantify the appropriate level of retaliation. What also must not be forgotten is that the perpetrators were killed in the attacks, and the problem of guilt assignation was therefore exacerbated as the general populace did not believe anyone had been satisfactorily punished.
It is part of this concept of "justice" that actually magnified the destruction caused by 9.11, as it necessitated retribution upon someone, anyone, to allay the trauma affected upon the population.
Having said that, this is a well written and coherent basis for more powerful assertions and will hopefully be elevated by discussion into a cogent and useful debate.
I need a beer...
Submitted by T.chow (user info) at 2004-11-07 23:56:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
right: i don't profess to really answer any of the questions in hidden's post, but i think this pertains to some of the international politics bullshit that is so common
Submitted by Nobb (user info) at 2004-11-07 23:46:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I think, but am not sure, that hidden was referring to what's going on behind the scenes. The people manipulating the situations to produce the outcome they want. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Bin Laden himself was one of them. Living it up in luxury somewhere and going into a studio to make a video every now and then.
+2 for excellence though.
Submitted by Tigre (user info) at 2004-11-07 23:09:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2004-11-07 23:08:17 (#)
Ranking: 2
excellent.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2004-11-07 23:08:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
excellent.