In the last posting, this blog made a connection between the
value, equality, and the value, justice.
Each is a key instrumental value in the federalist moral code this blog
offers. But in a way, justice can be considered
a derivative value, derived from the value, equality. In terms of this moral code, this blog
identifies the following definitions:
·
Equality is a social quality based on the
belief that despite inequality in talent, wealth, health or other assets, it
calls for equal consideration of all persons’ well-being, that all have an
equal right to maintain their dignity and integrity as individual persons.
·
And justice is the
commitment to give everyone his/her due based on a realistic view of dispersed
or accumulated advantages.
The first provides the substance and motivation for the
second.
A civics
teacher who wishes to utilize or apply moral questions in his/her lessons and is
guided by this federalist moral code, this relationship between the two values
can be important. Generally, if those in
authority dispense or withhold a benefit or punishment in an unequal fashion –
assuming there is no other common good consideration – that official is being
unjust.
This blog has offered
the obvious case in which unequal treatment reflects a just policy. That is the prohibition of blind people being
allowed to drive. As a matter of fact,
even people with compromised eyesight can be either deprived or restricted in
their driving privileges. This inequality
makes sense when one considers the common good and there does not exist any
meaningful objections to this restriction.
But there are other cases that do engender controversy.
For example,
take the case of awarding a Purple Heart to war veterans who sustain a wound or
death from enemy fire or other aggressive acts (bomb explosions, stabbings,
etc.). They are summarily described as “drawing
blood” events. Some want to change the
rule and include those war veterans who come home with post-traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD).
This
decision to either award or not award the designation, beyond the social
adulation it affords, represents a dispersion of advantages or benefits – some
are financial, particularly at veterans’ hospitals.[1]
So, whether it is issued or not can have
important, practical consequences.
Michael J. Sandel offers this example
in his treatment of justice.[2] He reviews the detrimental consequences of
PTSD including its debilitating effects.
Some of these effects last a great deal longer than many flesh wounds. Sandel writes: “Symptoms include recurring nightmares,
severe depressions, and suicide. At
least three hundred thousand veterans reportedly suffer from traumatic stress
or major depression.”[3] So, why not make the change and include these
victims?
Those who oppose doing so, cite or refer
to the idea that this unfortunate result is the product of weakness, not
bravery. And, as a psychological
condition, it cannot be readily ascribed exclusively to the war experience, at
least not as “drawing blood” events can be so ascribed. With this example, Sandel tests one’s belief
in or understanding of justice and it reflects how difficult it can be to sustain
equality in some situations.
To do a thought experiment: suppose the Purple Heart designation had not
been “invented” or thought of. Suppose that
General George Washington had not begun the practice of issuing the designation,
called the Badge of Military Merit, in 1782 and Congress had not formalized it
into law in 1932.
But
with the recent discovery of PTSD and its symptoms, governmental authority
instituted an award (with accompany benefits) to those who are certified as
suffering from the disorder. Should one
then extend the award and benefits to those who have suffered from death or
wounds? Is that justice?
Students can deal with this experiment
through class discussion. They can also interview
their parents, their parents’ friends, and neighbors – and ask: how do they feel about extending the award to PTSD
victims? And, why do they feel as they
do? Any hesitancy, one can speculate,
reflects a cultural bias. Stated
opinions over this issue probably say a lot about how Americans feel or believe
what mental illness is.
How
does the reader feel? Should the award
be extended to PTSD victims? And why
does he/she feel that way? In the next posting, this blog will look at the 2008-09
financial crisis and how it presented another challenge in handling justice
based on equality.
[1] See “Purple Heart Benefits,” Military Benefits, n.
d., accessed March 18, 2019, https://militarybenefits.info/purple-heart-benefits/ .
[2] Michael J. Sandel, Justice: What’s the right thing
to do? (New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2009).
[3] Ibid., 10.
No comments:
Post a Comment