Video

Cultural Justice

Tyleisha, Haruna, and Killaq made this. As Andrew says, it is “soooo cool”

Advertisements

Christopher Macleod and The Crimes Against Humanity:

Por Alfonzo

 

Christopher Macleod is a Lector in Political Philosophy in the Department of Politics, Philosophy and Religion at the University of Lancaster. Before take that position, he was a Teaching Fellow in Political Theory at the University of Edinburgh.

 

HUMANITY ACCORD MACLEOD:

“The principal difficulty in interpreting the term ‘crime against humanity (CAH)’ is the ambiguity of the word ‘humanity’. This word, of course, has two distinct meanings. It can be used to refer to the species to which we all belong: the human race, all human beings, the block of all humans. Yet it can also be used to refer to that thing which is common to the class of all persons, in virtue of which they are human: humane-ness, human-ness, within the spirit of being human. For the sake of clarity, let us label the first sense ‘humankind’ and the second sense ‘human-nature’.”

In the way exploring to Crimes Against Humanity, he had to think from different view points. The first one at “how we can think about the crime?”, from he made the first definitions about Crimes Against Humanity (CAH):

 

“CAH1:  an  action  is  a  crime  against  humanity  if  and  only  if  it  is  an  action  contrary  to  the human-nature of the perpetrator.”

 

In  CAH1,  the  wrong  of  the  crime  is  located  within  the  criminal’s  failing  to  meet    up to his own human nature. An act is here thought be inhumane because the perpetrator behaves in a way that ignores that he is himself a human being: his action is  sub-human.  There  is  a  symmetrical  wrong  to  inhumanity,  namely  dehumanization, which  generates  a  close  variant  on  CAH1.  Whereas  with  acts  inhumane  it  is the criminal’s own human-nature which has been disregarded in his performance of the action, with acts dehumanizing it is that of the victim. This sort of an action, the regarding of others’ status as humans, is embodied in CAH2.

 

“CAH2: An action is a crime if and only if targets the human-nature of the victims”

 

Completing the triad of possibilities as to where the neglect of human-nature must occurfor an action to be a crime against humanity, a meaning can be found referring not to the criminal or the victim, but to the onlookers.

 

“CAH3: an action is a crime against humanity if, in ignoring it, we would ourselves be acting contrary to human-nature.”

 

Under CAH3, the claim is that even overlookingthe crime is unhuman. Some crimes, the claim goes, are so extreme that they cannot under any circumstances be ignored by the outside world. To my knowledge, this has never been proposed directly as a definition of the crime, though it is instructively similar to another possible definition, which seems to capture a very similar thought and which has been taken seriously by many. In examining this definition, we turn to those interpretations which invoke the second sense of ‘humanity’ given above, to human-kind rather than human-nature. Here, as in CAH3, it is the onlookers upon the crime who are used to define it, though emphasis is now given to the fact that they constitute the species as a whole.

 

“CAH4: an action is a crime against humanity if and only if it is an action that shocks the conscience of human-kind.”

 

This meaning was called upon by Hartley Shawcross, the Chief Prosecutor for the UK at Nuremberg, who claimed that the individual ‘is not disentitled to the protection of mankind when the state tramples upon his rights in a manner which outrages the conscience of mankind’. The idea has been repeated by many, and a similar meaning is to be found in Black’s Law Dictionary. Bassiouni indicates that at least one aspect of a crime against humanity is that it will ‘shock the conscience of humanity’. Bassiouni also draws on another meaning, writing that ‘certain crimes affect the interests  of  the  world  community  as  a  whole  because  they  threaten  the  peace  and security of humankind’. We will label this definition CAH5.

 

“CAH5: an action is a crime against humanity if and only if it is a crime that endangers the public order of human-kind.”

 

Crimes Against Humanity, endorses CAH5 as a central understanding,  arguing  that  crimes  against  humanity  are  ‘serious  harm  to  the  international community’. Offering a minimalist Hobbesian account, he attempts to derive international norms to protect against the possibility that states would be in a state of constant warfare among each other that would resemble Hobbes’s “war of all against all”’. As individual criminal acts destabilize the order on which local public life depends,  so  international  crimes  destabilize  the  international  order. The  ‘international harm principle’ is necessary as an analogue of local norms of justice.

 

“CAH6: an action is a crime against humanity if and only if it is a crime that diminishes human-kind.”

 

This is not, I think, the sense in which crimes against humanity are usually taken to diminish human-kind, for thissense involves a change occurring as a result of the crime. A stronger and more interesting sense takes the sort of diminishment referred to in CAH6 as a blotting of the record of humanity, or as a secular parallel of the acquisition and transmission of original sin: a stain that all of us, even those with no substantive linkage with the atrocities, bear. In committing a crime against humanity, a fellow human being does something that tarnishes us all.

 

“CAH7:  an  action  is  a  crime  against  humanity  if  and  only  if  it  is  a  crime  that  damages human-kind.”

 

CAH7 claims that when thinking about crimes against humanity, the victim is properly conceived  to  be  the  whole  of  human-kind,  rather  than  individual  persons. A crime against humanity is defined to be, in a very literal sense, an offence committed against humanity as such.

 

References:

“Towards a Philosophical Account of Crimes Against Humanity”

http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/2/281.full.pdf

 

Conctacs with Christopher Macleod:

Email: christopher.macleod@lancaster.ac.uk

Tel: +44 1524 594280

What did Marx think of justice?

Marx deemed capitalism exploitative and saw a need for change, but he did not call the system unjust. Determining his thoughts on the matter largely depend on whether you look to his works as a young man largely founded upon liberalism, or to his later works. 

–> Early Marx: critiqued capitalism as game with rules. Though the game is itself is exploitative, actions which abide by those rules are by definition, “just”.

–> Later Marx rejects the idea of justice. He believes that philosophy is a result of the economic system in place, and justice is a part of this superstructure (philosophy) created by capitalism. In communism, there is no need for a concept of justice or injustice, since it is a perfect material practice without contradictions. 

 

Justice of Japanese Philosophy

By Haruna

I’m going to look at how Japanese philosophy and culture shaped. As the most characteristic philosophy in Japan, I researched about Bushido and Shame culture.

.Image

 

Nitobe Inazo is a Japanese Ethical philosopher, agricultural economist, author, politician and educator, born in 1862 and died in 1933. He was also the founding director of the International Committee on Intellectual Cooperation. He published a book called “Bushido: The soul of Japan” (1899).  He started writing this book to let the world know how Japanese people learn morals or ethics not relying on the education of religious. He found that Bushido is  essentially building our moral obligation and ethical thinking. 

 

Bushido is found in 17th century in the Edo era, which is the ethical principle Bushi (=Samurai) believed in.  It’s based on the idea of Buddhism, Shinto, and Confucianism. The basic structure of Bushido is also from the Feudal system in 12c, the Kamakura era. But how could Bushido educate us the ethical thinking?

 

Before we go think of this question, I want to explain about the feudal system. Feudal system is the relationship between a master and warriors. Warriors sacrificed their lives to the master instead of they can get reward consisting money and the land. Although it seems like frivolity relation, it actually made a solid relation. From that, we started to respect any kind of human relationships and value other people’s perspective towards their behavior. 

Image

This caused “Shame culture,” (on the other hand, western countries have “Guilt culture“) according to “The Chrysanthemum and the Sword: Patterns of Japanese Culture” written by Ruth Benedict, an American anthropologist 1887 to 1948.    Image

Shame culture is a culture in which conformity of behavior is maintained through the individual’s fear of being shamed in front of people. As you learned, this is because people value other people’s perspective, we were afraid of being judged and the collapse of human relationship. And in Bushido, we respected and regarded them as just.

  • Loyalty 
  • Honor
  • Pride
  • courage for suicide

Thus, when people were pushed on the Shame in the public, it was thought as losing loyalty, honor and pride. Consequently people chose committing suicide to protect the just, this specific suicide in those days called “Seppuku.” (Seppuku: Ritual suicide by disembowelment carried out by samurai. Literally means “stomach cutting.” The samurai committing seppuku would shove a dagger into their stomach while another samurai acted as their second by lopping off their head.)

The importance of Japanese philosophy is not suicide. Suicide is the only way to prove their loyalty to the master, to protect honor and pride, to show their moral obligation to the society. We can conclude that people in the Edo era respect Bushido (and potentially shaped shame culture) which enforce more precious human relationships. And Inazo Nitobe argues that Bushido would probably be gone though,  however we would get westernized, the soul of Bushi never vanish from our culture.

Bibliography

http://www.doceo.co.uk/background/shame_guilt.htm

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/12096/12096-h/12096-h.htm

http://www.facts-about-japan.com/feudal-japan.html

the justice of Bushido:     http://www.sacred-texts.com/shi/bsd/bsd08.htm

 

 

 

John Rawls

Image

John Rawls is a contemporary, American Philosopher born in 1921 and died in 2002.

 

John Rawls was a leading figure in political philosophy therefore I don’t suggest talking about Justice without mentioning Rawls’ theories.

 

Central to Rawls’ theory of justice are the concepts of fairness and equality from behind what he calls the “original position”.

 

Rawls believed that the social contract must be drawn up from an original position in which everyone decides on the rules for society from behind a veil of ignorance.

 

The “Veil of ignorance” is an element of the way people can establish society. Essentially, it means that if an individual had no idea as to where they would fit in a social or political order, they would make decisions with the least benefitted individuals in mind. In other words, everyone would be blind of their social status.

 

From this original position, Rawls believes that two principles of justice arise. The first is the liberty principle, the idea that all people should have access to their basic liberties — freedom of speech, political freedoms, personal property and freedom from arbitrary arrest.

The second principle, the difference principle, states that inequalities in social and economic distribution must be arranged so that they provide the greatest benefit to those with the least advantage. That is, if goods are being distributed in a society, those who need them most should be given priority to receive them.

Rawls claims that we must arrive at this conclusion from the original position because we do not want factors beyond our control to dictate the opportunities we have in life. If we are born at a disadvantage, into a poor family, for example, we must be given the opportunity to overcome it in a way that puts us on equal ground with those who did not have to overcome the same obstacles.

 

Justice in Afghanistan

Afghanistan is a country, which located in central Asia, and is a part of Middle East. The official religion in Afghanistan is Islam. There were wars in Afghanistan more than 3 decades.

The effect of war: waste of Millions of dollars in questionable way, poverty, poor sanitation, lack of access to health care, and also include of murder, torture, rape.

1978- 2001 war began . Since 2002 there were lots of country that help Afghanistan for receiving justice and civil right. But there are some people who against justice, for example they are trying to not let the women to have human right even force them to do what ever they wanted to do, like as slave. The reason is, confusion in religion, those people are called Taliban. They are a big problem in Afghanistan for achieving justices.Just war theory

Augustine

354- 430. He is Christian theologian (rational study of concept of God) and philosopher.

Augustine idea that have according to justice

 

1.If you even have good reason to attack, but you need to think about sending young men to war or to die. Human life is too precious, too sacred to waste

2.So now the leaders are have the idea of the God who are responsible of what are they doing to the citizens

“For Augustine, war was a logical extension of the act of governance”