Chapter 9. What is Justice?
Recommended Reading : 【Philosophy】 Philosophy Index
5. The Concept of Justice of the Three Admirals in One Piece
1. Justice by Michael Sandel
⑴ Introduces various theories of justice such as utilitarianism and hedonism and points out their problems.
⑵ Utilitarianism : The view that the choice that maximizes the greatest number of interests is just.
⑶ Hedonism : The view that the choice that maximizes the sum of the greatest number of happiness is just.
⑷ Thought Experiment 1. Trolley dillema: What choice should be made when one person and five people are on different train tracks and the train must go down one?
⑸ Thought Experiment 2. Is a society where one person becomes maximally unhappy and the rest are happy a just society?
2. Justice by Bourdieu
⑴ The position that the ideologies and philosophies of the powerful are justice.
① Power is objective, clear, and somewhat exclusive.
⑵ Strength : Very clear.
⑶ Weakness : When discussing theories of justice, value judgments are lost, and only factual judgments remain.
① For example, the implication that every act of a dictator is just : What use is a theory of justice without judgment?
3.Welfare Economics
⑴ An attempt to explain theories of justice in economic terms.
⑵ Concepts of efficiency and equity appear.
4.Introduction to Law
⑴ Describes the concept, purpose, and form of existence of law aimed at realizing social justice.
⑵ The law must be equal for everyone as a derivative logic.
5. The Concept of Justice of the Three Admirals in One Piece
⑴ Akainu’s concept of justice : Rigorous justice.
⑵ Aokiji’s concept of justice : Lax justice.
⑶ Kizaru’s concept of justice : Ambiguous justice.
6. My Concept of Justice
⑴ What is justice?
① Proposition 1. Value judgments cannot be derived from factual judgments alone.
○ There are cases where factual judgments and value judgments are mixed. For instance, ‘the glass is half full’ and ‘the glass is only half empty’ are the same factual judgments but involve different value judgments.
② Proposition 2. All value judgments eventually converge to a single major premise.
○ People face contradictions because they consider more than one value as a major premise.
○ Since value judgments ultimately converge to one, it is believed that value judgments do not contain a lot of information.
○ Perhaps that is why it is difficult to obtain useful information from politicians’ statements that mostly consist of value judgments.
③ Proposition 3. Naturalistic fallacy : No value can be considered superior to another.
⑵ Major Premise 1. The value of a person is the most precious ( Individualism )
① Human value refers to the intellectual ability of humans to create something from nothing and does not discriminate against any field.
② On average, it is judged that two people are more precious than one : My response to Michael Sandel’s Thought Experiment 1.
⑶ Major Premise 2. Justice is about minimizing the total contradictions in society. It varies by group and prioritizes social stabilization. (Collectivism )
① Influenced by Kantianism.
② Contradictions are inherently objective, hence the concept of justice has objectivity. For example, the main contradiction in Neo-Confucianism was the Ye Song controversy.
③ Since the concept varies by group, the concept of justice has flexibility.
④ Justice seeks social stabilization and therefore has morality.
⑤ Reducing contradictions by creating contradictions is not just. Therefore, excessive reforms are also wrong.
⑥ Unjust groups cannot survive according to evolutionary theory.
⑦ Even if the intention is pure, if the outcome is a mess, it is not just.
⑧ Even if the intention is impure, if the outcome benefits the group, it is just, but according to game theory, this is difficult.
⑷ Sub-conclusion
① It seems that each individual must choose between Major Premise 1 and Major Premise 2.
② One cannot logically refute a pessimist or relativist based on belief. This is because two independent and stable logical systems do not have logical superiority over each other regarding their mutual contradictions.
③ There is nothing to learn from the value judgments of others. One can only verify the logical consistency of another one’s own value judgments.
○ Example of another’s value judgment: “I dislike you.”
④ The relationship between value judgment and fact judgment: Value judgments provide motivation for new fact judgments.
○ Example: I want to conduct this research to treat cancer patients.
Input: 2023.03.04 11:01
Revised: 2024.07.21 11:39