House Arrest?!

Good morning from Montreal!

Applying our philosophical insight to the question of “house arrest,” the issue is clearly one of the nature of “justice.” Well then, what is justice? The first step is to clarify the concept which, as we all know, is “contested.”

Since he defined the concept very broadly, Plato’s definition of justice as “doing that which is most suitable” does not have much purchase on the question under consideration. By “most suitable,” of course, he meant that which corresponded to an individual’s guiding principles: the “Men of Brass,” for example, were motivated by material acquisition, the “Men of Silver” by power, and the “Men of Gold” by the search for Truth. (As you might have guessed, I am a “Man of Gold.”) So, as far as the question of house arrest is concerned, we can forget Plato.

Generally speaking, “justice” is usually divided into two categories, distributive and retributive. The guiding principle in both cases is that of “fairness.” Distributive justice concerns the just allocation of resources. For example, does the discrepancy between the earnings of the CEOs of major corporations and that of the worker on the shop floor satisfy the demands of distributive justice? (I would say not.) Retributive justice, on the other hand, concerns the question of just punishment. Is hanging for stealing a loaf of bread to feed one’s starving children a “fair” application of the principles of retributive justice? (I would say not.) The question then comes down to that of determining the nature of “fairness” in cases of retributive justice. Is there an objective scale in terms of which fairness can be assessed in similar cases?

I would say not. The law, like history and philosophy, is a matter of interpretation. There is no objective yardstick by which all crimes of a given sort can be measured. On the other hand, this does not mean that there are no criteria at all. It is, rather, a matter of interpretation but interpretation within the parameters of common sense. Of course, the question then arises as to whether the issue of the interpretation of fairness is itself open to further interpretations of fairness. I would say yes: Interpretations are not automatically self-validating. They are open to further feats of interpretation and so on, rendering the metaphor for the concept of retributive justice less one of a “yardstick” and more a “thermometer.” Assessments of fairness in cases of retributive justice vary according to the “climate” of which there are natural “highs” and “lows.”

So, what about the question of house arrest. Well, it’s a matter of interpretation.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

Hello again from Montreal. It looks a bit overcast st the moment but things might clear up later on. Fingers crossed.

Just a brief comment on each of the two posts about my two-part piece on justice, so this won’t take long.

One always wonders about the mentality of people like zZz (Jan. 18, 1051AM) who posted a comment saying, in effect, that he didn’t have anything to say. But, in that case, the question is: “Who cares?” Well, zZz does. He’s got psychiatric – specifically ego – issues. Even if he has nothing to say zZz still thinks it’s important for him to say it. In effect, zZz saying, “Hey look at me! I know it sounds stupid to say this since I’ve got nothing to say, but I’ve just got to say it!” Well zZz, you’re right about one thing. It doesn’t get any more stupid than that. But it doesn’t matter since you wouldn’t have been able to understand my comments in any case.

In the same way, the “Embittered Psychotic” (aka Hugo Phurst at 12.12PM) posts a comment to say that he doesn’t have anything to say either but, like zZz, it doesn’t matter since he wouldn’t be able to understand it either. But unlike zZz, however, the Embittered Psychotic has REAL psychiatric issues! He’s a sneering, nasty one. But, come to think of it, that doesn’t matter either. As I predicted, sneering is all he is capable of. That’s too bad since the last part of my comment dealt with a question he had sneeringly asked (i.e., the one on “Truisms”). Anyway, I just want the Embittered Psychotic to know that I enjoyed reflecting on the nature of justice and then writing the comment, and so I suppose I should thank him for his sneering “inspiration.” By way of such thanks, I want him to know that I hope he achieves success in his continuing efforts to obtain his high school diploma.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!