I wish we lived in a perfect world where people
treated each other fairly and with justice. That is wishful thinking and while
we may have learned and ingrained those ideals within our lives since youth, they are very
often not what happens in real life practical outcomes. There are reasons why
such injustices occur and sometimes that comes from the deeper needs and biases some of us hold. Thinking through some of the reasons why injustice is a practical outcome are helpful.
Over the past few years, I have been using the concept of a
thought experiment on how in-group members could warp local justice
through employment, social connections, corruption and bias to enrich
themselves. It makes no different how many people are harmed; evidence is not
of a particular interest and there were no corrections for poor behaviors. Intentionally rewarding homogeneous clan members at the expense of others.
We have seen this in history, haven't we? At times injustice
and broken promises that have created in and out group members of society. Different value of different people and little sense of a northern star for behaviors and outcomes. We
know that even when obvious injustices do occur that there isn't always a
willingness to stand for a higher moral order. Law is a tool, but it
should have a greater purpose beyond being a blunt instrument.
Such defaults are sometimes unintentional but can be at times also be intentional. Potential sign of a
much bigger problem under the surface (i.e. the need for strong leadership). We pay our hard-earned tax money so that
systems can function fairly and honestly and in instances where they don't it is imperative to
correct them when we can. When they protect injustice, we should be appalled at displays of
lack of respect for a higher moral order.
Good people and good citizens do encourage the highest functioning systems they can. Moral conscious is a guide to insight and knowledge; some have it and some don't.
Here are a few reasons we might ponder as to their truthfulness or falsehood. Different people are likely to see things differently.
1.) Injustice may be as common as justice and much of that
will depend on who is rewarded and who is punished (1st and 2nd class citizens
with different rules and laws for each.). Most of the time it doesn’t turn
out this way but where there is corruption and degrees of difference then it
persists. Few to no checks or balances in the system to correct.
2.) We have become desensitized to the concept of injustice
and lots of people claim to be mistreated. Sometimes it’s true and sometimes it’s
not. Lots of people complaining and people have naturally plugged their ears. True injustice doesn't have an impact or moral outrage. Few feel compelled to correct to protect the entire system.
3.) Politics can have a warping influence on the outcomes of some of our
institutions. The danger of hyper politics is winner takes all but overall
integrity declines. Our institutions are important and supporting them
means we support their focus on our social contracts and the efficient and effective
use of their resources. This may be why we may need a third party to round out the bi-polar perspectives to ensure there is more than two opposite lines of logic where injustice loves to foster like a disease.
4.) Fostering a sense of purpose. As a nation we should focus
on our human freedom and dignity in alignment with the Constitution, freedom of
speech and freedom of religion. Yet, other issues of the day keep our eye off
of the ball. We get consumed by the politics of now but forget the parameters of those activities. The more we focus on what is good for all the more we reap
the rewards of collective effort (It’s likely the next battle in national
development. We had slavery, then we had official segregation, some have argued we are in unofficial segregation, and what is next in development is likely based on the
next generations needs. Universal fair treatment for a universal democracy is one potential issue that may arise. There are others but I think that might be a reasonable one.)
5.) Limited feedback loops or checks n balances. If there are
people in positions of authority that have extreme bias, and they make
decisions based in biased thinking they have created injustice. Because of the way they view the world they may have created many injustices over the years. There are few
to no recourse in the system to deal with those things. It is easy to
force victims to accept crimes or mistreatment if they have no voice (dehumanization by practical outcomes).
6.) Not taking legitimate complaints seriously. In the
hypothetical thought experiment whistleblowers came forward, were correct, and
still those who caused the problem were rewarded financial and socially through the clan and those who made decisions over the clan. This is fairly clear that
the inputs and the outputs are not in full alignment. Something is being warped in the middle and the logic changes.
7. Technicalities of the law became more important than the
purpose of the law. The law sometimes has become a game and if people lie, cheat, manipulate, steal,
and much more we know it is wrong, but the law doesn't always have a way to deal with
it unless it is made easy to understand and follow up (legal laziness).
8.) Black and white thinking that limits our options. For
example, if I say I have a great amount of respect for public officials who serve their communities with integrity (they are diamonds in our society). If I further say that with that respect also comes
responsibility to correct injustice and corruption when found, then others will
be upset. One may be the most logical person in the room by saying encourage what is good and discourage what is bad but that doesn’t make
its way into people’s pathological thinking.
8. Divided people view the purpose of such institutions
differently and there seems to be a lack of desire to ensure integrity that all of societal stakeholders can agree upon. We should view these systems as neutral but sometimes bad actors warp the outcomes. In this example case it is clan members helping other clan members that created great intentional injutices on the victims (i.e. teaching them a lesson to know their low place in society).
9. We and many of our leaders have become complacent in
justice. It's just another court case, just another number, and just a process. The community closeness and empathy are gone. The intent has been removed from the process. What we see now is lots of finger pointing and the rhetoric of politics that sort of warps the discussion. The truer more deeper discussions are ignored for cheap political wins while everyone else seems to lose.
There are others but these are the ones I can think of at the moment. They may not even be true and I have made no final conclusions. Only that they may have some potential impact. I'm exploring a thought experiment on how one can easily manipulate a
justice system through social connections and lies to ensure they are rewarded financially for
poor behaviors. In and out-group members are clearly treated differently, and it
makes little to no difference how many crimes, complaints, or concerns are
brought forward. The victims are forced to hold the ill behaviors of the perpetrators (easy to scapegoat if always at fault for others behaviors.).
One might think that I'm a liberal and that is not true. While I may be liberal in some aspects I'm very conservative by nature but not in the way in which conservatism is defined today. I believe that our nation's purpose is human freedom and the opportunity to develop oneself fully (human capital has economic outcomes). Likewise, I believe freedom of religion and freedom of speech, the Constitution, and the general practices of democracy help make us a better people and should be protected. Within that I also believe in no superior race or religion and that wisdom, knowledge, talent, performance, etc. is something developed within the the person through a pro-development environment (God doesn't make superior or inferior people but people and application of laws sometimes do.). Each person is due a level of respect and that should not be stripped away for trivial desires or ideologies. That is how I define my personal conservatism anyway...whether it has value or not is up to others. Feel free to judge how you see fit.
*This is a hypothetical thought experiment that explores the
philosophical aspects phases of hate and dehumanization for learning purposes.
We explore concepts such as the Constitution, freedom of speech, freedom of
religion, and others. There is a positive outcome but take with a grain of
salt. We can learn together.
