When I was looking over my notes to study for the symposium today, I was reading over Mill’s list of what an injustice is and I was questioning exactly what he meant by some of these items. I was wondering how much we actually consider all of these an injustice in everyday life and if a person can really be held responsible for all of these qualifications. Let’s take, for example, number three which says that it is an injustice when someone receives more than they deserve. I think we would all agree that it is an injustice when a person gets paid more money than their career deserves and what they did not work for. The first thing that comes to mind on this topic is Kim Kardashian. Does she deserve to be as rich as she is? A lot of people think that she gets more than she deserves and that is therefore an injustice. What about when someone is born into wealth? They did not earn the money their parents worked hard for and yet they benefit from it and receive some of that wealth without putting in the work. Is that an injustice? Can we hold that against people?
Another injustice I am having trouble agreeing with is number five, which refers to favoritism. I definitely think it is unfair when professors show favoritism and then those students end up with higher grades than the rest of the students; however, I do not think that you can call it an injustice from the other end. If someone favors me and yet and do nothing to warrant that favoritism, then I am not committing an injustice and should not be held responsible. There are people that take advantage of the situation, so they are definitely in the wrong, but I think if it is involuntary then it is not an injustice.
I am probably being too nitpicky on this last one, but I also find issue with number four. This injustice is when someone disappoints expectations that he or she has cultivated. Dr. Johnson explained this as when someone breaks a promise but to me this sounds like it could also apply to when someone has achieved greatness in an area and then they disappoint. That is not an injustice. People do not owe their talent or abilities to anymore. I might be taking this too literally but do you think it could apply to this as well
Are any of these critiques legitimate or am I misunderstanding?
I agree with your critique about the third injustice. I think people may feel you're picking on Kim Kardashian, but I see your point. I guess generally speaking, celebrities themselves as well as athletes seem to get more than they really deserve. Many people deemed "celebrities" are in reality people that just took advantage of some form of publicity, negative or positive, without making any true respectable contribution to society. This critique is a legitimate interpretation for our time and generation, but I'm sure Mill didn't have these instances in mind.
ReplyDeleteI think, when Mill is talking about the the third formulation of injustice, he doesn't necessarily talk about the distribution of money. Of course, money and financial power is one aspect of "getting, what one deserves", but I guess, in that point, we can go back to Aristotle and bring up the idea of honor, respect and other similar kinds of rewards that we call "social rewards". For example, lying and cheating in class don't give you great financial benefit, but it gives you the tribute of your classmates, because they think, you are a very good student. You don't merit this reward and therefore it is unjust.
ReplyDeleteI think that in the monetary context you describe you are right to say the third injustice is not truly an injustice. When people are born into money they did not earn it is unfair but it is not unjust. The parents who did earn the money have a right to give it to their children so in doing so they are not performing an injustice. The child who unknowingly is born into a family with money is not actively pursuing something he does not deserve so this is not an injustice either. Although acquiring money without work when others have to earn it is not fair it is also not unjust.
ReplyDelete