Kant's univeral law of justice states that one should "act externally in such a way that the free use of your will is compatible with the freedom of everyone." By acting in such a way our freedom is somewhat resticted, but as rational beings we understand that we must give up some freedoms to receive others and be able to function compatibly with others. Should someone choose not to abide by the universal law and infringe upon the freedom of others, justice authorizes the use of coercion against that person.
Towards the end of class today we talked about the two exceptions that are outside of the claim justice: equity and necessity. Equity deals with moral laws that can not be solved within the judicial system; "right without coercion." Meanwhile necessity deals with situations that are more coercive than law: "coercion without right." The example that we used in class is that justice wouldn't apply should you kill in self-defense because the threat of being murdered would cause the rational person to kill their attacker although murder is a crime punishable by law for the law's punishment wouldn't be as great as the threat of losing your life. I was curious as to what other situations you could apply the exception of necessity to. For example, would justice not apply to someone who resorts to stealing food because he is homeless and can't find a job? Technically, the punishment of going to jail would seem luxurious to him because he would be receiving shelter and food for free; so that wouldn't be a punishment at all compared to dying of starvation and exposure to the elements (a fate that he faced should he not resort to thievery). So is this situation an exception from justice since the situation is more coercive than the law?
While I see your point, I don't think most people would justify the homeless person's action as necessary. There are several resources available for homeless people, so no one would likely consider it completely necessary. Secondly, while a prison would provide shelter and food, it would also restrict there freedom to choice of clothing, the freedom to go as they please. Whereas , homeless shelters provide shelter and food without those possibilities, therefore I think prison is still a possible punishment because it still has an element of coercion. Just a possibly different perspective.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree. I think that this homeless person is still acting unjustly. A lot of times people think that necessity is a reason to do something but it isn't. Like stated above, homeless people do have other options. If they still, they are infringing on someone else's rights and therefore it is unjust. Kant believes that you must treat others as you want to be treated (don't treat people as a means but an end) so therefore you cannot take advantage of them. The right thing to do is find someone who is willing to help and give you what you need opposed to taking that choice away from someone by stealing.
ReplyDeleteDue to the large amount of services (welfare, health care) provided by our tax dollars, it would be unjust for homeless people to not take advantage of them. Not only do our tax dollars get wasted by the lack of participation in these programs, we are having to pay for the time they spend in prison due to stealing. While most of theft occurs to pay for more drugs, alcohol, and more crimes the thought that the money will go directly to food is preposterous. While it may seem just that the person is stealing for food, the probability of this slim. We do not live in a Robin Hood fairy tail and people act for personal gain. Is the homeless person acting unjustly to the population because of all the wasted tax dollars? I believe so.
ReplyDeleteThis is an example commonly brought up when trying to define the line between acting out of necessity and acting immorally, and it is a very good one. Certain people would argue that it depends on how big the act of thievery seems (whether it is stealing an apple off of a tree, or taking another impoverished person's last loaf of bread) however I believe according to Kant, stealing is always an immoral action. The situation the homeless man is in is unfortunate, but one could never will the maxim of 'it is okay to steal sometimes' because nobody would ever have a sense of his or her right to property.
ReplyDeleteAndrea, I guess what Jasmine wonders is, if the act of self-defense applies to the exception of the categorical imperative, why should not the act of stealing in order to survive apply to it, as well? As she pointed out very well, the law would have no greater coercion than the situation itself: If the homeless man decides not to steal, he is probably going to die. If he decides to steal, he might go to prison (let's say, he definitely goes to prison), which is a way less coercion than dying.
ReplyDeleteObviously, the categorical imperative does not work here, because we really cannot want the homeless to die because of obedience to this moral law. This is completely irrational. Therefore I think, Jasmine's example applies to the case of necessity!
Kant states: "No punishment threatened by the law could be greater than losing his life." (pg. 156) so I would agree in the instance of a person who is starving and will not live much longer without food, stealing would be a case of necessity. I think though that it only applies to dire cases when the loss of one's life is certain.
ReplyDelete