Exceptions to the Concepts of Justice

In today's class we discussed Kant's own exceptions to his concepts of justice. For most of the philosophers we've discussed, we, as a class, deemed there were exceptions to their theories or ideals; but, for the first time, a philosopher himself has mapped out the exceptions. Kant outlines his three concepts of justice, which state that justice applies to external and practical relationships solely between people's wills and that justice does not take into account the content of the will, but instead only the form. Following these concepts are the exceptions of equity and necessity. In simple terms we defined equity as right without coercion and necessity as coercion without right.

The best way to describe equity is the use of Professor J.'s cupcake example. A contract was agreed upon and signed by both parties stating that the two people would both make and sale cupcakes, and then split the earnings. One person made 2,000 cupcakes while the other made only 12, but despite the drastic difference in contribution, they still split the earnings evenly. The contract is upheld, so what took place was not unjust; however, it could be deemed unfair, which is a matter that really does not hold up in accordance to the law.

On the other hand, is the exception of necessity. The exception pertains to scenarios in which Kant says, "necessity has no law." The best way to describe this concept is also with an example discussed in class. If a person is faced with the dilemma of being killed or killing the attempted murderer, any consequence that person may face as a result of killing the person that threatened his life cannot be worse or more severe than what the person has already been faced with.

The latter exception really caught my attention. If this exception to the law applied to our laws today, many people that are imprisoned or have been imprisoned in the past may have faced completely different consequences. Think about it. Many people steal or commit other crimes, because they perceive that there is no other way to have their needs met. For example, if there is a family that has no income, no food, but children that need to be fed, the act of stealing a meal is not worse than seeing a child die of hunger or malnutrition. At that time, the law is of no consideration. From all of our discussions, no one would will a maxim that says stealing is permissible, but at the same time we can say that with this exception the results of getting caught stealing or not stealing at all render consequences that are both bad. In class it was said that laws are infringements on our rights and freedom in general, so if a person decides to ignore these laws out of necessity for their livelihood or well-being, what happens? In our society they would still be punished, but what do you think would happen if this exception applied to our laws? Would necessities become interchanged with wants and desires, or would necessities themselves be met for everyone initially, so that there would not be a need for the exception at all?