JUSTICE IN THE FRAMEWORK OF ETHICS AND ACTIONS

 JUSTICE IN THE FRAMEWORK OF ETHICS AND ACTIONS

Krishna advocates to do right things (ethical things) irrespective of consequences but Arjuna insists how  we can ignore consequences of the ethical way of doing something which would impact lives of innumerable people. How the ethical way of one person or a few persons can be more important than the hard or even brutal consequences to be suffered by innumerable people . If virtues of one person are going to become miseries of many persons , is it right way of doing ? Is it right way to do just things even if the world perishes or should we let some injustices continue to survive for some time to buy time to find some other way so that larger catastrophes can be avoided? Here I'm concerned with the institutional system of justice propagated by Krishna in the form of the Varna System .Krishna's advocacy for justice on the basis of the ethics  of the Varna system which  is so brutal that it's not ready to provide any other choice to a person outside her or his  Varna position. The system of Varna is considered as a just way of allocating duties to persons and once certain duty is assigned to one person her or his other choices are locked. it is claimed to be a system of justice which proclaimed purpose is to allow to survive within a limited choice which is not achieved by that person , rather allotted to her or him based some extraneous factors. This system of justice allows people to act within the boundaries and they are prevented to aspire for anything else by claiming some other achievements. Thus the idea of justice here is to accept the dictates of masters. No course correction is allowed even if consequences are catastrophic.

Here I'm not trying to make consequences paramount but evaluation of  ethics remains a  question of social realization in terms of consequences as any principle’s or theory’s viability or acceptability happens in the real world itself and the real world is a tangible ground for testing of ethics. Good or bad may vary but pain and pleasure are more universal, if not cent percent universal. Such realization may be of different types but any realization must be so to minimize and to eradicate any injustice caused by such ethical act. The world is full of threats and dangers. Different ethical arguments may act as agencies to generate the ways to remove consequences of the nature of threats and dangers. So we should give the way to different arguments to come up with their own solutions. If we try to limit our choice to any one there may be danger of losing the proper solution and there may be incremental danger of dreadful consequences. So plurality of choices for every person is an idea condition so that, that person may have freedom to construct her or his theory of justice , provided this does not create a web of all contrasting theories. Then how can it be possible to check such web. In real world discreet conditions are always in a set, meaning thereby that though in a society members may have different financial conditions but broadly they can be classified as lower income group, middle income group and upper income group or something like and this grouping itself limit the choice of theories of individual persons. So we must allow to flourish reasoning to find the best possible way to find solution after making all necessary amendments in our societal ethics.

  Here let me clarify certain abstract things in somewhat tangible ways. So at first let me define what I mean by a system of justice. A system of justice is a set of rules, principles, institutions, and processes that are designed to resolve conflicts, protect rights, and promote the common good in a society. A system of justice can be based on various sources of authority, such as religion, tradition, reason, or democracy. A system of justice can also vary in its scope, structure, and function, depending on the historical, cultural, and political context of a society.

Second, let me explain some of the criteria that are often used to evaluate the ethics of a system of justice. These criteria include:

 

- Consistency: A system of justice should be consistent in its application and interpretation of the rules, and should not be arbitrary or biased.

- Coherence: A system of justice should be coherent in its logic and reasoning, and should not be contradictory or illogical.

- Conformity: A system of justice should conform to the values and norms of the society, and should not be alien or imposed.

- Comprehensiveness: A system of justice should be comprehensive in its coverage and scope, and should not be partial or incomplete.

- Consequentialism: A system of justice should consider the consequences of its actions and decisions, and should not be indifferent or irresponsible.

- Compassion: A system of justice should show compassion and empathy for the people involved, and should not be cruel or insensitive.

 

These criteria are not exhaustive or definitive, and they may not always be compatible or applicable in every situation. However, they can serve as a useful guide to assess the strengths and weaknesses of a system of justice, and to identify the areas of improvement or reform.

 

Third, let me suggest some of the ways that you can balance the ethical way of doing something with the consequences of that action. This is a difficult task, as there may not always be a clear or optimal solution. However, you can try to follow some of the steps below:

 

- Identify the problem or the dilemma that you are facing, and the options that you have.

- Analyze the ethical principles and values that are relevant to the problem or the dilemma, and the options that you have.

- Evaluate the pros and cons of each option, and the potential outcomes and impacts of each option.

- Compare and contrast the options, and weigh the benefits and costs of each option.

- Choose the option that best aligns with your ethical principles and values, and that maximizes the positive outcomes and minimizes the negative outcomes.

- Implement the option that you have chosen, and monitor the results and feedback of your action.

- Reflect on your action, and learn from your experience and mistakes.

 

These steps are not fixed or rigid, and they may vary depending on the nature and complexity of the problem or the dilemma. However, they can help you to make a rational and informed decision, and to act with integrity and responsibility.

 

Fourth, let me recommend some of the methods that you can use to ensure that the system of justice is fair and inclusive for all people. This is a challenging goal, as there may be many barriers and obstacles that prevent or hinder the realization of this goal. However, you can try to adopt some of the strategies below:

 

- Educate yourself and others about the system of justice, and the rights and duties that it entails.

- Participate in the system of justice, and the processes and institutions that it involves.

- Advocate for the system of justice, and the reforms and improvements that it needs.

- Collaborate with others who share your vision and values for the system of justice, and who have different perspectives and experiences.

- Resist the system of justice, and the injustices and oppressions that it creates or perpetuates.

 

These strategies are not mutually exclusive or exhaustive, and they may require different levels of commitment and risk. However, they can help you to engage with the system of justice, and to influence and transform it for the better.

In this backdrop our attention should focus on some important questions about the system of justice, such as:

 

- How can we evaluate the ethics of a system of justice?

- How can we balance the ethical way of doing something with the consequences of that action?

- How can we ensure that the system of justice is fair and inclusive for all people?

- How can we challenge and change the system of justice if it is unjust and oppressive.

Then only we can arrive at some justified consequences by adopting the ethics of justice.