Theoretical Problems of Justice/2nd

Series of lectures by Prof. Reza Gholami

2^nd session – July 5, 2024

 

Second Section: Classification of Justice Problems

 In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful. In this session, I would like to begin by discussing the classification of problems. Before delving into the classification of justice problems, it is important to express my expectations for an appropriate classification.

• Classification Features

A suitable classification should have at least the following five features:

1. 1. Comprehensive Coverage: It should cover the problems completely.
   2. Clarity and Understandability: It should be clear and understandable.
   3. Specialized Analysis: It should provide the context for analyzing problems in a more specialized manner.
   4. Connection Points: It should not ignore the point and context of the connection between different areas.
   5. Consistency: It should not present an inconsistent picture when viewed from a macro perspective.

After outlining these desirable features for the classification of justice problems, we can proceed to explain the types of classification of justice problems.

At first glance, justice problems can be divided into theoretical and practical categories. However, some argue that many problems, except a few completely abstract ones, cannot be easily separated into purely theoretical or practical categories. This is because theoretical problems often have practical implications, and practical problems can have theoretical underpinnings.

Another perspective divides justice according to the common divisions within society. Society is typically segmented into several fields: cultural, political, economic, and judicial. There are criticisms of this division as well, with some arguing that social fields are interconnected. For example, the political arena is inextricably linked with the cultural arena.

A third approach classifies justice problems according to the structure of scientific theories. Here, I would like to highlight a common division in social science theories, though I have made some minor modifications to the typical divisions and used terminology that I personally agree with:

1. 1. Design or Structural Field: This field encompasses problems related to the design plan of a theory, including the overall structure and the internal components of the theory.
   2. Fundamental or Institutional Field: This field addresses problems related to the essence and foundational infrastructure of a theory. The infrastructure can consist of various layers.
   3. Linguistic Field: This field includes problems concerning the linguistic aspects of a theory. These can be seen as hermeneutic issues, central to analytical philosophy.
   4. Organizational or Systemic Field: This field deals with the relationships between a theory’s components. It considers the interaction and synergism of these components, as well as macro-level problems from an external perspective.
   5. Method Field: This field covers problems related to the methods used to form a theory, including the functional methods applied within the theory.
   6. Instrumental and Technical Field: Every theory includes tools and techniques, either related to its construction or its functioning. Problems related to these tools and techniques fall within this field.
   7. Functional Field: This field involves problems related to the function of a theory in alignment with its goals. It focuses on the theory’s function without necessarily considering its social impact.
   8. Pathological Field: This field includes problems related to identifying and analyzing the injuries or deficiencies within a theory.
   9. Critical Field: To verify the correctness of a theory in the human sciences, it must be critiqued. This field addresses problems related to the methodology of criticism and the criticisms made against a theory.
   10. Interdisciplinary Communication Field: Modern theories have systematic relationships with other scientific and practical fields. This field examines the connections between the systems governing a theory in one field and those in other fields.
   11. Common Field: This field encompasses problems that overlap multiple areas and cannot be confined to one or two specific categories.

After discussing the classification of justice problems, it is important to note that in this series of lectures, I will be using a more streamlined classification system. I want to emphasize once again that I approach these problems from the perspective of political philosophy, ensuring a holistic view rather than a fragmented one. This macro perspective will naturally influence the classification process as well.

The seven-level classification for our discussions is as follows:

1. 1. Linguistic Problems
   2. Infrastructure Problems
   3. Systemic Problems
   4. Pathological Problems
   5. Critical Problems
   6. Common Problems
   7. Functional Problems

1. Linguistic Problems

• The universality of the concept of justice

The universalism of the concept of justice has both supporters and opponents. Proponents of universalism offer two main arguments to prove the universality of justice:

1. 1. Nature (Fetrat) in Humans: Fetrat refers to the inherent tendencies in humans that form moral principles and serve as the foundations of reason. According to this perspective, all human beings possess Fetrat, which explains the universal inclination towards goodness. Fetrat may vary in strength but never disappears entirely. Proponents argue that understanding and seeking justice is a natural (Fetri) tendency rooted in Fetrat. Most religions also emphasize the definite presence of Fetrat in all humans.
   2. Historical Evidence: Historical reports suggest a common understanding and demand for justice across different societies. Proponents believe that human tendencies towards justice have been consistent throughout history, with no historical events contradicting this notion.

Opponents of the universal concept of justice provide two main counterarguments:

1. 1. Incomplete Induction of Fetrat: The claim of Fetrat’s existence in humans is based on incomplete induction and cannot be considered definitive. While religious teachings may be definitive for believers, they are not scientifically testable.
   2. Historical Evidence as Conjecture: Even if the frequency of historical reports can be proven, they remain conjectural and lack certainty.

I do not intend to make a scientific judgment between the supporters and opponents of the concept of universalism. However, I believe that even if we consider the concept of justice as relative, the relativity of a concept can have varying degrees. We should avoid a black-and-white approach to the relativity of concepts. If a concept is even 51% inclined towards certainty, it can be interpreted as harmless relativity in scientific discussions. In this way, the universality of the concept of justice is acceptable.

 

It is necessary to clarify the benefits of the universality of the concept of justice. In response to this question, I point to three benefits:

1. 1. The world has become extremely interconnected, like a small village. If justice is not considered at the global level, it cannot be effectively implemented at the local level. Universal implementation of justice requires a common understanding of the concept of justice.
   2. The key to realizing justice is interaction and synergy, which only make sense when there is a common understanding of justice.
   3. If the relativity of the concept of justice is not adjusted, even the implementation of justice at the neighborhood level will be disrupted.

The last question in this session: What minimum elements can constitute a common understanding of justice?

It seems that the common understanding of justice throughout history has included non-oppression and equality:

– Non-oppression in a comprehensive sense means non-violation of natural rights such as the right to life, security, self-defense, forming a family, having a preferred job, shelter, and freedom of thought.

– Equality does not necessarily mean equality in all matters, but rather equality in enjoying basic and natural rights. Throughout history, some societies have accepted certain forms of discrimination due to factors like popular culture and expediency. However, this acceptance does not equate to inner satisfaction or true justice.

While perceptions of natural rights have varied throughout history and across societies, some natural rights are universally recognized.

Based on this, we can define justice from the common understanding of humanity: Social justice is the equality of all in natural rights and the non-violation of these rights in any way.

Thank you for your attention.