Theoretical Problems of Justice/ 5th

Series of lectures by Prof. Reza Gholami

 5^th session – August 19, 2024

 

Third Section:  Justice or benefaction?

 

 In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful.

• Justice or Benefaction?

Perhaps you’ve wondered whether justice or benefaction is more important for a society. This question is particularly significant for Muslims, as the Qur’an, in verses like Surah Nisa, verse 125, frequently emphasizes the virtue of benefaction, or “Ehsan,” suggesting that it may hold a higher value than justice.

First, it’s essential to define benefaction, one of the moral virtues. Benefaction, or “Ehsan” in Arabic, is a broad term encompassing various good behaviors, such as kindness, generosity, mercy, forgiveness, selflessness, altruism, charity, and general goodness. It involves giving, whether to those in need or even those who aren’t. The term “Ehsan” carries a depth of meaning that isn’t fully captured by any single English word, so using the Quranic term itself seems most appropriate.

To compare “Ehsan” with justice, we must briefly define justice. In its primary sense, justice involves giving each person their due, whether based on merit or equality. Equality in rights typically stems from equality in merit. Justice is about identifying the rightful claims of individuals and ensuring they receive what is rightfully theirs.

Why, then, is the comparison between “Ehsan” and justice raised as a theoretical issue? Some scholars argue that justice is concerned with determining and assigning rights strictly, without room for flexibility, forgiveness, or gifts. Justice demands that rights be given to their rightful owners as a matter of obligation.

In contrast, “Ehsan” transcends this strictness. It involves a level of morality where one may choose to forgo their rights or grant others more than they are entitled to, driven by an inner desire to do good, without any obligation. This act of surpassing justice by showing mercy or generosity reflects the higher moral ideal that “Ehsan” represents.

 When comparing kindness (Ehsan) with justice—both of which are moral virtues—Ehsan is considered to have a higher rank. Scholars who discuss this debate suggest that in the process of social development and improvement, people should be encouraged to practice Ehsan. In other words, a society where Ehsan is prevalent is viewed as more outstanding and sublime. These scholars emphasize that if Ehsan is present in a society, justice will surely follow.

In response to this claim, four key points should be considered:

1. 1. Ehsan’s Accessibility: Ehsan is a virtue that all people possess to some extent, but achieving a high level of Ehsan is something that only a small percentage of society can attain. It is unrealistic to expect the majority of society to exhibit high degrees of Ehsan, which may have effects beyond the realm of justice.
   2. Virtue Flow: Virtues do not necessarily flow from the top down. Just as justice is not always a product of Ehsan, often Ehsan gradually emerges from justice. Thus, the creation of a society rich in Ehsan requires first establishing a justice-oriented society. The Qur’an itself, in Surah Nahl, verse 90, first mentions justice and then Ehsan.
   3. Justice as a Foundation: The strict implementation of justice cannot be neglected in the pursuit of spreading Ehsan throughout society. Justice must remain a fundamental principle even as we aim to promote Ehsan.
   4. Scope and Complexity of Ehsan: Ehsan is a virtue with a broad scope, encompassing many good deeds. This makes it challenging to evaluate and promote Ehsan from a sociological and managerial perspective.
   5. Qur’anic Context: Since the precedence of Ehsan over justice is derived from the Qur’an, it is important to note that the Qur’an often places justice and Ehsan on the same level, as seen in Surah Nahl, verse 90. Moreover, one of the most significant expressions of Ehsan, according to the Qur’an, might well be the practice of justice itself.

• Is the human being created free?

Is the human being a creature created free? This question touches on the crucial topics of freedom, determinism, and free will, and it appears to be one of the main foundations of justice. Although many well-reasoned answers have been provided to this fundamental question, most of these answers remain open to criticism and unresolved debate.

Before delving into this discussion, two important points should be noted:

1. 1. Differences Between Theists and Atheists: Naturally, the answers provided by theists and atheists to the issue of determinism and free will differ fundamentally.
      • Theists: Theists believe that the world and human life are meaningful and purposeful. They explain human freedom and agency within this framework, often seeing freedom as part of a divinely ordained plan.
      • Atheists: Atheists, particularly existentialists, who do not see human creation and life as inherently meaningful or purposeful, will understand freedom and determinism in a very different light. Atheistic existentialists might struggle to answer the question, “Freedom for what?” in a way that is convincing to others. However, they generally consider human freedom to be broad and far-reaching.
   2. Personal Perspective: I should remind you that I approach this topic as a rational theist. My discussion is conducted under the umbrella of theism, although it is entirely rational and open to critique.

The question of whether humans are created free or determined by external forces continues to be a central concern in discussions of justice and morality. Each perspective, whether theistic or atheistic, brings its own set of implications for how we understand human freedom and responsibility.

 Let me propose a proposition here: If a human being is within the womb of God’s infinite knowledge from beginning to end, then the concept of free will becomes meaningless.

Based on this proposition, some argue that humans are free to act within the boundaries set by God. However, even within this realm, human freedom is questionable because, first, all human actions are recorded in divine knowledge, and second, all actions and reactions of creatures, including humans, occur within the scope of divine will.

This indicates that humans are not absolutely free or autonomous beings. Rather, God, after creating both good and bad, has willed that humans have the freedom to choose between them. It’s not difficult to grasp that the value of a human, compared to other creatures, lies in their freedom to choose between good and bad. This choice is inspired in humans by inner reason or Fetrat (nature).

On the other hand, God’s absolute knowledge of human destiny does not imply that God has forced humans to choose good or bad from the start. Instead, it means that God, knowing the characteristics of each of His creations, knows which humans will choose good and which will choose bad.

With this in mind, it seems that human freedom is inherently relative. There is no compelling reason to assert complete human freedom, and the arguments presented for total human autonomy are unconvincing. Consequently, many great Islamic scholars throughout history (following the teachings of the Imams of Shiite Islam) have described humans as beings who experience both determinism and free will.

Putting aside the discussion of creation and human nature (Fetrat), the issue of freedom versus restriction in individual and social life arises.

If we consider the possibility of a human being who can live entirely alone and away from society in nature, the primary limitations on their freedom would be the laws of nature and unexpected natural events. However, humans are inherently social and civil beings, and within society, there are numerous factors that restrict human freedom.

In the traditional age, humans had limited personal and social freedom. The concept of freedom itself is a modern one. During much of the traditional era, people were subjects of princes, sultans, and kings, and were often treated like slaves.

Modern concepts such as individuality, citizenship, democracy, and human rights were not prevalent in the traditional era. While some philosophers might have proposed ideas resembling these concepts, they were exceptions rather than the norm.

Conversely, in the modern era, with the expansion of industry and the development of new technologies, humanity faces more constraints than ever before. Some scholars have expressed concern about freedom and the emergence of individuality in the modern age. Never in human history have people been so dominated by various hard and soft technologies. Additionally, they have never been subjected to as many rules, laws, and surveillance as they are today, with millions of cameras monitoring them in society.

A deep understanding of justice, along with the demand for and implementation of justice, requires the existence of individual and social freedom. While some social systems may be imposed upon society under coercive conditions, such systems are unlikely to endure due to the absence of freedom. A clear example of this is the collapse of social systems under communism in parts of the world.

However, I want to focus on a more pressing issue: the laws of genetics in humans. Genetic scientists assert that the genetic structure within the human body plays a crucial role in shaping each person’s personality. It is evident that the hereditary chain has a significant influence on the formation of this genetic structure.

With each passing day, geneticists uncover more surprising insights into the genetic map of the human body. This raises an essential question: To what extent do humans truly have free will, given the genetic structure and the influence of heredity? If humans possess free will, what degree of freedom do they have to determine their destiny outside the constraints of inheritance?

This question brings into focus the issue of criminal punishment. If an individual commits murder, can we truly say they had the freedom to choose their actions? If the answer is no, then how can punishing the murderer be considered just? This dilemma casts doubt on the fairness of punishing all forms of unjust behavior.

Furthermore, the role of inheritance in shaping the genetic structure of the human body could even alter the concept of entitlement. Should the meaning of entitlement change, philosophers of justice will face a significant challenge.

As we can see, it is impossible to discuss the spread of justice discourse in societies and its practical realization without addressing the question of freedom versus determinism. Nevertheless, the answers to this question should not discourage individuals from striving to improve their lives.

Regardless of how limited freedom might be, both individuals and, more so, society at large possess the relative autonomy to reform and transform their destiny.

Thank you for your attention.