The 2 contrasting theories of social justice are actually quite intriguing. Both are about equality but the differences are tremendous. The major difference is equality for all or equality for most.
According to Leguinn in her piece there was perfect equality for 99% of the citizens of the city however there was one scapegoat who took the "sins" of the city on his shoulders. Being locked in a room and only fed bread his life was miserable. The towns people are aware of his existence however they live their lives to the fullest knowing that their "sins" are all in one place. The child plays a Jesus type role in taking the sins of a entire populace on his shoulders so the rest of the people can live perfect lives. In my opinion I dont see how this works, seeing as you can do whatever you want and you know at the end of the day all your badness will be forgiven all because one person took the blame for you. In reality this would never work because human beings have a conscience. If you knew that one person was suffering so you could live your life any way you find good for yourself you have no morality, and morality is inbreed in all human beings and animals on the planet.
On the contrast, Aristotle and Thomas Aquatints theory of social justice shows equality for all. There is no guidelines for who receives aid. You can be poor, rich, black, white, christian, atheist, the demographic you belong to does not decipher you ability to be aided. This is in my opinion, perfect social justice. Everyone is equal and although there is still unhappiness it is impossible to have a society without it. There still is inequality but it is diminished by the aid of the people who help out everyone.
No comments:
Post a Comment