leonafalconer

[leonafalconer]

Cultivating Justice: The Fight for a Better World

"The world progresses, in the slow and halting manner in which it does progress, only in proportion to the moral energy exerted by the men and women living in it." – Jane Addams (Nobel Peace Prize Winner, 1930)

I chose to dissect justice because I think it is arguably the most important virtue, as well as the most layered and complicated. Justice has grounds both in the individual and the larger community as a whole. Justice has often been set apart from the other virtues by famous philosophers and historians, who view it as the crowning glory of the virtues. Plato, as we can gather in the quote above, believed that justice functions in both individuals and society. Time to examine this thought further.

According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Western philosophers generally regard justice as the most fundamental of all virtues for ordering interpersonal relations and establishing and maintaining a stable political society." At its core, justice is all about the quality of being just, and practicing a sense of righteous and moral equitableness in one's life. This virtue holds that people should strive to maintain equality, even when they have power over others. On the flip side, those in inferior positions must fight to establish justice over inequitable rulers. This brings us back around to Plato's view of justice. The virtue first begins "in the hearts and souls of the citizens", and only when it exists there can society benefit and grow as a whole. In simpler terms, the world needs justice fighters in order to progress and improve.

In order to cultivate justice, one must first find their inner peace and sense of right and wrong. As the video above explains, you can't take any outside action until you have found harmony within yourself to establish a strong foundation of justice and righteousness. Of course, this is easier said than done. Many people spend their entire lives fighting to find inner peace. Justice is set apart from the other virtues because of the special quality it takes within a person to cultivate inner justice; to find a true balance within your own mind and soul. I personally think that the key step to cultivating inner justice is truly getting to know yourself – and being comfortable with all of yourself, even the ugly parts. Only then can you view yourself as a flawed equal to all others – no one is above anyone, we are all simply human beings. From there, one can finally start to take outside action and fight to cultivate justice in the world surrounding them. In my mind, this is exemplified through the fight for social and political justice. This means standing up for society to create equal opportunity and equality for all; standing up for those who struggle to fight back against their oppressors.

I think an exemplar of the virtue of justice can be found in Wangari Maathai.

Maathai was a persistent Kenyan social, political, gender, and environmental activist. She was a true fighter for justice. Maathai was the first first woman in East and Central Africa to earn a doctorate degree. She used her education to help others, joining pro-democracy activist groups and serving on the National Council of Women of Kenya. She was arrested on several occasions for her work advocating for human rights, and shared that “You worry that you, your family, or your friends will be arrested and jailed without due process. The fear of political violence or death, whether through direct assassinations or targeted “accidents,” is constant. Such was the case in Kenya, especially during the 1990s."

Despite these threats, Maathai continued to fight for the people and the world's well-being, founding the Green Belt Movement. Through the Green Belt Movement she has assisted women in planting more than 20 million trees on their farms and on schools and church compounds. She is internationally recognized for her work in justice, earning her the title of the first African woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize.

Biography of Wangari Maathai:

Relating the virtue of justice to the theories we've been discussing in class, I think it can be found that it's applicable to both the inner and outer needs we require. This is possible because of the duality of justice we discussed earlier, with grounds both in the individual and the society as a whole. One must always begin by finding their inner sense of justice and peace, and this is where the inner needs are fulfilled. From Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, esteem and self-actualization are fulfilled through the discovery of your inner justice. Likewise, freedom and identity are fulfilled in Galtung's model of well-being, and meaning is accomplished in Seligman's PERMA model. Once these inner needs are met, a person with a strong sense of inner justice can begin translating this to the outer world. Through this, a person can improve the outer needs of both themselves and the people that they are seeking justice for. This includes physiological needs and safety (Maslow), survival and well-being (Galtung), and positive relationships and accomplishment (Seligman).

In order to begin "entering the forest" and exploring the virtue of justice, I would suggest looking into famous activists throughout history, their personal philosophies, and the improvements they were fighting for. Names come to mind like Mohandas Ghandi, Rosa Parks, Malcolm X, Malala Yousafzai, and Martin Luther King Jr.

A resource to start your journey exploring justice:

[leonafalconer]

Defining the Human Good

The determination of one's morality is, at its core, a subjective process. Defining the human good can look different depending on which moral philosophy you prescribe to: consequentialism, deontology, or virtue ethics.

Consequentialism is an outcome-based theory. It focuses on the consequences (outcomes) of an action to argue whether that was a morally good or bad decision. To a consequentialist, a good outcome warrants justification of that action/decision being morally correct. Vice versa, a negative outcome means the action was morally incorrect and not to be repeated. For example, committing a murder brings about jail time and ruins your life – thus it is a bad action.

Deontology theory categorizes good and bad actions based upon duties; there are certain moral rules and societal laws to follow. If an action is morally wrong, it should not be done. For example, committing a murder is against the law, as well as a sin, and is viewed as a negative action to a deontologist.

Virtue ethics instead focuses on the inherent virtue's of a persons character. The focus lies on human behavior and analyzing which traits constitute the human good. This theory stems from the base of a person's moral character, with their actions coming as a secondary piece to reflect this character. Someone with a steady moral character will exhibit consistent signs and actions of their inner virtues. For example, if someone commits a murder, virtue ethics doesn't focus on the consequences of this action or even the action itself. Virtue ethics would hone in on the flawed moral character and sick mindset that allowed a person to commit this crime.

At first thought, all of these theories seem fairly straightforward (even if you don't necessarily agree with them). Virtue ethics presents as the most logical and earnest of the theories, with a focus on the innate quality of a person's virtue. It doesn't fall back on bendable moral rules or random consequences to ground its belief.

However, all three of these theories can be challenged by the slightest morally ambiguous decision. Not all actions are as cut-and-dry as a murder. Life is incredibly complex, especially in our modern world with many different interpretations of good and bad, moral and immoral. Depending where you live, what religion you believe in, and the community environment you surround yourself by, these guiding principles can look very different. What if you murder someone in self-defense? What if it's an accident? What if they were a bad person? Very quickly, it becomes impossible to deliver an exact verdict on 'good' or 'bad' in this type of situation.

It simply isn't realistic to define the human good based upon one exact theory or definition. Morality is not black and white, but rather an ever-changing arena of opinions and virtues.

[leonafalconer]

PERMA: A Framework for Positive History

As we've been learning, positive psychology is the study of what makes life worth living, both on an individual and societal level. Rather than purely focusing on the "shadows" of psychology, this theory attempts to move the narrative towards the strengths that enable people and communities to survive and thrive.

Our most recent exploration of this is Martin Seligman's PERMA model. It serves as a simplified framework for happiness and well-being based on principles of positive psychology.

In the videos of Seligman we viewed, he discussed how much of his career was focused on negative psychology: death, depression, suicide, divorce, mental illness and more. He spent 20 years focusing on the negatives until he switched to focus on PERMA and positive psychology. I believe this switch needs to become a wide-spread paradigm shift in the field of psychology. Wallowing in the "shadows" will not provide the happiness to live a fulfilling life. As Seligman said:

"Not getting it wrong is not the same thing as getting it right."

It takes more than overcoming the negative psychology; there must be an active effort to strive for positive psychology.

To that point, Seligman spent time discussing the importance of optimism versus pessimism. I was shocked by the facts he shared regarding pessimism's affect on quality of life and age of death. Admittedly, I tend to sway more towards the pessimist attitude than optimist, so Seligman's findings were an eye-opener for me.

However, I do want to challenge this theory slightly. Blind optimism, in my opinion, is ignorant to the "shadows" within yourself and within history. Rather than excessive optimism or pessimism, I think a balance must be found in realism. Realism acknowledges the shadows without allowing them to consume you.

I believe this mindset of realism is the whole point of positive history. Even though the word "positive" is in the phrase, that doesn't mean the history is unmarred by war, atrocity, genocide, or massacres. Typically, positive history stems from the lessons learned by these tragic events. A realist is able to find the positive outcomes, while also still acknowledging the lesson learned and tragedy to never be repeated. A pessimist would be beat down by the events. An optimist would fail to learn the lesson. But a realist absorbs the information and pushes to improve for the future.

[leonafalconer]

Exploring Positive History

As we've been considering positive history, it's become clear that our understanding and knowledge of positive history is lacking. History is often taught in schools through the lens of war, violence, and destruction. Too often we focus on the negatives, allowing wars and tragic events to dominate what we know about the history of the world.

These realizations made me start thinking deeper about the way history is taught within U.S. schools. While atrocity history is still the bulk of curriculum, U.S. schools also put an emphasis on highlighting the positive things we've achieved as a country. Kids grow up learning about America's positive history, yet they only learn about other countries in the scope of war and atrocity. This teaching method disservices students and can cause a warped perception of the world.

With this in mind, it's important to take the time to explore the positive histories of countries besides the U.S. Until now, most of us were clueless about the positive history in Korea. Learning these positive histories, in order to counterbalance the known atrocity history, is the key to creating a well-rounded worldview.