Modern theorists like Nozick and Rawls attempt to separate arguments regarding what justice entails from questions of the good life and moral desert. For Aristotle, however, to know what justice demands we must first know the end, telos or good of man. In this essay I will explain Aristotle’s teleological conception of justice based off achieving a means to an end as well as stating the issues with thinking of justice in this sense in terms of underling modern theorists ideas by the idea of social groups that guide our decisions. In thinking about these two things, this paper will also take into account the consequences with thinking of justice in these terms.
Aristotle conception of justice is based on the idea of teleology—that everything in nature exists for a specific purpose. He argues that the end goal of human existence is happiness and that this is the main contributor to what we see as being just. In thinking of his concept, he also has the belief that we, as human beings, are naturally political animals. His theory is an explanation as justice being a function of achieving some individuals end, purpose, or goal. Justice is first an understanding of the good we wish to promote through a social practice and then finding the best method of achieving that end; even if it is unequal and does not take into account the concept of social identity. He believes in telos, the idea that refers to the full potential, or the inherent purpose of a person, to achieve an end goal. This telos is based on our uniquely human capacity for rational thought.
Concerns raised by modern theorists by thinking about justice in these terms In analyzing his ideology of telos and the idea of justice being based off happiness, it must be reflected that Ancient Greece was divided into small city-states, those of which Aristotle had much to comment on. However, during this time, these city-states meant much more to the citizens than modern cities do to theirs. The attainment of happiness was achieved by the man and city working in unison to achieve a common goal. In this society, the idea of individual rights and freedoms did not exist since the interests of the city were identical to that of the man. This brings up a lot of critique regarding our modern societies as per the modern theorists.
127 our experts are availableright now
Thinking about justice in terms of the good of a man and more in an individual sense contradicts many views of modern theorists, including Ta-Nehisi Coates ideas of reparations as well as affirmative action. In our modern society, we see the need to see ourselves as being within social groups in which we identify with in order to promote our own happiness, as well as the happiness of others. Take the flute player, for example, the modern theorists want to say that we should be rewarding the best flute to the best flute player and to think about justice as being something that can be beneficial to a social group. Within a social group, the many individuals that identify as being unified would rather see justice as being in terms of something beneficial to the group, as well as not loosing any freedoms for the individual. All individuals should be treated as equals in public life because justice is a matter of right and what is the best for the society group, not the good that can benefit one individual.
Conception of the self and identity underlies this way of thinking about justice? According to Alasdair MacIntyre, the belief that the self and identity as being separate from the whole social group one is a part of is a big problem. Realistic political theory and how it functions mention how some can take advantage of the freedoms afforded to them. He wants to say that we are our self and identity is an independent choosing self that exists prior to the needs we want, thus going on to argue that we are narrative beings instead. We are independent people on a quest to seek what is good for someone in our position and how to best move forward in the status and place we are in ourselves. He argues that we are all born with a social identity, something of which Aristotle does not agree with, and this identity is what guides us in our search of life and also helps to guide our initial decisions that lead to future happiness. In his theory, it must also be noted that there are moral obligations that arise from a result of the shared membership of being within a same community, and these obligations help to define who we are.
MacIntyre argues for the specific narrative unity of human life by using the conception of life as quest or journey and by being a part of a bigger narrative. The unity of the self is based upon the unity of a narration which connects birth to life and to death. This can be seen similar to a narrative of a play with the various parts: the beginning is connected to the middle and to the ending. It can then be said, similar to Aristotle’s believe of everything existing for only one pre-set purpose, that the person can occupy a position at one time but they are merely taking part of the journey towards the attainment of their individualized end. Since the narrative of unity is tied partly to a teleological, the self is tied up to a character in which their unity of being is demanded by their specific narrative, or path of life.
Moral and political consequences of thinking about the self and justice in these terms? In analyzing justice as per Aristotle’s belief that man can only become fully human when he engages in the politics, meets with heavy opposition from Sandel and libertarian philosophers. By stating that man fails to fulfill his telos, or the end all of his being, when he is does not partake in politics, Aristotle is arguing two main things. The first being that he is not simply arguing that the laws of the state should restrict man’s freedom and their justice, he is also arguing that life has no value or direct worth outside the confines of the state. This conception of self-worth being less and the city-state being what defines their lives, is an outdated perception to mostly the entire community of modern philosophers. The modern theorists see that political life is not concerned with the highest human ends or moral excellence of its citizens, they rather only promote one aspect of a good life. Rather than only promoting this, the libertarians seek toleration, fairness, and respect for individual rights.
