Do we really want justice?

Do we really want justice? Really? Most people would say, "yes! Definitely! We need justice in our society!" But do we really, deep down inside, want it? And does our society today, over 2000 years after Plato, have it?

It seems to be an obvious issue- we want to live in a society that is as perfect as can be, ergo we want to live in a just society. But living together as a society has it's side effects that are hard to see just by looking at it on paper. The most clear side-effect of having a just society is a loss of individualism and personality as a result of living as a collective people. Most people don't want to give these up. In addition, more fundamentally, we humans have personal (sometimes unjust but personally beneficial) ambitions and desires, and we're more willing than it would seem to stomp on each other for personal gain. It is this taboo but very real nature of ourselves that keeps us in a society designed to be unjust.

So it may seem that we don't want a perfectly just society. This is evident, seeing as we live in a society that is far from just.  It is corrupted and manipulated for a small elite class for their own benefit, and is accepted- if not endorsed- by the lower classes as they wait and work for the day when they're in that elite position (a day that seldom comes for many).

While justice is good, makes for goodness in a society, and is generally desired by everyone, people don't want to be the ones who have to sacrifice in order to get the collective benefit. If there's a trash problem, everyone wants a new landfill- it's just that nobody wants them across the street from them. Likewise, we like the idea of justice, but we also like individuality and selfishness. Justice, too, is hard to define- what may be justice for someone can be injustice for another. So it's hard to conceive of a just society, and even harder to live in one. And while we like justice, sadly, we don't really want it in our greater society.

Wisdom and Justice

Is wisdom the same as justice? Can it lead to justice? Are wise men just, are just men wise, or is there no correlation? 

Wisdom and justice are often equatable. It is often argued that all just choices and just realities are wise, and that wise choices and wise realities are just. This would seem very evident; in nearly every instance, when people make just decisions they come back to benefit them- they're making wise choices. What goes around comes around, as they say. Likewise, when people do wise things, they often end up being, or appear to be, just.

The problem arises because wisdom and justice aren't definite and objective. What may be wise is different for every person, and the definition of justice also changes based on who you ask. Therefore, it may seem that wise choices aren't just and that just choices aren't wise. Bad things sometimes happen to just and wise people; sometimes, good things happen to those who lack these traits. it's all subjective, which makes it difficult to come up with a definite correlation.

Nevertheless, it seems that when in doubt, be just. Chances are, it will also be wise. You're hitting two birds with one stone. Even if the issue is difficult to define and form, it's easy to see a correlation between wisdom and justice. 

Dear parents,

An open letter to parents: The key to parenting is moderation and mutualism.

Parenting is a tough job. Before the advent of civilized society, all parents had to do was have the baby, take care of the baby for a few years and bid them farewell. Now, having the baby is probably the easiest part (which is saying something), and afterwards parents must feed, clothe, house, educate, instill values, clean, encourage, support, befriend, forgive, oversee, and love the child for nearly their entire life. It's a daunting task- and many people don't succeed in doing it.

The first element of parenting is one of the easiest (for most people, at least): love your child. This bond is a biological instinct, so for everyone it's pretty easy to love your offspring (unless you're a guest on the Maury show and don't even know if the child is yours). Once you love your child, other things come easily: feeding, clothing, housing, and supporting your children. The tricky part comes when parents want to act in the interest of their child, out of love, but then inadvertently end up harming them.

That's the second element, I feel: moderation and mutualism. It's easier said than done- parent in moderation. Don't constantly order your child around, but don't let your child manipulate you. Give them freedom, but oversee their safety and well-being. Don't act as a "helicopter parent," nor as a "tiger mom." Most importantly, make sure that the relationship with your child is working. It needs to be mutual- any sort of friction that develops can destroy the lifelong bond between your child and you.

I like to use my parents as an example. I'm really fortunate to have such caring, yet understanding, parents. When I hear stories about other students, I realize that the key to my good relationship with my parents is moderation and mutualism. We communicate effectively, have nothing to hide, and nothing is unreasonable. Nothing my parents do is unreasonable or extreme, and I, in return, don't do anything to give them reason to act otherwise.

When the liquor companies say "please drink responsibly" at the end of every commercial, they really mean "please drink in moderation." When people say "please parent responsibly," we should instead think: "please parent in moderation."

Individuals and Society

The Golden Rule: Treat others how you want to be treated

Humans are by nature social creatures. We don't live and work as individuals, but as groups. We work best when we work together. We function as a collective society. And in order to function successfully as a whole society, we must adhere to common standards of behaviour and respect- known as our civic duty.

"Civic duty," is what prevents people from littering. It prevents people from vandalizing public property. It allows for people to move around each other without running each other over, or sharing space on the train, or being courteous to complete strangers. In essence, it's the golden rule- treating others how you would like to be treated.

The only downside to this is that isn't mandatory or instinctive. It's voluntary. Because of that, there are people out there who litter, who vandalize property meant to be shared, who bump and run into others without notice, and who are simply not courteous to others. This is what is at the root of not only problems in our society, but problems for ourselves. Peoples' pet peeves or annoyances almost always stem from a lack of civic awareness and duty.

There are some times when individuals are individuals, and some times when individuals are members of a collective society. People need to realize when to distinguish between them and to act in ways that are respectful to everyone.  Unfortunately, this isn't taught in any class or required by law. Civic duty and the golden rule aren't enforced-they're just things that we rely on each other to do. Civic duty is the glue that keeps us together and the means of maintaining a successful society.

Choosing to change

"The reason socialism never took root in America is because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."  -John Steinbeck

Is poverty a choice? Of course, nobody directly chooses to be poor- if a magic genie came up to someone and asked them if they'd rather be rich or poor, very few people would choose poverty. But the American mentality, especially today, is that if you're poor, it's because you messed up. Somewhere along the way, you made a bad decision, or you were too lazy, or you weren't smart or strong enough, and you're suffering the consequences. You chose to be lazy, you made your own decisions- you can reap the rewards or endure the losses.

The problem is that this is a false mentality. Those who are poor each have their own story and personality, and labeling them before you know them is no different than sexism or racism. If you go and see who the poor are, you'll see minimum wage workers, hardworking and dedicated but facing higher living costs and lower pay checks. You'll see parents trying to juggle a job, an aspiring college education, and children at the same time. You'll see people who were born into a tough situation and who can't seem to find a way out. And labeling any of these people as people who "choose" to live the way they are is wrong and offensive.

We live in a society where half the people are trying to go back to an era without a social safety net and relentless business domination- in short, an era where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. And over the last decade, it's succeeding- the rich now take a larger share of the income and the poor take a smaller share. See the chart below:

(Source: The Atlantic)

But the most frustrating thing for me is not the reality of our dire situation, but the unawareness by many Americans about it and the general acceptance- even the promotion- of this recent trend. Theres a huge movement and a wide belief that people can pull themselves up by their bootstraps and that government shouldn't help them. But guess what- these people don't own boots.

The idea that if you're poor or if you are struggling to get by, you somehow chose that lifestyle, is wrong and deeply offensive. Americans are living and working in a society with an "uneven playing field," as Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren put it. As a society, we must choose to change that.

We need to change the playing field. We need to restart the war on poverty and end the war on the poor. And we need to end that baseless, false idea and ignorant mentality that if you're poor, that was your choice.

Differentiation and Integration

When Leibniz was mentioned in both my calculus and philosophy classes on the same day toward the start of the year, I thought that there would be no more cross-class references from these two very different classes. It turns out, with all this talk of solving for x, integration, and differentiation, I was wrong.

That's of course meant to be funny, as integration and differentiation mean very different things in calculus and philosophy. But the philosophical discussion of racial integration and separation crosses all walks of life and directly impacts the connections I have with other people. Should the world be integrated, in spite of de facto segregation and occasional conflicts, or should races maintain a peaceful separation?

It's a tough question. There are pros and cons to both, and even as our society has moved down the "integration" path we see conflict and separation. In our own city, recently named as the most segregated in America, we see ethnic pockets with little integration. So which is better?

For me, the question comes down to this: is it fair to clump entire groups of people together with a single label, and assume that interaction among these umbrella groups leads to inevitable conflict? And for me, the answer is no. I have a problem when people say that all blacks and whites are different and will never be able to get along- I've personally encountered and lived out examples that dismiss that. To be separate, I think, is to loose a part of humanity. It's to loose our brothers and sisters, and to reduce our judgment of other people to the basis of skin tone.

Yes, integration isn't perfect. We still see conflicts. We still see separation. Look at neighborhood demographics across Chicago and it's suburbs. Look at non-selective high school demographics. We live in a society where the law says "integrate" and the people say "separate"- with only a few exceptions.

So whats next? Will there continue to be separation, or will we integrate fully? I think, and I hope, that the future will be the later. The old ideas of racism and stereotypes will begin to die out, replaced by a new idea of looking past each person's race and seeing who they are as a person. A generation of increased multinationalism and understanding will soon rise to make a more integrated society.

Differences shouldn't mean conflict. They should be recognized and respected, but shouldn't bar peaceful coexistence.

Find X

Who was Malcolm X?

That's a question which, if I take nothing else from his autobiography, I hope to answer after reading it. This is a man whose vision and ideas have been distorted and warped by history, and who very few people understand and know. Sadly, nowadays it seems that the only way to completely understand this great historical icon and his message is to read his autobiography, and see what his own words have to say.

I was slightly surprised, while coming to the completion of the first half of Malcolm X's autobiography, to see that the book wasn't divided into two parts. Yes, it's an autobiography- a journey through the life of one man- and breaks aren't common in autobiographies. People live one life, not multiple ones. But I thought it would help the reader to see who Malcolm X really is, since he lived a more or less two-part life. Part 1, a life as a young black boy and an adolescent hustler, and part 2 as a revolutionary black leader advocating for racial separation and black nationalism.

We've basically finished reading Malcolm X, part 1. This was his life story through childhood and his childhood stories- memories of the Ku Klux Klan's attacks on his family, memories from growing up in Michigan, the white people who murdered his father, the welfare people, the family he lived with, his crushed dreams from his teacher, living with his half-sister Ella in Boston, meeting Shorty, working in a drug store, as a shoeshiner, an on a train line, geting conks and zoot suits, and his hustles in Harlem. This all came to an abrupt end with his arrest, which started Part 2 of his life.

It is really interesting to me that history does't remember Part 1 of Malcolm X, which is quite fascinating  and had a huge impact on who he came to be. Malcolm X stood out from other civil rights leaders due to his extreme ideas and his fiery passion, brought about by his early adversities. He lived the life of the average African-American suffering in America and knew well the challenges and unfairness the white America created. That's the one thing I would characterize Malcolm X as, and one thing that I overlooked- his passion. No other civil rights leader went through so much as he, and its evident in his passion he had for civil rights.

That's what we find when we look to "find x." A struggle to live in white society as part one of his life, and a call to action in part two. By looking at his entire life, especially part one, we can "solve for x" and see who Malcolm X truly was- a passionate civil rights leader using his struggles in a past life to make a new life better for his fellow man.