When trying to tackle these questions my thoughts center around the idea that reactionary actions are just that, reactionary. In that sense these actions require a catalyst in order to take place. If one responds to an act f another that response would never have taken place without the initial action. Continuing on it would seem to me that the reaction that has taken place is simply a continuation of the initial act. If the response would never have taken place without the initial spark then how can one look at that reaction as a separate being? If an egg is knocked from a table and then that egg proceeds to break, those two separate events would viewed as one. The egg was broke as a result of when it was knocked from the table. in the same way, one act of injustice that occurs as a result of another must be seen as a part of the same event.
Logically then it is the fault of the first agent that any injustices have a occurred. By acting in the initial the first agent has set into motion all actions that follow as a result. The fist action makes the rest inevitabilities. For example, if a man is robbed of all possessions and is thus unable to survive, this would clearly be an injustice. However if that man then robs another purely so that he can survive, is that act an injustice on the part of the man? He was forced into that action by the original robber, his action is no longer a willing one as it is his only recourse for survival. In this way a domino effect is created in that injustice will perpetuate itself. But is that second man truly responsible for his action? Yes theoretically he could allow himself to die and thus end the cycle but is it unjust for him to seek his own survival?
It would seem then that the initial actor is to blame for all the consequences of his action. This is reminiscent of our in class discussion regarding Syria, where the question of US action was brought up to be a possible injustice of its own. I would counter this idea saying that if the US action were to be committed without any previous action then yes it would constitute an unjust act on the part of the US. However in this situation the action is one in response to a previous injustice, the use chemical weapons on civilian, so the fallout from that action falls on the shoulders of the Syrian regime. Granted, not all those who will suffer at the hands of the US retaliation are guilty in the initial action, I would argue that the injustice of their harm is entirely to blame on the initial actor. As the initial actor, being Syria, knew that further injustice as a result of the act was not only possible but likely, they chose to take on that possibility and the consequences of it when they acted in the outset.
With the responsibility of injustice that arrises in reactionary terms being shoulder by the initial actor, the next question becomes who is responsible for stopping the unjust actions?
While reading this post, I found myself pondering the "domino effect". You bring up the question of a person being robbed and if it is unjust if he turns around and robs someone else. As to not lead to any confusion, I am going to call the person who was robbed Joe and the robber Bob. I would argue that Aristotle would say, if Joe is robbed and then turns around and robs someone else it is an unjust action. First, I believe that Aristotle would state that rectificatory justice would restore the balance and would remedy the situation. While I could be misinterpreting Aristotle, since Bob stole from Joe, things would have been unfairly distributed. Joe know longer has what he needs to survive and Bob has more than he needs to survive. However, if for some reason, rectificatory justice does not apply to robberies, since in a way it is not the distribution that is the problem it is the action of a person that caused the disproportional distribution, I believe that Aristotle would still argue that if Joe turns around and robs someone else he is acting unjustly. Joe is responsible for his action for he acts on his own volition, he acts with knowledge, ie he knows that by robbing someone he is stripping their wealth away, and he is not coerced in his action. While, it is extremely unfortunate that Joe was robbed to the point that he can’t survive, I don’t believe that gives him the right to turn around and steal from someone else.
ReplyDeleteI also thought your point on Syria was interesting. I would agree that Syrian regime has acted unjustly. However, is it our place to correct this injustice? Additionally, according to this article, http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/assad-suggests-retaliation-against-us-charlie-rose-interview-210811303--abc-news-topstories.html, President Assad has alluded that if the U.S. attacks he will retaliate. If he retaliates, what happens when innocent American’s get hurt? Is that also Syria’s fault because they started the chain reaction or is it America’s fault for intervening? I think you raise some interesting points but I too find myself wondering who’s job it is to correct injustice. Is it really our place to correct the injustice that is happening to the Syrian people? For me, I think it comes down to our own personal beliefs on justice. I think in the case of the robber it is unjust to turn around and rob someone else. I would like to believe there are other resources for Joe to get back on his feet, rather than him resorting to committing an unjust act himself. However, I think with Syria the issue is a little more gray. I think some people would argue that by acting we are putting an end of an injustice, and that is our role as a World Leader. And I think some people would argue that we are just perpetuating the cycle of injustice, and it is not our place to intervene in Syrian politics. Thus, maybe it is on a case by case basis on who is responsible for putting an end to injustice and when action needs to be taken to end these injustices.