Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
amitpop

Evidence for a Justice K

Recommended Posts

I am planning on writing a kritik of Justice for my own use and for my LD kids. Can anyone hook me up with some evidence and/or authors? I have plenty of stuff to trade.

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The file above my post should take care of what you want, though if need it, I can give you a zizek card talking about how a just society would propagate violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The file above my post should take care of what you want, though if need it, I can give you a zizek card talking about how a just society would propagate violence.

 

post that card

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, although that site is mainly based on Rawlsian Justice although it could still come in handy.

And that Zizek card would be nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What kind of justice criticism are you looking for? Or what kind of alternative -- like a displacement criticism of our ethical responsibilities of justice onto the state or more of an obfuscation of our indiviual responsibilities because of say crisis politics? I have the cites some where depending on if either of those interest you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just realized I offered you the exact opposite of what you were looking for, its to early in the morning - I guess if you are also writing affirmative anwsers I might be able to help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, this is not an official camp card or anything, just an excerpt from one of Zizek's book. Since I am not exactly the best at cutting I will just post the whole thing un-underlined:

 

[insert tag here]

 

Zizek 2008 (Violence)

 

Based on this insight, Jean-Pierre Dupuy proposes a convincing critique of John Rawls's theory of justice. In the Rawlsian model of a just society, social inequalities are tolerated only insofar as they also help those at the bottom of the social ladder, and insofar as they are based not on inherited hierarchies, but on natural merits. Even the British Conservatives seem now to be prepared to endorse endorse Rawls's system of justice: in December 2005 David Cameron, the newly elected Tory leader, signaled his intention of turning the Conservative Party into a defender of the underprivileged, declaring, "I think the test of all our policies should be: what does it do for the people who have the least, the people on the bottom rung of the ladder?" But what Rawls doesn't see is how such a society would create conditions for an uncontrolled explosion of resentiment: in it, I would know that my lower status is fully "justified" and would thus be deprived of the ploy of excusing my failure of social injustice.

 

Rawls thus proposes a terrifying model of a society in which hierarchy is directly legitimised in natural properties, thereby missing the simple lesson an anecdote about a Slovene peasant makes palpably clear. The peasant is given a choice by a good witch. She will either give him one cow and his neighbour two cows, or she'll take one cow from him and two from his neighbour. The peasant immediately chooses the second option. Gore Vidal demonstrates the point succinctly: "It is not enough for me to win-the other must lose." The catch of the envy/resentment is that it not only endorses the zero-sum game principle where my victory equals my other's loss. It also implies a gap between the two, which is not the positive gap (we can all win with no losers at all), but a negative one. If I have to chose between my gain and my opponent's loss, I prefer the opponent's loss, even if it means also a loss to me. It is as if my eventual gain from the opponent's loss functions as a kind of pathological element that stains the purity of my victory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A K of law would seem to make more sense. You could base it on Kafka (The Trial or perhaps something else). This argument would be hard to make in the context of LD given that it would take more time.

 

My notion is a K of justice within the law. Justice in and of itself is a nice concept, its when its applied in the context of the law that it looks ugly and nasty.

 

For instance CLS makes this argument and so do feminists. (although feminists make this argument both inside and outside the context of the state)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...