Hardly anyone would let go of any act without justification. Even a robbery or petty shoplifting could be defended (justified?) under certain circumstances. Or a war - no matter how many innocent men, women and children die off - is justified by those who wanted the war.
Be it as big as a war or as small as a petty lie, men use their "moral" compass to justify their acts. However, one's justification may not be "morally" justified by many others.
The subjectivity of justification is rather puzzling. Others might not see one's justifications for actions to protect the national interest, ensure peace and security, economic prosperity, exercise human rights, or preserve environmental equilibrium as justified. No matter how a law, policy, or act is justified, the individuals behind it might have a vested interest in it.
The same is reflected in what John Kenneth Galbraith said, "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercise in moral philosophy; that is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
However, giving such a blanket censure would receive severe condemnation. Simply because of the existence of individuals with altruistic personalities in human society. Rightly so, plenty of examples of altruistic acts exist in human society. Yet individuals with hedonic sentiments are rather more common than those with altruistic persona.
From a theological perspective, justification allows one to move from a state of sin to a state of grace at a worldly level hence, a means of justification provides a chance to reinvent an act from sin to righteousness.
Nevertheless, not all our justifications are based on the principle of justice. Albeit the very concept of justice lacks a universal boundary. Philosophers from the past to the present attempted (rather debated) to define justice from individual, social, legal and political perspectives.
Plato defined justice as a virtue that promotes harmony and structure in the individual and society. To Socrates, justice does not exist within the human soul, rather it is the result of a "well-ordered" soul. Thus justice is seen as an essential virtue of both a good political state and a good personal character. Arguably, Aristotle "justly" accepted gender inequality and at the same time actively defended slavery.
From a modern perspective, justice broadly provides an individual with what they deserve equitably and fairly. However, depending on the place, position and status of an individual, the key terms in that broader definition of justice, such as, deserve, equitable and fair could be interpreted and applied subjectively.
Subjective interpretations of the key terms in the broader definition of justice bred a variety of philosophical disciplines such as ethics, rationality and law - each of which has its subjective interpretation and application too.
It is not unlikely to relate the subjectivity in social or political justice to the dogmatic view of classifying humans into superior or inferior classes that are deeply rooted in society. The moment mankind started to divide themselves into separate categories of superior and inferior - be it for national, racial, or religious identity - humanity started to be fragmented. Consequently, the subjective principle of social and political justice started to grow.
Simply put, because of the subjective principle of social and political justice, anyone with a given racial, religious, or national identity - could be treated differently compared to others in the same society who belong to a separate (or higher) category.
It is true that the law of justice of a nation depends on the needs and interests of the citizens and the leaders of the nation. Yet within the same nation, different laws exist to ensure different privileges to different individuals with different socioeconomic status.
That endorses the fact that although we have a broader boundary of justice, we do not have "the" ultimate principle of justice for humanity. However, borrowing the key terms of the existing broader definition of justice, we might be able to draw an equation of justice — justice is what one rightfully deserves is equal to what others rightfully deserve. The equation is equally applicable at an individual, social, national, or global level.
Imagine Mr X believes that he rightfully deserves to be a president or prime minister of a nation. Believing in the equation of justice would make him consider why others have the right to rightfully deserve the same. Thus the equation of justice would end any power struggle and associated conflict and conspiracy with it.
Again, because of the equation of justice, anyone who rightfully owns a fortune of wealth would think that anyone else in the society rightfully deserves to own the same. In the end, this will not only end the unhealthy competition for wealth accumulation in society but also will end any reliance on an unfair means to accumulate wealth.
The equation of justice could not be imposed by any law or a policy - be it at a national or a global scale. However, the existing social and political justice can be re-examined to motivate any individual to adopt the equation of justice rather than the subjective ethos of justification in their life.
Professor Dr Mohammad Tariqur Rahman Deputy Executive Director International Institute of Public Policy & Management (INPUMA) Universiti Malaya.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of Sinar Daily.