(This entry is a continuation of the previously posted entry Freedom And The Law. Aside from the fact that these two entries are thus related, I will let the reader figure out the relevance of this last entry to the subject of capitalism as an amoral economic system. Nota bene: amoral is not a word of opprobrium here. On the contrary, it offers the capitalist a helping hand: As long as the apologists of capitalism do not proclaim it as a paragon of goodness, its critics cannot assault it with an invective to the contrary. See my other entries on this subject: For Whom The Closing Bell Tolls; Economics And Human Nature; To Owe Or Not To Own, all posted in January 2011.)
In the philosophy of justice, the following observation by Hobbes in the 30th Chapter of Leviathan deserves a special consideration:
“By a good law I mean not a just law: for no law can be unjust.” (In other words, does it mean that “unjust laws” are oxymoronic?)
Is it really true that there are only good laws and bad laws but no such thing as laws just or unjust? This odd wordplay is by no means a sophistic argument, but it goes to the heart of the question of law and justice. If it is true that “no law can be unjust,” then justice becomes amoral, totally devoid of the ethical content. See for yourself this chain of reasoning: law is justice, there can be good and bad laws, which means that law as such is amoral, then so is justice.
The implications of this wordplay are interesting. The ‘amorality’ of justice does not tell us that all justice is ‘amoral.’ Far from that, or at least let us call it a non sequitur. If there are good laws and bad laws, it means that there can be good justice and bad justice too. It is the same as to say that the existence of good men and bad men does not suggest that men are amoral!
And now let us examine the relevance of everything said here to the issue of capitalist ethics. It is easy to see the connection. Even though the term capitalism has got itself a bad name (not only among the socialists of the familiar kind, but among all Europeans in general), we should not be prepared to condemn capitalism as such just because bad capitalism is so conspicuous and obnoxious; let us consider all economic systems, just like the concept of justice, essentially amoral, and, rather, concentrate on how a particular system can go bad, or be made good.
In the philosophy of justice, the following observation by Hobbes in the 30th Chapter of Leviathan deserves a special consideration:
“By a good law I mean not a just law: for no law can be unjust.” (In other words, does it mean that “unjust laws” are oxymoronic?)
Is it really true that there are only good laws and bad laws but no such thing as laws just or unjust? This odd wordplay is by no means a sophistic argument, but it goes to the heart of the question of law and justice. If it is true that “no law can be unjust,” then justice becomes amoral, totally devoid of the ethical content. See for yourself this chain of reasoning: law is justice, there can be good and bad laws, which means that law as such is amoral, then so is justice.
The implications of this wordplay are interesting. The ‘amorality’ of justice does not tell us that all justice is ‘amoral.’ Far from that, or at least let us call it a non sequitur. If there are good laws and bad laws, it means that there can be good justice and bad justice too. It is the same as to say that the existence of good men and bad men does not suggest that men are amoral!
And now let us examine the relevance of everything said here to the issue of capitalist ethics. It is easy to see the connection. Even though the term capitalism has got itself a bad name (not only among the socialists of the familiar kind, but among all Europeans in general), we should not be prepared to condemn capitalism as such just because bad capitalism is so conspicuous and obnoxious; let us consider all economic systems, just like the concept of justice, essentially amoral, and, rather, concentrate on how a particular system can go bad, or be made good.
No comments:
Post a Comment