Knowing Justice and related subjects

or the influence of the media on our behaviour How we may give voice to those without VOICE.

Introduction To describe INJUSTICE as explained below, first an explanation on the different kinds of justice. We start with human rights. These are roughly to be divided in three kinds:
= Freedomrights: as that of religion and view of live. = Political rights: for example: right to vote. = Equal rights: race, gender, way of life, etc. In this paper I like to talk about the latter, justice in use of our natural resources. With the goal a decent being and respect for life in harmony with the environment. And above all: knowing what that means.

Changes are coming faster.

Also the sources from which we derive our knowledge often have to process more information than fifty years ago. These sources are: 1) Sensory observation 2) Memory 3) Selfconsciousness 4) Reason 5) Moral knowledge 6) Empathy 7) Religiousness (8) Science) Especially the firstmentioned source gets problems as a consequence of the endless stream of information which comes to us by television, internet, SMS, newspapers, worldtrips, etc. Due to this e.g. moral knowledge is under heavy pressure . With IBE ( inference to the best explanation) we may say that (by abduction) hunger is injustice. Hunger is lack of food, so all hunger is a consequence of malfunction of logistics ( distribution of food, unless there is a case of illness or other reason not a consequence of hunger) Logistic problems can be conquered totally in our century, so the hunger must be controlled, and UNJUSTICE reversed into JUSTICE. Doing JUSTICE to the Other. We do have to calculate with all circumstances. Sometimes this is very complicated. A good example gives us Adam Morton 1) about dividing equal shares: 1) Theory of knowledge Adam Morton; 3rd ed., page 52. You might think it is obvious that the fairest way of dividing food between people is to give each person an equal share. But suppose that two tourists fresh from their luxury hotel are walking in the desert and meet a starving man who has not had food or drink for days. They propose to split an orange three ways. Is this fair? We know correct if it agrees to three conditions: 1= I must belief it 2= It must be true and 3= It must be justified We shall try to explain this further with the following propostion: Is it UNJUSTICE* if more time is used by the news-media to show the war in Iraq as headline, in stead of reporting something for the people that are starving from hunger? * Jewish knowledge says that there are 700 interpretations for each word.

Obtaining knowledge through observation

During the period of mid-march till mid april 2003 I followed two papers on this subject, the news on television, (various stations) on different times.various periodicals, var. websites, from inductive sources (not empirical) a lot of information was gathered. Almost everthing was related to Iraq and Afghanistan. and not a single time the voice was heard of those starving through lack of food. Yes extensive information was given on the logistic problems of a fast moving army in the desert. In that same changing world it is difficult to deny that bread is food and that water helps against thirst. (Page 61 Theory of Knowledge ) With the opinion of Descartes apriori that he exists because he thinks, we do have an analitycal reason for his existance., but not for us. When I see a photo in the newspaper with a staving African human being, for that man the hunger is really true, but we need more details before we believe. And so thirty years of experience does not always give proper functioning. Fifteen years I used a collective bus from our company Each week we had a different driver. One of them had already thirty years experience. But when we saw him coming, we knew that he made a lot of noise while clutching. So bad that one day we had to change the bus due to the fact he had broken the clutch. Clearly it shows that for a proper fuctioning we need more than only experience. We also need some feeling on the subject before we accept evidence. So we know many observations which need more explanation. Some criteria for better interpretation are : A) Respect for Life is the strongest key to decide whether we act right or wrong. Whether something is good or bad. (Ref.: Die Lehre von der Ehrfurcht vor dem Leben Albert Schweitzer; Ed. 1966; and My life and thought// Aus meinem Leben und Denken) B) Justice is an ethical problem. E. Levinas says e.g. There is no symmetrical alliance from everything with everything. We have to know our master in the Other. The hungry who in material and spiritual view asks for recognition. We have to inform us by asking the face in front of us. Not enclosed in myself, the subject, but giving hospitality as condition for a living fellow-manship, basis of living together. A way to welfare. Arms do not make war, people do. C: ) Responsability for the present and the future. It is not allowed to relapse into the past Just like Kierkegaard: the subject is responsable, the totality of the system is broken up by the Infinitly, this will say through the face of the Other.

Truth asks coherence of the international language

As a consequence of ethical acting of the multinational companies this has to be used all over the world. Refer also the practice as described by Locke and explained by Wolterstorff at judging in all cases of maximum concerned . Noblesse oblige. So the rich western hemisphere must know her responsibility.Therefore Locke and Descartes ask for epistemological duties. (deontology), Locke was for the moral aspect influenced by religious wars. Strongly in belief. Tolerance. The warrant as formulated by Plantinga (Alvin Plantinga: Warrant: A First Approximation from Warrant and Proper FunctionOxford Univ. Press1993, pp 3-20.) is to be used very well for international agreements. = Justification = Internalistic = Deontologic Dietrich Bonhoeffer saying his last words to his executioner: For you the end, means for me: a new start . All truth is relative, related to place and time, but also related to someones individual situation. Most of the time culturally defined. Through more explanation, giving more knowledge to the Human Rights, more control on the competences of the political managers at living/ acting in accordance with this Human Rights (regarding the points mentioned before) ,injustice may be lessened, and rightness increased.

Entitlement
When is somebody or authority entitled to do general pronouncements? What entitlement had the prophet Nathan to say to David: You are the man that took the the lamb from the poor man. ( Ref.: 2 Samuel 12: v. 7 What entitlement have the rich countries to use so much more of the basic needs than the poor countries do? ( Ref.: Endspeach director Stichting Onderzoek Wereldvoedselvoorziening: Michiel Keyzer. 1997 Spil/ 149-150. Stichting Onderzoek Wereldvoorziening = Foundation Investigation of Worldfoodprovision/ security) As the church keeps silence against the Jews, the church looses his belief (credulity) . (Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945) about the Bekennende Kirche 1933 in Finkenwalde.) Is that also right concerning the more than 700.000 people that have no right to be heard, that have no voice, and die every month due to lack of food? We have to fight against injustice, but still more for Human Rights . Therefore it is urgently required that there comes an Economic Amnesty International for the starving in this world (Ref. also above mentioned Endspeach./1997 ) Especially to be able to follow all the continuous changing in entitlement in our world around us., as prof. N.Wolterstorff indicated in his colloquium at the Vrije Universiteit at Amsterdam on june 13 2003. But stronger than that: changes have been always in the world, but the last fourty years there is an enormous acceleration which is not to stop. Unless well structured, this gives a great increase in knowledge, but also an increase in responsability (which is much to weak expressed) and as a consequence increase in obligations . And this not only in the short term, but particularly in the long term.

Counterargument is that also an entitled person not always knows everything. 2000 years ago this was signed up at a conversation at night between a Jewish Master : Nicodemus and Jesus of Nazareth: And thou art a master of Israel and knowest not these things? Gospel according to St. John:3 v 1/21

Conclusion
I like to agree with Arjo Vanderjagt (Nuttig Denken = Usefull Thinking, article in Dutch newspaper: Trouw 16/6/03. ): philosophing is usefull thinking, often without a practical solution, but yet with tools to organize possible solutions. Or like A.Morton says at deeper exploration: It is a major philosophical activity, to find better ways of articulating beliefs which lie behind the concepts that we use all the time. (Theory of Knowledge 3rd ed. page 52.) This way we shall better understand our neighbours on this planet. We need to make rules that support management, characterized by a powerfull and continuous watching over the interests of the weaker in the international powerplay. A management that knows the international rules, and also has the authority to enforce these rules. Life stays a mystery. Our knowledge stays imperfect. Many years I worked in a quality control department. For that reason I worked a long time with PIs (Performance Indicators). We used PIs to measure improvement in the various processes. The saying was: Measuring is knowing. Later on I added: But knowing is interpretation , to indicate that only measuring is not enough. Yet, this too keeps on being the work of people. And even when we observe correctly, we can still make errors. Nevertheless we must keep on searching for the right structure and the correct interpretations. In short: philosophing/ epistemology is a must. As mentioned in St. John 3 verse 11: We speak that we do know and testify that we have seen. But we always fall short. Dick van den Bogaard Stud. nr.: Not applicable. Epistemology June 2003. Docent/prof.: R.van Woudenberg Letter: Arial stand. 12. See also original: < OnrechtO.rtf > After I wrote this paper: Fortunately the RED CROSS published in july The World Disaster Report . But in the newsmedia did not come follow-up enough. Also I used the opinions derived from Manufacturing Consentfrom Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky / 1988. Read by me in 1992.

< INJUSTICE >