1. IDEA OF JUSTICE :REASON AND OBJECTIVITY

 

 1. IDEA OF JUSTICE :REASON AND OBJECTIVITY

Connection between intelligence (being smarter) and goodness (being a better person)

"what we owe to each other"

In this passage, the writer discusses a famous quote from philosophers Ludwig Wittgenstein's first major book, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, where he said, "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent." This means that things we can express should be said clearly, and for things we can't explain, it's better to stay silent. However, the writer notes that Wittgenstein himself didn't always follow this strict rule. 

In a letter to a friend, Wittgenstein wrote an interesting and puzzling statement: "I work quite diligently and wish that I were better and smarter. And these both are one and the same." The writer questions this—how can being smarter and being a better person be the same thing?

The writer also jokes about how in modern English, especially in America, people often say they are "good" when they mean they are healthy or feeling well, which blurs the line between being morally good and being well. But Wittgenstein was writing before this American usage became common, so he must have been making a deeper point when he said that being "better" and "smarter" are the same thing.

In short, Wittgenstein's quote is being used to explore the connection between intelligence (being smarter) and goodness (being a better person), which the writer finds intriguing and worth examining.

Many bad actions happen because people are confused or mistaken in some way. A lack of understanding or "smartness" can be one reason for not behaving well. Thinking carefully about what the smart or wise thing to do is can sometimes lead people to treat others better.

Modern game theory, which studies how people make decisions, shows that it can often be in someone's best interest to behave well. For example, following good rules of behavior can benefit everyone in a group. If people act in ways that harm each other, it's not smart because it could end up hurting everyone, including themselves. So, acting wisely can lead to better outcomes for both the individual and the group.

Being smarter could help us think more clearly about what we value in life—our goals, objectives, and the things that truly matter. While self-interest (looking out for yourself) might seem like a basic way of thinking, understanding more complex values and responsibilities requires good reasoning skills.

In other words, a smart person might not just act out of personal gain. They could have well-thought-out reasons to behave in a kind and decent way toward others, beyond just benefiting themselves. Their actions might be based on deeper values rather than self-interest alone.

Being smarter can help us not only understand our own self-interest but also how our actions impact other people's lives. There’s a theory called "Rational Choice Theory," which originally came from economics and has been used by some political and legal thinkers. This theory says that being rational means focusing only on promoting your own self-interest.

However, not everyone agrees with this idea. Many people resist the belief that it's irrational or foolish to care about others unless it somehow benefits you. Most of us still believe that helping others can be important on its own, without always expecting personal gain in return.

The idea of "what we owe to each other" is important for thoughtful consideration. This reflection can lead us beyond just focusing on our own narrow self-interest. Sometimes, after thinking carefully, we might realize that our true goals require us to stop being selfish and care about others. 

There are also situations where it makes sense to limit our own ambitions, even if they aren't purely selfish, in order to follow rules of good behavior. These rules allow other people, who live in the same world as us, to also pursue their own goals, whether they are selfish or not.

It has been suggested that some children may act cruelly towards other children or animals because they don't fully understand how much pain they are causing. This lack of understanding is often due to their level of mental and emotional development. As they grow older and their minds mature, they begin to develop a deeper awareness of other people's feelings and the suffering of others. This understanding usually comes with intellectual and emotional growth, allowing them to act more compassionately and thoughtfully.

CRITIQUES OF ENLIGHTENMENT  THINKING

       1. Wittgenstein and the Enlightenment: If Wittgenstein believed that being smarter leads to better actions, he aligned himself with the European Enlightenment tradition, which emphasized using reason to improve society.

2. Importance of Reason in the Enlightenment: During the Enlightenment (especially in the 18th century), intellectuals believed that systematic reasoning was crucial for social progress and making societies better.

3. Not Just About Reason: However, the Enlightenment wasn’t solely about reason. Thinkers like Isaiah Berlin pointed out that there were also anti-rational ideas present during that period, showing that it wasn’t purely focused on logic and reasoning.

4. Critique of Overemphasis on Reason: In modern times, some critics argue that the Enlightenment overestimated the power of reason. They believe that relying too much on reason has contributed to major problems, even atrocities, in the post-Enlightenment world.

5. Jonathan Glover’s Critique: Philosopher Jonathan Glover, in his book “Moral History of the Twentieth Century,” argues that the Enlightenment’s view of human psychology was overly simplistic and mechanical. He says that the belief in progress through reason and humanitarianism now seems naive.

6. Link to Modern Tyranny: Glover also connects modern tyrants like Stalin and Pol Pot to Enlightenment thinking, claiming that their belief in reason and ideology led to their oppressive regimes.

7. No Escape from the Enlightenment: Even though Glover is critical of the Enlightenment’s overconfidence in reason, he acknowledges that we cannot entirely reject its influence, as we still rely on reason in modern thought.

8. Danger of Overconfident Beliefs: Glover argues that many atrocities in the 20th century, such as Stalinism, came from forcefully held, overconfident beliefs, which were in part driven by an excessive reliance on reasoning.

APPLICATION OF RATIONALITY

1. Yeats and Nietzsche’s Skepticism:

      •   W.B. Yeats commented on Nietzsche’s dark view of humanity, wondering why Nietzsche saw the world as only filled with darkness and chaos.

      •   Nietzsche, who died in 1900, had a pessimistic view of human nature and the future.

      •   Events of the 20th century, like wars, genocides, and atrocities, seem to confirm Nietzsche’s grim outlook.

2. Glover’s Reflection on Human Nature:

      •   Philosopher Jonathan Glover reflects on Nietzsche’s concerns and suggests that humans need to confront and control their inner “monsters” – the darker parts of their nature.

3. Importance of Critical Reflection During Milestones:

      •   Moments like the turn of a century (or millennium) are often seen as appropriate times for people to reflect on the state of humanity and consider what needs to be done to improve society.

      •   Not all reflections are as pessimistic as Nietzsche’s or Glover’s.

4. Akbar’s Optimistic Approach to Reason and Society:

      •   In contrast to Nietzsche’s skepticism, Mughal Emperor Akbar of India, in the late 16th century, used reason to critically examine social and political values, especially focusing on communal peace and cooperation between different religious communities.

      •   As the first millennium of the Muslim Hijri calendar ended in 1591-1592, Akbar engaged in deep reflection on these issues.

5. Akbar’s Policy of Religious Tolerance:

      •   Akbar’s policies were highly progressive for his time, especially compared to events happening elsewhere, such as the Inquisitions in Europe.

      •   Akbar declared that no one should be discriminated against or interfered with based on their religion, and people should be free to choose their faith.

6. Promoting Interfaith Dialogue:

      •   Akbar organized dialogues in his capital, Agra, where people of different faiths, including Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Jews, and even agnostics, could come together for discussions.

7. Foundations of Secularism:

      •   Akbar laid the groundwork for secularism by promoting the idea that the state should treat all religions equally without giving special favor to any one religion.

      •   Many of Akbar’s policies influenced the secular constitution that India adopted after independence in 1949.

In summary, the passage contrasts the dark, pessimistic view of human nature (Nietzsche and Glover) with the more optimistic, reason-driven approach of Akbar, who used dialogue and religious tolerance to build a more harmonious society. Akbar’s legacy is seen as an early example of secularism and religious neutrality in governance.

1. Akbar’s Belief in Reason Over Tradition:

      •   Akbar believed that reason, not tradition, should guide solving problems related to good behavior and building a just society.

      •   He referred to tradition as a “marshy land,” implying that it was not reliable for making just decisions.

2. Freedom to Question Existing Customs:

      •   Akbar felt that people should be free to examine whether reason justifies current customs or policies.

      •   For example, he abolished special taxes on non-Muslims, stating they were discriminatory and did not treat all citizens equally.

3. Releasing Slaves:

      •   In 1582, Akbar decided to release all imperial slaves, stating it was unjust to benefit from forced labor.

      •   He believed using force was not in line with justice or good conduct.

4. Criticism of Child Marriage:

      •   Akbar opposed child marriage, which was common at the time.

      •   He argued that marriage should aim for a future goal, but marrying a child causes immediate harm.

5. Opposition to the Practice of Widow Non-Remarriage:

      •   Akbar criticized the Hindu practice of not allowing widows to remarry, seeing it as an unnecessary hardship.

      •   He pointed out that child marriage, combined with widow non-remarriage, made the situation even worse for women.

6. Criticism of Inheritance Practices:

      •   Akbar noted that in Islamic law, daughters inherited a smaller share of property, but he believed daughters should receive a larger share due to their relative vulnerability.

7. Tolerating Religious Rituals Despite Personal Skepticism:

      •   Although Akbar was personally skeptical of religious rituals, he did not ban them.

      •   When his son Murad asked if religious rituals should be banned, Akbar argued against it, saying that preventing people from performing rituals would prevent them from remembering God in their own way.

8. Encouraging Critical Examination of Beliefs:

      •   Akbar encouraged everyone to critically examine their inherited beliefs and customs, rather than blindly following them.

      •   He believed reason should play a central role in shaping a secular and tolerant society.

9. Supremacy of Reason:

      •   Akbar believed that reason was supreme because even when someone argues against reason, they must use reason to do so.

      •   He emphasized that the pursuit of reason was so clearly necessary that it needed no further justification.

10. Akbar’s Opposition to Blind Faith:

      •   Traditionalists within Akbar’s religion argued for blind and unquestioning faith, but Akbar rejected this.

      •   He told his scholar friend, Abul Fazl, that the need for reason over tradition was so obvious that it was beyond argument.

11. Conclusion on Reason and Justice:

      •   Akbar concluded that reason (referred to as “the path of reason” or “the rule of the intellect”) must be the foundation for good behavior, justice, and a fair legal system.

In summary, Akbar’s approach was centered around the idea that reason should guide society rather than blind tradition. He advocated for the use of reason to challenge unjust customs, such as child marriage, religious discrimination, and unfair inheritance laws, while also promoting religious tolerance and freedom of belief.

1. Akbar’s Emphasis on the Importance of Reason:

   - Akbar highlighted the indispensability of reason in addressing societal and individual challenges.

   - Reason, according to Akbar, is essential for understanding and solving complex problems and forming just policies.

2. Integration of Emotions and Reason:

   - The passage argues that even emotions, which are often seen as separate from or in conflict with reason, can be understood through the lens of reason.

   - Reason helps us make sense of emotions and decide how to respond to them thoughtfully and appropriately.

3. Understanding the Importance of Emotions Through Reason:

   - The importance of emotions in our lives can be appreciated through reason. This means we can understand why emotions matter by analyzing them.

   - Emotions should not be dismissed but taken seriously, though not without critical examination.

4. Reasons Behind Emotional Reactions:

   - If someone feels a strong emotion, it’s important to ask why that particular emotion arises.

   - Reason helps us reflect on what emotions tell us about our circumstances, relationships, or values. For example, anger might indicate a sense of injustice, while sadness might show a need for connection or healing.

5. Complementary Roles of Reason and Emotion:

   - Reason and emotion do not work in isolation; they play complementary roles in human thinking and decision-making.

   - Emotions can guide us towards what matters, and reason helps us to understand and evaluate those emotions, leading to balanced, informed decisions.

6. Complex Relationship Between Reason and Emotion:

   - The relationship between reason and emotion is complex and nuanced.

   - While reason provides clarity and direction, emotions provide motivation and personal insight. Understanding how they interact is essential for thoughtful deliberation.

Akbar's emphasis on reason is correct, but the passage adds that reason and emotion work together. Emotions are important in guiding our responses, but they need to be understood and evaluated through reason. The complementary relationship between reason and emotion helps us make thoughtful decisions, and understanding the reasons behind our emotional responses allows us to reflect more deeply on our experiences. The complex nature of this relationship will be examined in more detail later.

REASON AND UNREASON

Sometimes an unreliable or odd method can accidentally give the correct answer, even though a more logical or well-reasoned approach might be better in general. This happens in situations where luck or coincidence plays a role.

For example, imagine using a broken clock that no longer moves. Twice a day, it will show the exact correct time, just by chance, because the clock is stuck on a specific time. If someone checks the time at exactly one of those moments, the broken clock will give the right time, even though it’s not working. However, depending on this broken clock isn’t a good idea in general because most of the time it’s wrong. It’s much better to use a working clock, even though the broken one might occasionally be correct.

In short, just because an unreliable method can sometimes be right doesn’t mean it’s a good way to solve problems. A more reasoned approach, even if imperfect, is generally a better choice.

1. Accidental Accuracy: Sometimes, unreliable methods or procedures can accidentally yield the correct answer. This shows that even flawed approaches might occasionally succeed purely by chance.

2. Example of the Broken Clock: A broken clock, which doesn’t move, will display the correct time twice a day. If someone checks the time exactly at those moments, they’ll get the right time, even though the clock is not functioning properly.

3. Limitations of Dubious Methods: Despite occasional success, relying on unreliable methods (like a broken clock) is not a good practice because most of the time, they will be incorrect or misleading.

4. Reasoned Approach: A reasoned, logical method (like using a working clock) is much more reliable, even if it doesn’t always give perfect results. It has a higher probability of being right in the long term compared to accidental correctness.

5. Critical Importance of Reasoning: While an unreliable method may sometimes outperform a reasoned one in isolated instances, reasoned scrutiny offers a more consistent and reliable way to approach problems and reach valid conclusions.

6. Conclusion: Reasoning, although not perfect, should be prioritized over methods that succeed by chance because it systematically improves the likelihood of finding correct solutions.

. Akbar’s Emphasis on Reason and Ethical Objectivity:

 1  •   Akbar strongly believed in the indispensability of reason as a fundamental tool for ethical judgment and decision-making.

   •   His emphasis suggests that using reason (rahi aql) is crucial in addressing complex moral and ethical issues, rather than relying solely on emotions or tradition.

2. Integration of Emotions and Reason:

   •   Emotions are important in moral deliberations, but they should be assessed and understood within the scope of reason.

   •   The complementary roles of reason and emotion are highlighted, meaning emotions can provide insight, but reason allows us to critically assess their relevance and impact.

3. Reason’s Role in Ethical Judgements:

   •   Ethical judgments demand the use of reason. To make fair and objective moral decisions, reasoning must play a primary role.

   •   The key question is whether reason should be considered the ultimate arbitrator of ethical beliefs and actions. In other words, should reason always be the final deciding factor in what is considered ethically right or wrong?

4. The Necessity of Reason in Ethical Beliefs:

   •   The passage questions whether there is a special role for reasoning in determining ethical judgments.

   •   This inquiry asks whether reason, or a particular type of reasoning, is essential for reaching correct ethical conclusions.

   •   The passage encourages reflection on whether ethical decisions must be justified by reason to be valid or morally acceptable.

5. Reasoned Support Does Not Automatically Grant Value:

   •   The passage emphasizes that while reasoned support for an ethical belief is important, it does not automatically make that belief morally correct or valuable.

   •   Reasoned scrutiny alone does not guarantee the truth or rightness of ethical beliefs.

   •   Reasoned support should be seen as a tool for evaluation rather than a guarantee of correctness.

6. Challenges in Achieving Ethical Truth:

   •   The passage acknowledges the difficulty of determining moral truth, especially in areas like ethics and politics.

   •   The search for truth in ethical beliefs is complicated, and even the most rigorous reasoning may not always lead to the correct answer.

   •   This is due to the complex nature of moral and political beliefs, where truth can be subjective and hard to pinpoint definitively.

7. Reason is Critical but Not Foolproof:

   •   Reasoned scrutiny is critical for evaluating ethical judgments, but it is not infallible.

   •   The passage implies that while reason is a powerful tool, it cannot always ensure success in finding the right moral answers or achieving ethical objectivity.

Summary:

Reason plays an indispensable role in ethical judgment and decision-making. It highlights the complementary relationship between reason and emotion, stressing that while emotions can guide our ethical reflections, reason is needed to scrutinize and evaluate them. However, the passage questions whether reason should always be the final authority in ethical beliefs, suggesting that even rigorous reasoning may not always lead to the right moral truths. Reason is critical but not foolproof, as determining moral truth is a complex and often subjective process.

Akbar emphasized the essential role of reason in making ethical judgments and decisions. He believed that reason, or rahi aql, should be central to addressing complex moral issues rather than relying solely on emotions or traditions. While emotions are important in moral deliberations, Akbar suggested that they should be understood and assessed through the lens of reason. In this way, reason and emotion complement each other—emotions can provide valuable insight, but reason helps us critically evaluate their relevance.

The passage raises the question of whether reason should be the ultimate decider of ethical beliefs. Should reasoning always be the final authority when determining what is right or wrong? It also suggests that while reason is important in ethical judgments, reasoned support for an ethical belief does not automatically make that belief morally correct. Instead, reason is a tool for evaluation, but it does not guarantee that we will always find the right answer.

The passage further acknowledges the difficulty of determining moral truth, especially in areas like ethics and politics. Even the most rigorous reasoning may not always lead to the correct answer, because moral and political beliefs are complex and often subjective. In this sense, while reasoned scrutiny is critical for evaluating ethical decisions, it is not foolproof. Akbar’s emphasis on reason highlights its importance, but also recognizes that reason alone cannot always ensure success in finding moral truths.

REASONS AND ETHICAL DECISIONS

1. Reasoned Procedures Are Valuable: Using well-thought-out, reasoned procedures is generally preferred, even though they’re not guaranteed to be right every time.

2. No Absolute Right or Wrong: There is no perfect method that always guarantees the right answer or is always more correct than less-reasoned approaches.

3. The Value of Objectivity: The main reason to choose reasoned scrutiny is to try to be as objective as possible, rather than assuming we will always get the right answer.

4. Objectivity in Ethical Judgments: When making ethical decisions, reasoning helps maintain objectivity, which is essential for fair judgments on matters of justice and injustice.

5. The Need for Disciplined Reasoning: Ethical reasoning requires a careful, disciplined approach to ensure that judgments are made fairly and thoughtfully.

6. Focus on Justice: This emphasis on reasoned thinking is crucial for addressing issues of justice and injustice accurately and fairly.

Reasoned Decision-Making Doesn’t Guarantee Perfection

The idea here is that using reasoned and well-thought-out approaches in making decisions is valuable, but it doesn’t mean they’re always going to be correct. Just because a process is based on reason doesn’t guarantee it will lead to the right answer in every situation. For example, in daily life, we might thoroughly research different job offers to make the best decision, yet even after all that reasoning, the job we choose might not turn out as expected. The possibility of error is always there, but reasoned scrutiny remains valuable because it gives us a better chance of making informed and fair choices.

The Importance of Objectivity in Reasoned Scrutiny

Even though no process or reasoning is foolproof, the value of using reason lies in striving for objectivity. When we approach issues—especially ethical ones—we aim to see things as impartially as possible, which helps us avoid biases and unfair judgments. For instance, if a jury in a court case relies solely on emotions rather than objective reasoning, they may make a biased decision. By using a reasoned approach, the jury can work to understand the evidence and arguments clearly, even if there’s no guarantee they will reach a perfect verdict. Here, the goal is fairness rather than perfection.

Objectivity in Ethical Judgments: Striving for Fairness

The focus on reasoned thinking also connects to the demands of objectivity in ethical judgments. When we’re dealing with complex topics like justice or injustice, a fair, disciplined approach to reasoning helps ensure that we’re giving all sides and perspectives their due consideration. Imagine a policymaker tasked with designing laws that protect public health. If they rely on reasoned arguments that weigh both public needs and individual freedoms, they’re more likely to create policies that balance different interests fairly, rather than being swayed by personal biases or opinions.

Objective Reasoning in the Pursuit of Justice

The importance of reasoned thinking, then, is tied closely to the pursuit of justice. Ethical questions about what’s right or wrong, or just or unjust, benefit from objective reasoning because it helps us evaluate situations fairly. This disciplined approach is especially important in areas where emotions might cloud our judgment, and it ensures that our decisions are grounded in careful consideration rather than impulse.

REASONS AND OBJECTIVITY IN EHICAL DISCOURSE

Understanding Ethical Objectivity

Ethical objectivity is a challenging topic within moral and political philosophy, so it’s essential to explore it further. This concept raises the question: does seeking ethical objectivity mean we’re searching for specific, concrete “ethical objects”? This approach, focused on identifying what these “ethical objects” might be, leads to complex discussions about what actually exists in the realm of ethics, often exploring deep questions in ontology—the study of what kinds of things exist.

Questioning the Existence of Ethical Objects

When we talk about ethical objectivity, some philosophers focus on identifying certain “ethical objects” that would supposedly serve as the basis for objective morality. However, this approach can be confusing and difficult to grasp. What exactly would these “ethical objects” look like? Could they be tangible or identifiable in the same way as physical objects, or are they more abstract? This line of questioning complicates our understanding of ethical objectivity and doesn’t necessarily lead us to practical answers about ethical issues.

A Shift in Focus: Hilary Putnam’s Perspective

Instead of focusing on finding these elusive ethical “objects,” philosopher Hilary Putnam suggests that this approach is largely unhelpful. Putnam argues that searching for specific ethical “objects” misses the point. Ethical objectivity isn’t about identifying particular items or entities in the moral landscape. Rather, it’s about how we discuss, reason, and understand ethical standards and values themselves.

Rethinking Ethical Objectivity as a Process

In essence, the pursuit of ethical objectivity should not be about debating the existence of certain “ethical objects.” Instead, it should focus on the processes we use to reach objective ethical standards and judgments. Ethical objectivity is less about identifying concrete things and more about engaging in fair, reasoned discussions on ethical principles and values.

1. The Complexity of Ethical Objectivity

Ethical objectivity is a complicated topic in moral and political philosophy, so it needs a closer look. One common question is whether achieving ethical objectivity means finding specific “ethical objects” that serve as a moral standard.

2. The Problem with “Ethical Objects”

Some philosophers try to identify certain “ethical objects” as the foundation for objective morality. However, this idea can be confusing and hard to understand—how could these “ethical objects” be defined? Are they physical or abstract? This approach doesn’t necessarily help us find practical answers to ethical questions.

3. Hilary Putnam’s Perspective

Philosopher Hilary Putnam suggests that searching for specific “ethical objects” is unhelpful and even misleading. According to him, ethical objectivity isn’t about finding concrete entities; rather, it’s about understanding and reasoning through ethical standards.

4. Focusing on Reasoned Discussion

Instead of focusing on the existence of “ethical objects,” we should approach ethical objectivity as a process. This means engaging in fair, logical, and open discussions to evaluate ethical principles and values, rather than seeking particular “objects” to base morality on.

5. Ethical Objectivity as a Process, Not a Search

Ultimately, ethical objectivity is not about identifying things in the moral world but rather about using a disciplined process of reasoning and discussing to reach fair and objective judgments in ethical matters.

1. Ethics and Observable Traits

Some ethical statements rely on observable qualities. For instance, we might look for visible evidence to judge if someone is courageous or compassionate. In these cases, the ethics involve identifying specific behaviors that can be observed.

2. Judgments Beyond Observables

Other ethical statements do not depend on observable traits. For example, calling someone “immoral” or “unjust” is a broader judgment that doesn’t hinge on specific, visible actions. Such statements reflect deeper ethical evaluations beyond surface descriptions.

3. Ethics is Not Just Descriptive

Even though some ethical judgments may have descriptive elements (like identifying courageous behavior), ethics as a whole is not just about describing actions or objects. It is about evaluating behaviors and values within a broader context.

4. Putnam’s View on Practical Ethics

Philosopher Hilary Putnam argues that true ethical questions are practical in nature. They involve not just facts, but also values, beliefs, and complex social or philosophical ideas. Ethical questions mix factual understanding with personal and cultural beliefs.

5. Challenges in Objective Ethics

The process of reaching ethical objectivity can be unclear. Even so, Putnam believes that with proper analysis and scrutiny of underlying issues, we can bring clarity to our ethical reasoning, balancing practical values with factual insights.

Justice and Impartiality

   Analyzing justice involves applying standards of fairness and impartiality. These are essential to understanding what is just or unjust in society.

John Rawls on Objectivity in Justice 

   Philosopher John Rawls developed a concept of "justice as fairness" to support objective views on justice. He argued that for objectivity to be meaningful, we need a "public framework" where people can discuss, reflect, and reason together.

Framework for Objective Judgement 

   According to Rawls, objective political beliefs are those that can be reasonably accepted by all fair-minded people, based on shared principles and evidence. A political view is considered "objective" if there are enough reasonable arguments and evidence to convince most rational individuals of its fairness.

Rawls vs. Habermas on Public Discussion  

   Another philosopher, Jürgen Habermas, offers a different approach to objectivity. He emphasizes that fair conclusions come from open and informed public debate rather than assuming what "reasonable" people would accept. Habermas values a procedural approach, where fairness emerges through discussion rather than predefined criteria.

Similarities Between Rawls and Habermas 

   While Rawls and Habermas have different perspectives—Rawls focusing on fairness principles and Habermas on public discussion—there are similarities. Both stress reasoning, fairness, and reaching agreements through rational dialogue, even if their methods differ slightly.

Habermas’s Demands for Public Deliberation

   Habermas emphasizes that achieving a fair political society requires strict standards for public discussions. People must be open to different views, willing to accept information, and engage in fair, open-minded dialogue. If these standards are met, the differences between Habermas’s and Rawls’s approaches become less significant.

Rawls’s Idea of ‘Reasonable Persons’ vs. General Public  

   Rawls often refers to “reasonable persons” who engage in fair and rational thinking. However, the author suggests that most people have the potential to be reasonable by being open-minded, welcoming new information, and reflecting on various perspectives in public discussions.

All People as Capable of Reasonableness 

   The author argues that everyone has the capacity for reasonableness, not just Rawls's "reasonable persons." This includes being open to information, debating fairly, and reflecting on others' arguments—all key to democratic decision-making.

Focus on Deliberative Human Beings  

   Instead of strictly categorizing “reasonable persons” as a separate group, Rawls’s work is seen as focusing on the idea that all people, if they engage in open-minded debate, are capable of being reasonable. This highlights the importance of collective reasoning rather than excluding individuals.

Central Role of Public Reasoning in Democracy and Social Justice  

   Open and unrestricted public reasoning is crucial for democratic society and the pursuit of social justice. Engaging all people in informed public debates helps to achieve a just political community.

                       The Role of Objectivity in Ethical and Public Reasoning

When we engage in ethical discussions, striving for objectivity is key. This approach allows us to consider issues—particularly ethical and moral ones—with a fair, impartial mindset. Even though no reasoning process is flawless, the value lies in minimizing bias and achieving as fair a judgment as possible. For example, a jury that relies only on emotion may make a biased decision. In contrast, by approaching a case with clear, reasoned analysis of evidence, the jury has a better chance of reaching a fair conclusion, even if perfection isn’t guaranteed.

Objectivity is also essential in broader ethical judgments, such as those related to justice or fairness. Approaching these issues with a disciplined reasoning process ensures we respect diverse viewpoints and understand all sides. When policymakers craft laws that affect public health, for instance, they must balance individual rights with the common good. This fair-minded approach to reasoning helps prevent personal biases from influencing decisions that affect society.

In discussions of ethical objectivity, some philosophers question whether objective morality relies on specific “ethical objects” that can serve as standards. However, philosopher Hilary Putnam argues that this approach can be misleading. He believes ethical objectivity isn’t about finding concrete “moral objects” but rather about how we understand and discuss ethical values and standards. Putnam encourages us to focus on the reasoning process in ethical matters, rather than trying to identify elusive “objects” that might serve as moral benchmarks.

This idea of ethical objectivity as a process rather than a search for fixed standards is crucial to understanding how we approach moral questions fairly. Rather than searching for concrete moral standards, we should engage in fair, open discussions that aim to assess ethical principles. This approach allows us to use reason and dialogue to explore moral and ethical standards.

In the pursuit of justice, philosopher John Rawls’s theory of “justice as fairness” supports objective standards in political beliefs. He argues that objective political ideas are those that reasonable individuals can accept. A political belief is “objective” if enough evidence and reasoning can convince fair-minded individuals of its validity. On the other hand, Jürgen Habermas believes that fair decisions come from open public debate, where fairness emerges through discussion rather than through predetermined standards.

Despite their differences, both Rawls and Habermas stress fairness, reason, and public dialogue in ethical and political decisions. Habermas emphasizes that people should be open to different viewpoints and willing to consider information objectively. When such standards are met, the differences between Rawls and Habermas’s approaches diminish, as both agree on the importance of reasoned deliberation for a fair society.

Ultimately, unrestricted public reasoning is essential for democracy and social justice. By engaging all individuals in informed, inclusive public debates, we can move toward a just and equitable political society, where decisions are based on collective reasoning and mutual respect for diverse perspectives.

                               Public Reasoning and Different Viewpoints

Public reasoning is essential to making fair decisions in politics and ethics. Public reasoning means including the viewpoints of everyone whose interests are involved or who has insights into the issue. This helps ensure objectivity, meaning decisions are more balanced and unbiased.

The author compares two thinkers on this idea:

1. Rawls’s Approach – Rawls believes that fairness can be reached when people share their perspectives openly, helping everyone agree on what is just.

  

2. Adam Smith’s Approach – Smith, using the idea of an “impartial spectator,” suggests that we should consider issues as an unbiased observer would, listening to all relevant views.

The main idea is that including all voices leads to better, fairer decisions because each perspective may add something important. Excluding voices risks missing valuable insights and making biased decisions.

 Fairness and objectivity in politics and ethics can be achieved by including a variety of viewpoints. Here’s a breakdown:

1. John Rawls's Focus – Rawls focuses mainly on different personal interests and priorities, suggesting that fair decisions come from considering a mix of these.

2. Adam Smith’s Broader Perspective – Adam Smith takes this further. He believes we should not limit discussions to local or familiar views, as this can overlook important ideas from other cultures. To avoid bias, he suggests thinking from the perspective of an “impartial spectator,” or someone who isn’t part of the situation. This could mean asking, “What would someone with no personal stake in this think?”

3. Smith’s Emphasis on Diverse Views – Smith also stresses that we should consider a wide variety of experiences and perspectives—both from nearby and far away—rather than just those of people who share our background or beliefs. He thinks that this distance helps us question our own biases, customs, and beliefs.

4. Common Ground with Rawls and Habermas – Despite their different approaches, Rawls, Smith, and another thinker, Jürgen Habermas, share a key idea: true objectivity means that our beliefs and values should be able to stand up to careful examination from many different viewpoints.

In short, a fair and objective approach to political and ethical issues must involve thoughtful examination from a broad range of perspectives.

                              THEORY OF JUSTICE  AND ITS VARIETIES

1. Principles of Justice Aren't Unique

   - The author argues that there isn’t necessarily just one set of principles of justice that will pass scrutiny.

   - This view differs from John Rawls’s approach, which focuses on a single, strict structure for justice.

2. Difference from Rawls's Rigid Structure

   - Rawls’s theory suggests a “unique institutional structure” to achieve justice, where each step unfolds as if justice is a fixed path.

   - This structured view doesn’t easily allow for different, competing principles to coexist.

3. Multiple Principles Can Survive Together 

   - The author suggests that multiple, even opposing, principles of justice can exist simultaneously.

   - These principles don’t need to be combined or simplified into a single set of rules.

4. mportance of Impartial and Reasoned Discussion 

   - Even though different thinkers have various views on objectivity (fairness), they all agree on the importance of impartial, reasoned discussion.

   - Objectivity in ethics, according to the author, requires reasoning that meets standards of impartiality.

5. Types of Reasoning 

   - Different types of reasoning exist (like reasons based on justice, self-interest, or prudence).

   - The author’s focus is on “reasons of justice,” which are distinct from other types, and exploring this broad area is central to the work.

In short, the author believes in a flexible approach to justice that allows for multiple, competing principles, all grounded in impartial, reasoned discussions, rather than a single, rigid structure as proposed by Rawls.

                                                           SUMMARY

                     The Role of Reason and Objectivity in Ethical Decision-Making

In the complex realm of ethics, reasoned procedures and objectivity form the bedrock for fair and balanced decision-making. While no reasoning process can guarantee absolute correctness, structured and disciplined thinking increases the likelihood of making well-informed and impartial judgments. This essay explores how reasoned scrutiny and objectivity contribute to justice, with philosophical insights from figures such as John Rawls, Hilary Putnam, and Jürgen Habermas, and illustrates why these elements are fundamental to public reasoning and democratic values.

The Value of Reasoned Procedures

The importance of reasoned decision-making lies in its structured approach, which, while not infallible, is generally preferred over impulsive or emotion-driven methods. Reasoned scrutiny allows individuals to examine a problem thoroughly, considering multiple factors before reaching a conclusion. For instance, when choosing between job offers, extensive research and analysis may still not guarantee the best outcome; however, the likelihood of making an informed and fair choice is significantly higher. This principle, similarly applied to ethical judgments, seeks to reduce bias and encourage rational, fair outcomes even when uncertainties remain.

The Pursuit of Objectivity

Reasoned scrutiny is most valuable when it strives for objectivity, as this approach minimizes personal biases and emphasizes impartiality. Objectivity is especially crucial in ethics because ethical decisions affect justice and fairness, impacting individuals and communities at a fundamental level. For example, a jury in a court case should focus on evidence and reasoned analysis rather than emotions or assumptions. By doing so, they promote fairness and reduce the risk of biased decisions. Similarly, policymakers must balance individual rights with the common good when drafting laws, aiming to ground decisions in reason rather than personal or political motivations. Although objectivity does not guarantee flawless judgments, it serves as a reliable safeguard against unfairness.

Objectivity in Ethical Judgments

Ethical objectivity plays a key role in judgments concerning justice and fairness. In ethical discourse, some philosophers seek "ethical objects"—tangible entities that might serve as moral benchmarks. However, as philosopher Hilary Putnam argues, this approach is impractical, as ethical questions are not about identifying concrete "moral objects" but rather about engaging in thoughtful discussions about values and standards. Ethical objectivity, therefore, should be seen as a process rather than a quest for fixed moral standards. This disciplined approach emphasizes reasoned scrutiny as a way to evaluate principles fairly without needing definitive "ethical objects."

Putnam's stance highlights that ethical objectivity is better pursued through open dialogue and a focus on evaluating standards fairly. This procedural focus provides a more practical and constructive framework for ethical objectivity, grounding moral discussions in reasoned dialogue rather than abstract debates over "moral objects."

Justice, Fairness, and Impartiality

Justice requires that judgments be made impartially, with fairness as the guiding principle. Philosophers like John Rawls and Jürgen Habermas offer distinct approaches to achieving justice through objective reasoning. Rawls’s concept of "justice as fairness" promotes the idea of a "public framework" in which individuals can discuss, reflect, and reason together to establish shared standards. According to Rawls, a political view is objective if it can be accepted by reasonable people through logical argumentation and evidence.

In contrast, Habermas emphasizes the importance of public debate as a foundation for justice, suggesting that fairness arises not from established standards but from open, inclusive discussion. For Habermas, decisions become just through the process of collective reasoning, where individuals engage without preconditions, thereby allowing fairness to emerge organically. While these approaches differ, both philosophers agree that fairness and justice require a structured, reasoned approach, relying on impartiality and inclusivity.

The Role of Reasoning in Democratic Society

Public reasoning is fundamental to ethical and political decisions, as it incorporates the diverse viewpoints of all those affected. Rawls’s notion of "reasonable persons" in public discourse suggests that open-mindedness and willingness to engage in fair dialogue enable individuals to collectively determine what is just. This concept aligns with Adam Smith’s "impartial spectator," an idea that invites individuals to step back and consider issues from an unbiased perspective, ensuring a fair evaluation of competing interests.

By including all voices in public debates, democratic societies benefit from a richer, more balanced understanding of complex ethical and political issues. This approach to reasoning encourages fairness and reduces the risk of bias, as each viewpoint adds valuable insights that contribute to an objective and just outcome. Excluding voices, conversely, limits perspectives and increases the likelihood of one-sided, biased decisions.

 Conclusion: Objectivity as a Democratic Imperative

Reasoned scrutiny and objectivity, although not foolproof, play a crucial role in ethical and political judgments by promoting fairness and impartiality. Objectivity is not about guaranteeing a flawless outcome but about striving to minimize bias and achieve balanced judgments. By focusing on processes of open dialogue and reasoned debate, ethical objectivity fosters a democratic society where individuals collectively pursue justice and fairness.

Philosophers like Rawls and Habermas highlight the importance of public reasoning in democratic contexts, where inclusive dialogue strengthens the pursuit of justice. This disciplined reasoning ensures that judgments in both ethics and public policy respect diverse perspectives, making decisions that serve the common good. Ultimately, public reasoning grounded in objectivity reinforces the democratic ideals of fairness and justice, contributing to a society where ethical decisions are informed by impartial, reasoned scrutiny.