6.IDEA OF JUSTICE: Closed and Open Impartiality
रॉल्स के दर्शन में “परावर्तित संतुलन” की अवधारणा: एक स्पष्टीकरण
परावर्तित संतुलन (Reflective Equilibrium) जॉन रॉल्स की एक पद्धति है, जिसका उद्देश्य हमारे नैतिक अंतर्ज्ञानों (यानी हमारे व्यक्तिगत विश्वासों और निर्णयों) और समाज में न्याय के सिद्धांतों के बीच सामंजस्य स्थापित करना है। यह विधि लोगों को अपने व्यक्तिगत मूल्यों और न्याय के सिद्धांतों को तब तक परिष्कृत करने के लिए प्रेरित करती है, जब तक कि वे एक संगत और सुसंगत मान्यताओं की प्रणाली तक न पहुँच जाएँ।
रॉल्स के परावर्तित संतुलन के मुख्य पहलू निम्नलिखित हैं:
1. नैतिक निर्णयों और सिद्धांतों के बीच संतुलन
परावर्तित संतुलन एक पुनरावृत्त प्रक्रिया है, जहाँ व्यक्ति अपने विशेष नैतिक निर्णयों (विशेष घटनाओं या मामलों के बारे में) की तुलना न्याय के व्यापक सिद्धांतों से करता है। जब किसी विशेष निर्णय और सिद्धांत के बीच विरोध होता है, तो परावर्तित संतुलन इन दोनों में से किसी एक को या दोनों को समायोजित करने की प्रक्रिया को प्रोत्साहित करता है, ताकि एकरूपता प्राप्त हो।
2. समायोजन और संशोधन
संतुलन प्राप्त करने के लिए व्यक्ति को अपने विशेष नैतिक विश्वासों या सामान्य सिद्धांतों में से किसी एक को संशोधित करना पड़ सकता है। यह प्रक्रिया व्यक्ति के गहरे नैतिक अंतर्ज्ञानों के साथ न्याय के सिद्धांतों की अनुकूलता पर विचार करने का अवसर प्रदान करती है।
3. विस्तृत और संकुचित परावर्तित संतुलन
रॉल्स “संकुचित” और “विस्तृत” परावर्तित संतुलन में अंतर करते हैं:
• संकुचित परावर्तित संतुलन में केवल अपने अंतर्ज्ञानों और चुने गए न्याय के सिद्धांतों के बीच सामंजस्य स्थापित करना होता है, जिसमें बाहरी दृष्टिकोण शामिल नहीं होते।
• विस्तृत परावर्तित संतुलन अन्य दृष्टिकोणों और वैकल्पिक सिद्धांतों को शामिल करता है। यह समावेशी दृष्टिकोण सुनिश्चित करता है कि व्यक्ति के न्याय के सिद्धांत विभिन्न दृष्टिकोणों की कसौटी पर खरे उतरते हैं।
4. सार्वभौमिकता और न्याय की कसौटी
परावर्तित संतुलन का उद्देश्य यह भी है कि व्यक्ति के न्याय के सिद्धांत सभी के लिए निष्पक्ष और सार्वभौमिक रूप से लागू हो सकें। यह विधि व्यक्ति को यह जाँचने के लिए प्रेरित करती है कि उसके चुने हुए सिद्धांत पूरे समाज पर समान रूप से लागू हो सकते हैं या नहीं, जिससे रॉल्स के “न्याय के रूप में निष्पक्षता” के आदर्श को बल मिलता है।
5. एक सतत प्रक्रिया
परावर्तित संतुलन एक निरंतर चलने वाली प्रक्रिया है। जैसे-जैसे नए अनुभव और जानकारियाँ सामने आती हैं, व्यक्ति को अपनी मान्यताओं और सिद्धांतों का पुनर्मूल्यांकन करना चाहिए, जिससे उसकी नैतिक रूपरेखा सुसंगत और अनुकूलनीय बनी रहे।
इस पद्धति के माध्यम से, रॉल्स का मानना है कि लोग न्याय के ऐसे सिद्धांत विकसित कर सकते हैं जो न केवल उनके व्यक्तिगत विश्वासों के साथ संगत हों, बल्कि बदलते सामाजिक संदर्भों के अनुरूप भी हों, जिससे समाज में एक निष्पक्ष और न्यायपूर्ण दृष्टिकोण को प्रोत्साहन मिले।
रॉल्स की बहु-आयामी दृष्टि और स्मिथ की तर्कप्रणाली के साथ समानताएँ
जॉन रॉल्स के दर्शन में विभिन्न दृष्टिकोणों को सम्मिलित करने की प्रवृत्ति स्पष्ट है। वह एक ऐसे राजनीतिक दार्शनिक हैं जो अन्य स्रोतों से प्राप्त विचारों के प्रति व्यापक रुचि रखते हैं। यह विशेष रूप से रॉल्स के उस विश्लेषण में स्पष्ट होता है जहाँ वे एक सार्वजनिक चिंतन के ढाँचे और समाज में व्यक्ति के स्थान को वस्तुनिष्ठ रूप में देखने के महत्व पर जोर देते हैं। इस संदर्भ में, रॉल्स के विचार एडम स्मिथ की तर्कप्रणाली से कई समानताएँ साझा करते हैं।
रॉल्स और स्मिथ के दृष्टिकोणों की प्रमुख समानताएँ निम्नलिखित हैं:
1. सार्वजनिक चिंतन का ढाँचा
रॉल्स का मानना है कि न्याय और निष्पक्षता को समझने के लिए हमें एक सार्वजनिक ढाँचे के तहत विचार करना चाहिए। इसका अर्थ है कि व्यक्ति को न केवल अपने व्यक्तिगत हितों पर ध्यान देना चाहिए, बल्कि उसे समाज के व्यापक हित में सोचने का प्रयास करना चाहिए। यह ढाँचा समाज के समग्र कल्याण को ध्यान में रखता है, जो स्मिथ के “निष्पक्ष द्रष्टा” (impartial spectator) की अवधारणा के करीब है, जहाँ निर्णय लेने के लिए एक वस्तुनिष्ठ दृष्टिकोण अपनाने की सलाह दी जाती है।
2. वस्तुनिष्ठ दृष्टिकोण
रॉल्स ने समाज में व्यक्ति की भूमिका को एक निष्पक्ष दृष्टिकोण से देखने पर बल दिया है। रॉल्स का यह विचार स्मिथ के तर्कों से मेल खाता है, जिसमें स्मिथ ने किसी भी निर्णय पर विचार करते समय व्यक्तिगत पूर्वाग्रहों से ऊपर उठने की सलाह दी है। यह दृष्टिकोण निर्णय को सामाजिक और नैतिक रूप से अधिक संतुलित बनाता है।
3. समाज में निष्पक्षता का स्थान
रॉल्स का “न्याय के रूप में निष्पक्षता” (justice as fairness) का सिद्धांत और स्मिथ की “निष्पक्ष द्रष्टा” की अवधारणा, दोनों ही इस बात पर जोर देते हैं कि एक निर्णय निष्पक्ष तभी हो सकता है जब वह व्यापक दृष्टिकोण से हो, न कि केवल स्थानीय या व्यक्तिगत दृष्टिकोण से। यह तर्क इस बात को प्रकट करता है कि समाज में निष्पक्षता और न्याय सुनिश्चित करने के लिए निर्णय प्रक्रिया को एक विस्तृत दृष्टिकोण से समझना आवश्यक है।
4. समाज की व्यापकता और सामूहिक भलाई
रॉल्स और स्मिथ दोनों के दर्शन इस बात पर बल देते हैं कि निर्णय में समाज की समग्र भलाई को शामिल करना चाहिए। रॉल्स की ‘सार्वजनिक चिंतन’ और स्मिथ के ‘निष्पक्ष द्रष्टा’ का उद्देश्य एक ऐसा समाज बनाना है जहाँ सामूहिक भलाई को प्राथमिकता दी जाती है और व्यक्ति की निर्णय प्रक्रिया में सामाजिक हित भी समाहित होते हैं।
इस प्रकार, रॉल्स का दृष्टिकोण और स्मिथ की तर्कप्रणाली में न केवल समानताएँ हैं, बल्कि दोनों ही न्याय, निष्पक्षता और सार्वजनिक कल्याण की एक सामूहिक समझ को मजबूत करते हैं। यह विचार आधुनिक समाज में नैतिकता और सामाजिक उत्तरदायित्व के आदर्शों के प्रति जागरूकता को प्रेरित करता है।
Critique of Limited Perspective in Rawls’ Original Position Framework
In John Rawls’ theory of justice as fairness, he uses the concept of the original position—a hypothetical state where individuals, unaware of their personal circumstances, choose principles of justice. However, Rawls confines this decision-making to individuals from the same society, which has several implications:
1. Restricted Deliberation to Local Context
Rawls limits participants in the original position to those “born into the society in which they lead their lives.” This creates a decision-making environment influenced by the norms and values familiar to the group, instead of expanding the perspective to consider universal ideas of justice. Thus, the framework limits itself to the standards accepted in that society alone.
2. Potential Biases from Lack of External Checks
By not incorporating a systematic way to question local biases, Rawls’ framework risks being shaped by the specific cultural assumptions of the focal group. Without any formal mechanism to counter these biases, justice principles developed in the original position might inadvertently reflect societal preconceptions rather than impartial judgments.
3. Missed Opportunity for Broader Perspectives
Since deliberations are isolated within a single society, the original position misses out on the diversity of viewpoints that could come from a global perspective. Rawls does not mandate an “open scrutiny” of principles by “the eyes of mankind,” which could offer valuable insights and more universally applicable principles. This limited perspective may result in a concept of justice that is relevant within the society but not necessarily fair or just outside of it.
4. Risk of Embedding Unchallenged Prejudices
With no procedural checks for critically evaluating local values, the original position allows cultural assumptions to pass unchallenged. This risks embedding ideas as “just” or “fair” that may merely be reflections of the dominant views within that society. Thus, the impartiality of the principles is weakened, as they might carry unexamined local biases.
5. Impact on Universality of Justice
By not actively involving or considering perspectives from outside the immediate society, the principles chosen in the original position could lack universal fairness. A justice framework that doesn’t seek a diverse or global outlook may end up with values that do not resonate universally, affecting its claim as a fair approach to justice applicable to all.
In essence, Rawls’ framework of justice as fairness, while innovative, may lack the truly impartial global outlook needed for universal principles of justice. Its confinement to a single society could mean that the chosen principles, though theoretically unbiased, are shaped by the unexamined values of that society alone, limiting their relevance on a broader scale.
Smithian and Rawlsian Approaches to Impartiality: A Comparative Analysis
John Rawls’ veil of ignorance, a key element in his concept of the original position, serves as an effective tool for encouraging impartiality by allowing individuals to make decisions without knowing their own social status, wealth, or personal characteristics. This setup compels individuals to consider justice from a generalized perspective, free from personal biases and vested interests. However, while this approach promotes fairness within the context of the decision-makers’ society, it has certain limitations in addressing deeply ingrained local biases or parochial values. Here’s how:
1. Limited Scope in Challenging Local Norms
The veil of ignorance enables decision-makers to step outside their personal circumstances, yet it doesn’t prompt them to challenge or scrutinize the societal values embedded within their culture. In other words, while personal biases are filtered out, cultural biases remain largely unaddressed. This restricts the original position to perspectives already normalized within the society, which may perpetuate local biases and inhibit truly universal principles of justice.
2. Smith’s Scepticism of Local Presuppositions
Adam Smith, in contrast, recognized the challenges of escaping local biases and the subtle bigotries that can shape one’s moral outlook. He argued that we can only overcome these localized perspectives by metaphorically distancing ourselves from our immediate environment—viewing our society’s norms and values from the perspective of a detached observer. This “spectator at a distance” approach enables individuals to question norms that might seem natural or self-evident in their own context, thereby opening the door to broader and more critical ethical inquiry.
3. The Importance of an Open Perspective
Smith’s method emphasizes that impartiality cannot be achieved merely by focusing on internal fairness within a given society; it requires a broader, more inclusive view. To achieve this, he suggested that one must attempt to see things from “the eyes of other people” or as an outsider would view them. This step is essential in exposing assumptions that could be exclusive, biased, or unexamined within the local context.
4. Implications for Justice
The Smithian approach suggests that true impartiality demands an “open” examination, one that does not limit itself to the viewpoints of those within the same societal framework. By viewing societal values as an outsider might, individuals can critically assess which norms are universal and which might be local artifacts. This process would likely yield a more balanced, less parochial form of justice, one that is not only internally fair but also resonates on a global level.
In summary, while Rawls’ veil of ignorance effectively removes individual self-interest from the equation, it doesn’t inherently provide mechanisms to question local societal assumptions. Smith’s approach complements this by insisting on an “open” perspective that includes scrutiny from beyond the local context, which can help foster a more universally applicable concept of justice.
Problems with Limiting Justice to the Interests of Sovereign State Members
Confining justice solely to the perspectives and interests of a sovereign state’s members raises several critical issues. Here is an in-depth look at the main points, illustrated with examples.
1. Narrow Scope of Justice and Mutual Obligations
Justice inherently involves reciprocal obligations, which do not naturally stop at national borders. While Rawls acknowledges our duties toward fellow citizens in achieving “reflective equilibrium” about what people owe one another, these obligations can—and arguably should—extend to people outside a single nation. Philosopher Immanuel Kant referred to “imperfect obligations” that, while not precisely defined, reflect moral responsibilities we hold towards others, regardless of nationality.
• Example: In cases of global crises, such as the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, nations worldwide responded with humanitarian aid, showing a sense of duty to assist those beyond their borders. This response aligns with the concept of mutual obligation in justice, reflecting a moral duty that goes beyond strict political borders.
2. Need for an Inclusive Theory of Justice
A robust theory of justice should be inclusive of individuals beyond a single state’s boundaries, especially if we recognize some degree of duty towards those distant from us. If justice is confined to local or national considerations, it risks becoming exclusionary and could encourage parochialism, where only the immediate community’s needs are prioritized.
• Example: Climate change poses a severe threat that does not respect national borders, affecting people across the globe indiscriminately. Limiting justice to national interests would disregard those in vulnerable, developing nations suffering disproportionately from a problem largely caused by more developed countries. This global crisis underscores the need for justice theories that consider the broader scope of human impact.
3. Risk of Local Bias and Restricted Impartiality
When justice is confined within the perspectives of a single sovereign state, there is a high risk of local biases and entrenched viewpoints that may influence what is deemed “fair.” Rawls’s concept of the “original position” is intended to offer objectivity by removing personal biases; however, if it is restricted to one state, it may fail to consider global perspectives or cross-cultural concerns. Smith’s idea of “viewing through the eyes of others” argues for open, rather than local, impartiality, as a means of ensuring broader justice.
• Example: Consider immigration policies that prioritize citizens’ interests while neglecting the struggles of refugees fleeing persecution or war. A justice model that embraces open impartiality would account for the plight of displaced individuals rather than limiting itself to domestic concerns. This approach is crucial in creating fair, humane immigration policies that address global responsibilities.
4. Justice and Human Rights Beyond Sovereign Borders
Justice in its most encompassing form extends to protecting basic human rights, regardless of geographical or political boundaries. Limiting justice within a single sovereign state framework may ignore cases where other nations have moral, if not legal, responsibilities. Humanitarian responsibilities, or what some consider “cosmopolitan justice,” emphasize that fundamental rights and dignity should be universal, not confined to one state’s jurisdiction.
• Example: The international response to apartheid in South Africa showed that other nations felt a moral obligation to stand against racial injustice, even though apartheid was initially an internal issue. The imposition of sanctions and global advocacy demonstrated a commitment to justice transcending state boundaries.
5. Ethical Responsibility Toward Global Inequalities
The principle of justice also relates to addressing global inequalities that arise from imbalances in resources, technology, and education access. Limiting justice within state borders overlooks the ethical responsibility wealthier nations might have in addressing disparities beyond their borders, especially given global interdependencies.
• Example: Vaccine distribution during the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted inequalities, as wealthier countries initially secured the majority of vaccines, leaving many developing nations without sufficient access. A broader theory of justice might advocate for equitable vaccine distribution worldwide, prioritizing healthcare workers and vulnerable populations globally rather than confining resources within wealthier states.
Conclusion
Restricting justice to sovereign state borders narrows its scope, making it susceptible to local biases and potentially disregarding global duties and responsibilities. An expansive view of justice that includes universal human rights and acknowledges moral obligations beyond political boundaries aligns better with the realities of an interconnected world, where issues like climate change, public health, and social justice call for a global perspective on what it means to be fair and just.
Theory of Impartiality Beyond National Borders
The idea of impartiality limited strictly within a nation’s boundaries follows territorial lines that may have legal significance, but it might lack clear moral and political insight. This concept suggests that the framework of justice and moral obligation shouldn’t be limited to only those within a country’s borders. Here’s a breakdown of why impartiality should consider a broader perspective, along with examples:
1. Legal Boundaries vs. Moral Obligation
• Explanation: The borders of a nation hold legal importance, defining jurisdiction and legal responsibility. However, moral obligations often transcend these boundaries and encourage people to consider the welfare of others beyond their own country.
• Example: International human rights organizations, like Amnesty International, advocate for people’s rights worldwide, regardless of national borders, recognizing a moral duty to support human rights universally.
2. Identity Beyond National Boundaries
• Explanation: People’s sense of identity is not limited to their nationality alone; it spans multiple aspects such as religion, language, race, and profession, which connect them to others across the globe. These identities often foster obligations that people feel they must fulfill.
• Example: Environmental movements like Fridays for Future unite individuals worldwide over shared concerns for climate change, transcending national identity. People identify with a global responsibility to protect the environment, regardless of their country.
3. Religious Identity as a Connector
• Explanation: Religious identity often binds individuals across borders, promoting empathy and solidarity beyond national lines. People feel compelled to support others who share their religious values or practices, regardless of their location.
• Example: Muslims around the world contribute to humanitarian efforts during Ramadan, providing aid and relief to communities in various countries, unified by a shared religious duty of charity, known as “zakat.”
4. Linguistic and Cultural Affiliations
• Explanation: People often feel a strong sense of community with others who speak the same language or share cultural heritage, leading to cross-border support networks and initiatives.
• Example: The Francophonie, an international organization representing French-speaking nations, fosters cultural and educational exchanges that strengthen bonds among French-speaking people worldwide, encouraging a collective sense of identity.
5. Professional Responsibilities and Solidarity
• Explanation: Professionals across countries share common ethical and professional standards, which encourage them to work together to uphold these standards globally.
• Example: The World Medical Association (WMA) brings doctors from different countries together to establish and advocate for ethical medical practices globally, ensuring that standards of medical ethics are upheld across borders.
6. Humanitarian Responsibility and ‘Imperfect Obligations’
• Explanation: Immanuel Kant argued that people have “imperfect obligations” to help others, which means there is a moral duty to assist others, even if the specific details aren’t precisely defined. This applies to international humanitarian concerns where people feel obliged to help others in need, even if they live far away.
• Example: International responses to crises, such as the global aid sent after the 2010 Haiti earthquake, showcase how people and countries respond to humanitarian needs beyond their borders, motivated by a moral duty to help those in dire situations.
7. Global Justice and Responsibility
• Explanation: A theory of justice limited only to national borders risks overlooking the interconnectedness of today’s world, where actions in one nation can affect people globally. A comprehensive idea of justice should, therefore, address global responsibilities.
• Example: Issues like climate change, which disproportionately affect poorer countries, highlight the need for justice beyond borders. Wealthier nations often bear more responsibility for emissions and thus are urged to contribute to global climate solutions, recognizing an obligation to those impacted worldwide.
8. Humanitarianism vs. Justice
• Explanation: While some argue that international aid and concern should be classified as “humanitarianism” rather than “justice,” this view is limited. A truly inclusive theory of justice should integrate these global concerns as obligations, not merely as acts of charity.
• Example: During the COVID-19 pandemic, wealthier countries sharing vaccines with lower-income countries moved beyond humanitarian goodwill to fulfill a global health justice obligation, recognizing that ensuring vaccine equity was a shared responsibility for public health globally.
In sum, a robust theory of impartiality and justice needs to include concerns that extend beyond national borders to ensure a fair and interconnected approach to moral and ethical responsibility in an increasingly globalized world.
Certainly! Here’s a detailed explanation of the argument in points, with examples:
1. Global Impact of National Actions
• Explanation: Actions and policies of one country often have significant effects on people in other countries, either through direct intervention (such as military action) or indirectly through trade, commerce, and global economic policies.
• Example: The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, for instance, had severe repercussions not only for Iraq but also for surrounding regions. It led to significant displacement, destabilization, and a surge in regional conflicts. This demonstrates how the actions of one nation impact others, sometimes with lasting consequences on global peace and security.
2. Indirect Influence Through Economic Policies
• Explanation: Even without direct intervention, a country’s economic policies can have profound impacts worldwide. Through trade regulations, economic sanctions, or environmental policies, nations often affect the economies, industries, and daily lives of people beyond their borders.
• Example: The U.S. and European Union’s trade sanctions on Russia due to its actions in Ukraine have significantly affected the global oil and gas market, leading to price spikes worldwide. Countries far removed from the conflict, like those in South Asia and Africa, face higher energy prices, which in turn raises living costs and affects their local economies.
3. Shared Responsibility and Inclusion in Decision-Making
• Explanation: Since the actions of one country can influence the lives of people in other countries, it’s argued that these affected individuals should have a say in policies that impact them. This concept challenges the traditional view that only citizens within a country’s borders should influence its policies and suggests a need for greater global representation.
• Example: Climate change policies are a prime example. Industrialized countries are the largest carbon emitters, but developing nations often face the most severe impacts, such as rising sea levels and extreme weather. The Paris Agreement is one approach to ensuring that all countries have a voice in climate policy, reflecting the idea that those affected should have input.
4. Challenges to Territorial Boundaries of Justice
• Explanation: This perspective questions whether justice should be limited to national boundaries, given that issues like human rights, environmental protection, and economic stability are interconnected globally. A more inclusive approach to justice might better address these shared challenges by incorporating voices across borders.
• Example: Migration policies in Europe and North America have ripple effects on countries in the Middle East and Africa, where many migrants originate. When restrictive migration policies are put in place without considering the conditions in the migrants’ home countries, they can exacerbate crises there, leading to more instability.
5. Moral Obligation Beyond Borders
• Explanation: There’s an ethical argument that individuals and societies have obligations beyond their immediate communities, especially if their actions affect others elsewhere. Recognizing these obligations can help build frameworks for more inclusive global justice and cooperation.
• Example: During the COVID-19 pandemic, wealthier countries were initially able to access vaccines far more readily than developing nations. The creation of COVAX, a global initiative to ensure fair vaccine distribution, aimed to address this imbalance, showing a moral commitment to supporting global health equity.
By recognizing these interconnected issues, the argument suggests that justice frameworks should expand beyond national borders to consider the interests and welfare of those impacted worldwide. This approach promotes a more inclusive and morally responsible perspective on global governance and decision-making.
Importance of Addressing Broader Perspectives Beyond Local Borders in Justice
1. Avoiding Parochialism by Including Diverse Voices
• Explanation: When a society limits its understanding of justice to only local voices and norms, it risks becoming parochial, or narrowly focused. This limited viewpoint may miss out on alternative perspectives that offer deeper objectivity.
• Example: In Ancient Athens, even great philosophers like Plato and Aristotle supported infanticide, believing it necessary for social stability. They weren’t exposed to societies that functioned without this practice, leading them to see it as essential. Today, countries can avoid such biases by incorporating insights from diverse cultures. For instance, some countries have adopted policies like parental leave and universal child support by learning from Scandinavian models, showing how alternative perspectives can improve social policies.
2. Shared Responsibility Due to Global Interconnectedness
• Explanation: Actions taken within one country’s borders often impact others due to trade, environmental policies, and international relations. As such, excluding global perspectives from discussions of justice can overlook the far-reaching consequences of local policies.
• Example: The U.S.-China trade relationship shows this interconnectedness. Decisions on tariffs or sanctions impact not only these two countries but also economies worldwide, affecting employment and the cost of goods globally. Additionally, climate change policies in countries like Brazil, with policies on Amazon rainforest conservation, impact global environmental stability, showing the need for broader input in what’s considered just.
3. Encouraging Empathy Through a Global Perspective
• Explanation: Justice is often based on empathy and a sense of duty toward others. Limiting this only to local or national groups disregards shared human values, as people can relate across borders due to common experiences or challenges.
• Example: During global crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, nations acted beyond their borders by sharing vaccines and resources. COVAX, a global vaccine initiative, illustrates how justice can be operationalized beyond national boundaries to fulfill a sense of moral obligation to protect health universally.
4. Broadening Justice to Overcome Cultural Blind Spots
• Explanation: Smith’s concept of “viewing through the eyes of mankind” suggests that examining our own beliefs through a distant or alternative viewpoint can reveal local biases. This process helps societies achieve more comprehensive justice.
• Example: The abolition of slavery provides a historical example. While slavery was once culturally accepted in many societies, the global abolitionist movement allowed people to reconsider these practices as inhumane. Seeing that other societies functioned without slavery encouraged change, reflecting a broader, more objective sense of justice.
5.Justice and Fairness Across Borders for Ethical Progress
• Explanation: When justice is confined only to local interests, there’s a risk of entrenching privilege and excluding marginalized voices. Global cooperation and perspectives help create policies that promote fairness across societal lines.
• Example: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was crafted to ensure that justice and rights apply to all individuals, regardless of nationality. This universal standard has helped countries worldwide improve legal protections, even if they previously had national policies that were restrictive or discriminatory.
6. Learning from Other Perspectives to Improve Local Justice
• Explanation: Exploring different viewpoints can reveal what justice might demand in situations where local norms are insufficient. When people in one society are willing to consider outside perspectives, they’re more likely to challenge and improve their own standards.
• Example: In the realm of criminal justice, the restorative justice model adopted by New Zealand’s indigenous Māori community has gained attention globally. By learning from indigenous approaches that emphasize healing and reconciliation, other countries have adopted similar models to humanize their justice systems, showing how cross-cultural learning can strengthen justice policies.
7. Globalization and the Shared Nature of Modern Challenges
• Explanation: Many modern issues, like climate change, migration, and global health, are shared challenges. Therefore, any justice system that ignores these global responsibilities risks neglecting duties to the broader human community.
• Example: Climate action policies show this shared responsibility. When wealthier nations, which contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions, establish emissions targets or help finance green energy in developing countries, it shows an acknowledgment of global justice. The Paris Agreement exemplifies how countries can cooperate for a just global response to climate change.
In sum, restricting justice considerations to a single society or nation risks reinforcing biases, overlooking shared human values, and neglecting global responsibilities. By including broader perspectives, societies can work toward more comprehensive, empathetic, and fair policies that respond to the interconnected nature of today’s world.
सार्वजनिक तटस्थता का एक ऐसा सिद्धांत जो केवल एक संप्रभु राष्ट्र की सीमाओं के भीतर सीमित हो, कानूनी रूप से तो महत्वपूर्ण हो सकता है, लेकिन इसकी राजनीतिक या नैतिक दृष्टि उतनी स्पष्ट नहीं हो सकती। यह बात मानने से इनकार नहीं किया जा सकता कि हम अक्सर अपनी पहचान को उन समूहों के आधार पर परिभाषित करते हैं जो कुछ लोगों को शामिल करते हैं और दूसरों को सख्ती से बाहर रखते हैं। लेकिन हमारी पहचान केवल राष्ट्रीय सीमाओं में ही सीमित नहीं रहती। हम समान धर्म, समान भाषा, समान जाति, समान लिंग, समान राजनीतिक मान्यताओं या समान पेशे वाले लोगों के साथ भी अपनी पहचान जोड़ते हैं। ये विभिन्न पहचान राष्ट्रीय सीमाओं को पार करती हैं, और लोग वे काम भी करते हैं जिन्हें वे नैतिक कर्तव्य के रूप में महसूस करते हैं, न कि केवल किसी सद्गुण के आधार पर स्वीकार करते हैं। उदाहरण से समझें: • धार्मिक पहचान: एक व्यक्ति का एक विशेष धर्म से जुड़ाव उसे अंतरराष्ट्रीय स्तर पर उसी धर्म के लोगों के साथ जोड़ सकता है। उदाहरण के लिए, तिब्बती बौद्ध धर्म के अनुयायी तिब्बत में भले न हों, फिर भी दलाई लामा के समर्थन में खड़े होते हैं। • भाषाई या सांस्कृतिक पहचान: हिंदी भाषी लोग भले ही अलग-अलग देशों में हों, फिर भी वे अपनी भाषा और संस्कृति से जुड़े रहने के लिए हिंदी दिवस जैसे आयोजन मनाते हैं। • पेशेवर पहचान: चिकित्सकों का अंतरराष्ट्रीय संघ (डब्ल्यूएमए) के माध्यम से, डॉक्टर अपने पेशेवर नैतिकता और मानकों के पालन के लिए किसी भी देश में डॉक्टरों के साथ जुड़ सकते हैं। इस प्रकार, हमारी पहचान एक संप्रभु राज्य की सीमाओं में सीमित नहीं होती; हम ऐसी जिम्मेदारियों को भी महसूस करते हैं जो राष्ट्रीय सीमाओं से परे जाती हैं। दूसरा, एक देश के कार्य दूसरों की ज़िंदगियों पर गहरा प्रभाव डाल सकते हैं। यह न केवल सीधे बल प्रयोग द्वारा (जैसे 2003 में इराक का कब्जा) होता है, बल्कि व्यापार और वाणिज्य के माध्यम से अप्रत्यक्ष रूप से भी होता है। हम अपने खुद के संकीर्ण दायरों में नहीं रहते हैं। जब एक देश की संस्थाएँ और नीतियाँ दूसरे देशों के लोगों के जीवन को प्रभावित करती हैं, तो क्या उन प्रभावित लोगों की आवाज़ों का किसी न किसी रूप में गिनती नहीं होनी चाहिए, ताकि यह तय किया जा सके कि समाज की संरचना में क्या न्यायसंगत है और क्या नहीं? आमतौर पर, समाज के संगठित ढांचे के ये प्रभाव दूसरे समाजों पर सीधे या अप्रत्यक्ष रूप से गहरा असर डाल सकते हैं। इसका अर्थ है कि वैश्विक स्तर पर निर्णय लेने की प्रक्रिया में उन लोगों की भी भागीदारी होनी चाहिए जिनकी ज़िंदगियां इन नीतियों और कार्यों से प्रभावित होती हैं, ताकि न्याय और अन्याय के सवाल व्यापक दृष्टिकोण से तय किए जा सकें। तीसरा, इन चिंताओं के अलावा, स्मिथ ने यह संकेत दिया है कि अन्य स्थानों से आने वाली आवाज़ों की उपेक्षा में संकीर्ण दृष्टिकोण अपनाने की संभावना रहती है। यहाँ बात केवल इतनी नहीं है कि अन्य स्थानों की आवाज़ों और विचारों को सिर्फ इसलिए ध्यान में लिया जाए क्योंकि वे मौजूद हैं— हो सकता है कि वे पूरी तरह से अप्रासंगिक और असंगत हों — लेकिन वस्तुनिष्ठता की मांग यह करती है कि विभिन्न दृष्टिकोणों की गंभीरता से जांच की जाए और अन्य स्थानों के अनुभवों को समझा जाए। एक अलग दृष्टिकोण एक प्रश्न प्रस्तुत करता है, और भले ही कई मामलों में उस प्रश्न को पर्याप्त विचार के बाद खारिज किया जा सकता है, हमेशा ऐसा नहीं होता। यदि हम एक ऐसे स्थानीय समाज में रहते हैं जहाँ निश्चित मान्यताएँ और विशेष प्रथाएँ हैं, तो संकीर्णता एक अनजाना और बिना चुनौती दिया गया परिणाम हो सकती है। (स्मिथ ने इसे प्राचीन एथेनियाई लोगों, यहाँ तक कि प्लेटो और अरस्तू द्वारा, उनके समाज में प्रचलित शिशु हत्या जैसी प्रथाओं के समर्थन के उदाहरण से दिखाया, क्योंकि वे ऐसे समाजों से अपरिचित थे जहाँ बिना इस कथित अनिवार्यता के समाज सफलतापूर्वक कार्य कर रहे थे)। दूसरों के विचारों और उनके तर्कों को समझने से यह तय करने में मदद मिल सकती है कि वस्तुनिष्ठता वास्तव में क्या मांग करती है। इस चर्चा का निष्कर्ष यह है कि न्याय के मूल्यांकन के लिए “मानवता की दृष्टि” के साथ संलग्न होना आवश्यक है, पहले इसलिए कि हम विभिन्न स्थानों के अन्य लोगों के साथ भी पहचान बना सकते हैं न कि केवल अपने स्थानीय समुदाय के साथ; दूसरा, क्योंकि हमारे निर्णय और कार्य अन्य लोगों के जीवन को दूर और पास में प्रभावित कर सकते हैं; और तीसरा, क्योंकि इतिहास और भूगोल के उनके दृष्टिकोण से जो दिखाई देता है, वह हमें अपने संकीर्ण दृष्टिकोण को दूर करने में मदद कर सकता है।
No comments:
Post a Comment