Application of Justice Theories in the Lifeboat Case (Essay Sample)

Name:
Professor:
Course:
Date:
Application of Justice Theories in the Lifeboat Case
Imagine if citizens of a democracy fully embraced the laws of the jungle that state that survival is for the fittest. It is undisputed that such a nation is bound to be doomed. In this regard, the laws that clearly define ownership and the rights of each citizen, have significantly shaped human relations in the politically, socially, and economically platforms of the world. In this accord, the theories of justice as advanced by scholars whose proficiency is political science and philosophy have many applications in dictating human relations and determining what is right or wrong. However, each theory on justice may exhibit loophole that invokes the question of its credibility, legitimacy, and moral outrightness. In light of these theories, this argumentative essay seeks to define vividly the common ground for the theories of justice advanced by John Rawls, Susan Moller Okin, David Hume, and John Locke. Furthermore, this essay elaborates the application of the theories of justice in legitimizing or criminating the Queen vs. Dudley and Stephen (1884) where the shipwrecked crew feasted on the weakest of them all for survival.
In light of the essentiality of the application of theories of justice in the restoration of order in a state, it is prudent to examine an instance where the theories have been applied to conflict resolution. The point of justice is often very controversial and highly contradictory amongst the general population. In this regard, the Queen vs. Dudley and Stephen (1884) case, whereby shipwrecked crew resolve to kill the cabin boy, the weakest of them all so that they can feed on him, is examined (Sandel). It is essential to review if this act was just and fair, taking the justice theories into account. However, it is fundamental to acknowledge that various approaches will invoke diverging opinion on the subject. Hence, the definition of what is wrong and right is not a definite black and white aspect.
John Rawls, a renowned philosopher and a prominent lecturer at the James Bryant Conant University has published theoretical work that shades light on the point of justice and morality in the society. The dissatisfaction and many loopholes in the traditional view of what is socially and politically justifiable obliged John Rawls to develop the "A Theory Of Justice." The traditional ideology that justified an action that favored the good of the majority was firmly based on the tyranny of numbers. Hence, the minority in the society were oppressed and ignored. In this regard, Rawls attempted to formulate a rational account of what is justifiable using the social contrast approach. According to the theory, the legitimate action is one that all the citizens of a particular state agree to it. However, this approach presents an ideal situation and is not virtually applicable. Moreover, Rawls appeals to the idea of justice as a virtue that should be adopted by social institutions across the globe. Furthermore, Rawls theory focusses on each person having an equal right to public liberty. Also, the second aspect of the theory suggests that inequality is justifiable if it act to the less fortunate's advantage. In this regard, Rawls’ work seeks to favor the plea of the economically unstable in the society rather than the general point of equality (Rawls, 11).
In this case scenario, Rawls’ theory of A theory of justice which was advance to reform the traditional methods that were keen on fostering the greater good of the majority, stipulates that an action is only considered just if it is acceptable to all members of the public. The theory advocates that liberty and opportunity, self-respect, income and wealth should be equally distributed. However, unequal distribution of these factors should be considered if it promotes the desires of the weak, less fortunate and the minority. In this regard, the case of the shipwrecked crew who opted to feast on the weakest among them all for their nourishment and survival would be treated as an instance of violation of the laws of justice. A theory of justice, states that liberty should be distributed equally, and not a single individual is more important than the other unless the inequality in distribution will benefit the less fortunate and, in this case, the cabin boy.
However, the shipwrecked crew could contradict the legitimacy and credibility of the A Theory of Justice as advanced by Rawls because it applies to a stringent range of situations, otherwise regarded as an ideal situation. The divergence of opinion, perceptions, and morality compromises the ability to arrive at a common ground for the hungry shipwrecked crew and the less helpful cabin boy. In this accord, A Theory of Justice is far-fetched and cannot provide an amicable solution to the scenario.
Rawls’ theory of Justice as Fairness is applicable in a liberal society. A liberal society is a social setup where the diversity in perceptions of the people are unified through the exemplary application of political power to grant and promote the aspect of each citizen having equal rights. However, the theory supports the point of the legitimate use of power, disregarding the fact that legitimate and constitutional use of power does not necessarily mean it is a just use of political energy. Rawls in this regard defines the fundamentals that render a society as just and fair based on granting of equal rights and liberty to the citizens. The bottom line is, Rawls presumes justice as fairness as the act of accounting for the demands of the fundamental aspects of freedom and equality (Rawls, & Erin, 5). Therefore, this theory proves to be vital in the resolution of the Lifeboat case.
Given the justice as fairness theory advanced by Rawls, the killing of the cabin boy for the good of the superior shipwrecked crew, as far as survival is a concern was unjust and unfair. The theory of justice as fairness is based on the use of power by the elite and the prominent in the society to promote liberalization and granting citizens equal rights. In this accord, the poor cabin boy has a right to live and is equally entitled to live like the big and strong shipwrecked crew. However, it is important to note that some social or political action are justifiable but not fair. In this regard, in a liberal society, there are no more deserving people than others. Hence, all citizens are treated at par. In light of this, it was expected that the shipwrecked crew should have upheld the point of morality and salvaged for food using a just method that does not violate individual liberty and promotes equality rather than resolving to kill the less fortunate. Unfortunately, the theory does not clearly stipulate to whom the act should be fair to.
The defendants of the lifeboat case are arguably justified to sacrifice the cabin boy because the act is fair to them. The theory of justice as fairness fails to specify fair to whom. Therefore, if one party feels it will be fair to commit murder for the greater good, this theory cannot hold them accountable.
According to David Hume’s theory "on Justice," the aspect of abundance and human behavior has called for the explicit stipulation of what is just and unjust. An ideal setting with vast resources disregards the need for justice since, the resources overwhelm the demand for them. For instance, justice is ignored when it comes to the use of air because it is in surplus supply. Moreover, a state that is built on firm moral standard, where people are concern about the needs of others, as they are to theirs, scraps the necessity for justice. However, the scarcity of resources and the need to establish clear ownership regulations invokes the principles of justice in defining what is yours and what is mine. In this accord, justice is pivotal is creating safety, happiness and civil order is the midst of overstretched resources. However, in extreme cases, injustice is considered a lesser evil that death, hence people on the verge of a great famine would do anything to survive regardless of the laws of justice. Therefore, the aspects of justice are flexible and in some instances, the obligation of justice to the society is scrapped off. An individual, who is striving to survive may ignore the laws of justice for defense, or a perfect humanity with overwhelming generosity eliminates the need to define what is mine and what is yours. On the other extreme, a situation whereby members of an individual society are striving to survive, scraps off the fundamentals of equality since such persons indulge in extreme measure to attain social or economic security (Living Philosophy). In this regard, this theory applies to the lifeboat case.
Given the fact that the aspect of justice and fairness is core in the lifeboat case, it is fundamental that David Hume’s theory "of Justice," is applied in unraveling the rationale employed in arriving at the decision. Hume’s theory creates a correlation between happiness, order, and fairness as the core aspects obtained from just actions. In this regard, it is lame to concentrate on the happiness level brought about by justice and disregard the order that should be restored by it. In the Lifeboat case, the order was the fact that even the weak are entitled to live, therefore, killing the poor cabin boy was unjustified. Moreover, Hume points out that people may consider injustice being a lesser evil than death. Hence, in their pursuit of survival, people may opt to kill their fellows to survive. In such a case, the fundamental principles of morality would have been violated. Hence, the decision to feast on the weak cabin boy tends to invoke the laws of the jungle upon humanity, where survival is for the strong, most fit, and influential in the society. Invocation of the laws of the jungle ...