Social Philosophy: Hate Speech and Distributive Justice - Assignment Example

Lecturer: Presentation: Q5: The Ku Klux Klan was a terror group in the Southern s during the Reconstruction period after the Civil War of 1861-1865. The group used violence, intimidation and lynching to ensure the Blacks did not exercise their rights as granted by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments to the U.S constitution. These amendments granted the African Americans equality under the law and citizenship as well as voting rights. At first, the group used intimidation through marches and hate speeches in predominantly Jewish and Black communities.1 In this case they would use derogatory remarks about the African Americans and Jews and call them inappropriate words such as niggers or compare them with evil. The whites were considered as virtuous while black represented darkness and evil. Though the First Amendment to the U.S constitution as contained in Bill of Rights guarantees citizens freedom of speech and freedom of press, it is not right for anyone to spread hate speech about a person or group of persons simply because of their color, race, or religion. The Fourteenth Amendment does prohibit discrimination based on these conditions or even the previous condition of servitude. In my view, hate speech should thus not be entertained regardless of freedom of speech as it is harmful to those against whom the speech is being directed. Furthermore, it intimidated the Blacks and Jews and prevented them from enjoying their rights due to fear and violence. However, the U.S Supreme Court in its Brandenburg v Ohio case decision thought otherwise. Clarence Brandenburg was the leader of an affiliate group of Ku Klux Klan in Ohio who in a rally in Hamilton County, Ohio in April 1969, propagated hate speech against the Blacks and Jews. He had invited the Cincinnati T.V station to televise and film the events whereby hooded armed figures were shown as well as burning of a large wooden cross. In addition, Brandenburg gave a hate speech where he used the word “revengeance” and derogatory reference to Blacks and Jews.2 He was thus arrested and convicted in the state of Ohio in the Brandenburg v Ohio (395 U.S. 444) case decision. He was accused of violating the Ohio Criminal Syndication Statute of 1919 which prohibited advocacy of violence as a means of accomplishing political gains. Brandenburg appealed the decision to an intermediate appellate court which upheld the decision and likewise the Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed the case on the ground that it lacked constitutional questions. The appellant then appealed to the U.S Supreme Court which ruled in his favor. In its decision, the U.S Supreme Court used the Clear and Present Danger Test and Justice William Brennan on behalf of eight justices declared that “the constitution guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of laws violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action”3 Since the KKK was not inciting others hence posed no imminent danger to Jews and Blacks, there was no reason for Brandenburg to be convicted. The Amendment protects all forms of speech provided no danger is posed by such speech. As a result, the decision not only allowed hate speech but allowed all speech without any discrimination. If I was the judge sitting on the bench of that court, I would have ruled that hate speech was unconstitutional as it violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution which prohibits discrimination based on color, race, religion, or previous condition of servitude. Hate speech did prevent the Blacks from exercising their rights and it also amounted to justifying this action. It was an incitement to disregard the Blacks and Jews and use violence against them. Though freedom of speech and press is guaranteed by the constitution, hate speech is a misuse of this freedom and should not be tolerated. Q 4: John Rawls in A Theory of Justice in 1971 stated that “justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought.” 4 As such he believed that the law and institutions should be reformed or abolished regardless of whether they are efficient or well-arranged if they are unjust. Rawls in making this claim draws insight from the Aristotelian perspective. Aristotle was of the view that fairness meant not taking undue advantage of others by seizing what belonged to them and also denying that which is due to them such as repayment of debt and fulfillment of a promise.5 In his ethics therefore, Aristotle differentiated ethics and politics whereby ethics referred to just actions by persons and politics to just actions by city state. Just like Aristotle, Rawls believed just agreements were made by rational people from the beginning thus founding principles on which to judge actions such as distribution of resources. Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics claims that he started his ethics theory from what was agreed upon by well brought-up men and not from a general theory that makes anything good; from practical, everyday knowledge of virtuous actions.6 Rawls taking this perspective also while formulating a theory of justice begins by assuming that all individuals in a society are equal and “choose together principles to assign basic rights and duties and to determine division of social benefits.”7 They thus formulate moral principles (social contract) to guide in evaluating what is just or unjust. Justice as fairness thus according to Rawls involves principles of justice agreed to in initial situation that is fair. In this case, there is no injustice in greater benefits by a few provided those not so fortunate also get an improved position. In other words, distribution is based on merit and justice does not mean loss of freedom for some for greater good of all since each person wishes to improve on his well-being. Liberties of equal citizenship are thus taken as settled and violation is only necessary to avoid a greater injustice. For Aristotle, virtues are central to a well-lived life and these include justice, courage, temperance and prudence as depicted by Plato and Socrates. However, for him, courage and temperance come before justice and prudence is the practical wisdom and an intellectual virtue. The highest good according to Aristotle is happiness and human flourishing which he refers as Eudaimonia and it is attained through virtuous life and development of reason.8 These virtues were developed through practical wisdom, no moral standards are used to determine the virtues but are agreed upon by gentlemen. Based on this argument by Aristotle, Rawls is thus right to conclude that “justice” is the first virtue of society since its principles are agreed upon equally by all members of the society. Distributive justice ensures individuals fulfill societal roles and receive what is due to from society according to Rawls and Aristotle. Egalitarians like Karl Marx on the other hand, believe that goods should be distributed equally between individuals and families based on needs as opposed to merit. As such, Marx advocated communism a system where goods would be distributed “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”9 Equality for Marx is thus the highest justice but capitalism as a system is unjust in its very essence and logic. The capitalism logic (exchange of goods to create of surplus value) is inherently exploitative as it forces capitalists to continuously innovate to improve surplus. As a result, the workers produce more than they could produce in normal working day but the surplus goes only to the capitalists or owners of means of production. Sometimes they are forced to work more hours to produce surplus and this is exploitation. Furthermore, capitalism is alienating as it alienates the workers from their means of production and products of their labor as well as from their families. Read More