Episode 64: Nicomachean Ethics V-4: Where can one find True Justice?

What Is Justice? Aristotle on the Just Person, Corporation, and State (Nicomachean Ethics, Book V)

In this episode of Resiliency Rounds, Aneesh and Jeremy continue Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics (Book V) on justice, using a question-driven format to ask what it means to be a just person, corporation, and state. They distinguish constitutional justice—how a state distributes basic goods like health, education, and security—from justice in voluntary exchanges between individuals, and discuss the difficulty of justice in criminal contexts where loss can’t be fully restored. They argue that following the law is a low bar and explore Aristotle’s view that being just is a matter of character: choosing the right acts voluntarily, knowingly, and not for gain, developed through a repeated thought–action–reflection cycle. They apply this to corporate power (e.g., opioids, social media harms, product negligence) and turn inward to “self-justice,” drawing on Plato’s inner republic—reason governing honor and appetites—and end by asking who runs one’s inner republic.

Transcript

Welcome and Format Update

SPEAKER_00 0:28

Welcome to another episode of uh Resiliency Rounds with Anish and Jeremy. We are in uh Nikkimaki of Ethics talking in book five about justice. We are trying a new format, which we tried last time, and we've got really good feedback on it. Thank you for those of you who shared your feedback with us. It's already keep going with that kind of uh framework. And uh yeah, so we are in in book five. Anish, you want to give us a little summary of what we talked about last week?

Recap Book Five Justice

Episode Question Just Person State

SPEAKER_02 1:01

Absolutely, Jeremy. Again, I wanted to say thank you to everybody who gave us the feedback. And you know, you've changed our episode a little bit. We have a question that we're gonna pose and we're gonna discuss that question, a question that's pertinent. I really feel I think feedback is really key for us. You know, when we started on this journey, it was a very organic journey. We just wanted to spend time and talk about philosophy. That's what Jeremy and me like to do. Uh, you know, weird people as we are. Uh that's the fun part for us. But once we we sort of noted that there are people interested in the conversations we were having and the fact that we have this responsibility of uh of uh sharing our intellectual heritage, uh, the the great conversation, the great books of the Western and the Eastern world. Uh, once we got a sense of that responsibility, people like, you know, we want to do more and reach out to more people. Uh please, if you're listening in uh and if you like what you hear, if this is helping you, you know, please let us know. Give us a review, you can rate us. There are five stars apparently on uh on podcasts. Uh, even if you give us one star, we will take it, but please tell us why and how we can improve. Without further ado, we are here in uh Nicomarchean ethics. We started this journey with uh with the Platonic works, and from Platonic works now, we've come to Aristotelian works, and in Aristotelian works the Nicomarchean ethics stands out. It is um a lecture series delivered by Aristotle to future heads of state, princes. Alexander heard these lectures. It's about how does a person who has a philosophical constitution, that means is a wise person, how would that wise person then go about and build a wise republic? Uh, how could he spread this virtue of justice, temperance, courage, and wisdom amongst the people of that republic to create a virtuous republic? Uh, and it starts with what is it to what does it mean to be happy? What does it mean to lead a good life? And how in that, how a good life is the product of walking in the direction of virtue, those cardinal virtues that we just mentioned, justice, temperance, courage, and wisdom, which is in our logo. Um, and but when you're following in the path of those virtues, you find yourself on the good life. And we've already discussed temperance and courage. Now we are on justice. Justice is a is a is a quite a difficult concept uh to wrap your head around. It is both an intellectual virtue and an appetitive virtue, but it's one of those virtues that is probably underpins every activity of a good human being uh because it pertains to how one behaves with their neighbor. Uh and um and so justice, what we discussed in the last episode, was both more about how most of us look at justice in a very conventional sense, about uh about following the law. Uh and Aristotle talks about uh the law of the land and uh and how the law of the land in a in a virtuous republic would also be in line with virtue. And so if you follow the laws, you'll be a virtuous individual. But it turns out necessarily that doesn't necessarily turn out that way. Uh constitutions of various republics across the world today are not necessarily based on virtue, they are based on other things. Uh and so a for a virtuous individual, a just individual, the the bar is set very high. The just going over the low bar of following the law is not enough. One has to meet the high bar of being a just individual. So, uh, Jeremy, what is the question for this uh episode then?

Constitutional Justice Merit Debate

SPEAKER_00 4:27

Yeah, thanks, Nish. So the question for today is what does it mean to be a just person, a just corporation, a just state? And we'll start with kind of explain what just how we define just and unjust, but then we'll apply that to kind of the hourly, which is more institutional and corporate and state, and then go inward. So, with that, what is a just person, corporation, and state? Anish, how would you uh how would Aristotle define what is just?

State Purpose Equity and Expectations

SPEAKER_02 5:01

It's a great question, uh Jeremy. So it probably serves us better to take a slight step to the side just a minute here and go over the justice as Aristotle dis defines it for a population, that is, a people who are part of a republic, and then justice as it pertains to the interindividual transactions that occur in between two individuals. So there is justice from a from the standpoint of the state to its citizen, and then from between two individuals. So the constitutional justice, uh, according to Aristotle, is making sure that people are given what is due to them and how it determines what is due to them is based on merit. Now, we had asked last time if we, you know, if we really believe that merit is the right way to choose whether one person should get a larger share of uh of the constitutional goods. And the goods from a constitutional perspective would be those that form the base of the of the Maslow's uh hierarchy of needs. If you guys have heard of this, is you know, physiologic needs like um uh you know health and uh and sleep and nutrition. And then uh the next layer is social security, uh, job, money, and then then then there is this good relationships, and then there is self-actualization that's a kind of built on top of this pyramid. So the bottom layers of of social security, health, education, this is the responsibility of the state. And so we believe, I think Jeremy would also agree, that those kinds of goods should be distributed equally and they should not be based on merit. Uh, what I mean by that is um Aristotle believes that in in uh that some folks have higher merit than others. So folks who are wiser, who are more honorable in certain constitutions like oligarchies, people who have more money, uh people who have more status in democracies, these are folks who are considered to have higher merit than others. And so they end up getting a higher proportion of uh of the goods. Now, I'm not saying that Aristotle is advocating for that. I'm just saying that he says it's based on merit. I look at the world around me and I agree that it looks like a lot of those goods are shared based on merit. Shouldn't necessarily be that way. And so constitutional justice, then I believe, is more that a state should be giving people what they need based on what they lack, uh, as opposed to based on what they have. Um now I have that sense. A lot of people don't. They believe that if someone is really contributing to society, they should be given more than people who are not contributing to society. I think there are many different ways to look at it. But as a as a just, if I'm looking at justice from a constitutional perspective, I think the state should protect the weakest and not worry so much about the interests of the strongest. What do you think, Jeremy?

SPEAKER_00 8:09

Yeah, I think that it's it's a challenge. The I in the ideal world, I think that it would make sense for you know, the state, if it were just, would be providing equal uh those who need it get and high get it, and those who don't benefit in other ways. But it's the you know, in my mind, it comes to well, what is the purpose of of the state if not to serve the public, the people, and so uh yeah, the challenge of the society we live in today. I mean, you know, the I just read today that uh the owner Google is spending like upwards of 60 million to in California uh to market against uh the billionaire tax initiative, right? It's like he's spending 60 million in advertising against having to pay taxes in the it's I don't know, it's it's certainly complicated and complex, and yet um for the purpose of state in an ideal society, I think it's very clear of what the what the intention of the state should be for. If we're all paying in, I guess you know, I I don't know where you stand on like if they're not a contributing member to society, should we lift them up so that they are a contributing member of society?

SPEAKER_02 9:39

So yeah, yeah, that's a that's an interesting thought, right? So, what does that opportunity look like? And someone would say that if you were to provide to somebody the basic foundations that is good health, education, social security, uh, they will find themselves contributing to society. And uh and and I think there is a thought process though, that there are people out there who don't even no matter how much resources they get, they will squander it away. Yeah, well, maybe maybe that's the case. I don't know, but I think as a in a majority of the people that I have come across, I found them to be hardworking people, people who want to do good, people who don't want to be getting a handout. Um, now again, that's just my anecdotal view of this, but I don't think I'm alone in that. I I've really very rarely come across a person of uh of uh of wisdom who would who believes that there is uh that uh good should be distributed based on merit. You know, from from Jesus Christ to Gautam Buddha to you know to Nelson Mandela to Mahapangati, I don't think anybody believed, or you know, Martin Luther King, I don't think anybody believed that to be the case. So I would I would rather uh agree with them than come up with my own ideas.

SPEAKER_00 10:53

Yeah, I mean there's a caveat there, which is you you you mentioned that that's the challenge, which is for people of wisdom, yeah, yeah. Yeah, believe it should be a certain way. No, I tend to agree. I think that most people don't want to necessarily take advantage of the system. But if the system is providing without expectation, without clear expectations of what you get, or if a system isn't providing the support to actually say, we'll give you X, but we expect Y in return. You know, there's something there where we don't, as a culture, we don't set expectations very well. And and then when it's so big, right, like it is in our state, it's hard to can to keep controls on what how you how you even create an expectation. I'm sure they exist in some way and fashion, but but how you without making a big government, a huge government of having oversight into all that.

Interpersonal Justice Deals and Crime

SPEAKER_02 11:54

Yeah, that I honestly I'm not saying that this is an easy question to answer, and equity gets very hard to define. Uh and and so all that being said, all that being said, I would say that what constitutional justice becomes kind of a proportionality conversation. That means if uh A is equal to B and B is equal to C and C is equal to D, then A is equal to D, it's kind of proportions. Um inter-individual justice, that is, if uh you and me get into a voluntary agreement, like we we start a company together or we decide to do an endeavor together, those and and it how do we determine who keeps what of the profits that we make? I think that is more kind of based on equality. What that means is if if you put in a thousand dollars and I put in a thousand dollars and then we make a hundred dollars in profit, then I keep fifty and you keep 50. It is equal. Now, whether you are a meritorious individual and I'm just a you know a snake doesn't matter. It it it is equality there. It's got nothing to do with merit, it really is not proportional, it's kind of equality.

SPEAKER_01 13:01

Sure.

Punishment Death Penalty Dilemmas

SPEAKER_02 13:02

And the problem becomes in criminal situations where you and me are not in uh in a voluntary agreement, right? Uh, how then uh what is justice in that situation? So if if I attack you and you know steal your money, right? Uh or worse, cause violence. Like you know, if I if I take your money, that maybe the restitutionists give you the money back. If if I you know end up causing harm, like you know, break a finger or an arm or whatever, then the it's not an eye for an eye, right? Like there used to be a justice that way. If you look at uh uh what was the Haburabi's tablets and stuff, it was eye for an eye kind of justice. If you you know steal a goat, well, you get your arm chopped off, it's probably not eye for an eye, it's worth but those but that was the kind of justice back then. Like, you know, they like a goat probably was meant a lot to people back then than an arm did. But if you know you poke someone's eye out, they poke your eye your eye out. And you know that now we know now that is not the right way to meet out justice in that you know, individual to individual sense. I mean, pretty much there's if you look at the laws of the land, one doesn't get meet the same fate that one ends up committing, the crimes that one ends up committing. Like if one someone ends up, I should is the hard these things have happened, like you know, people who have ended up mass shooting, it's not like they end up in a fighting squad. That doesn't happen. And so it it's no longer necessarily equality-based justice, but what what justice is trying to do in that situation is trying to make up for the loss. But what we found is it's very hard, right? It's very hard to make up for the loss if someone loses a loved one because of a violent act. Whatever you do to the criminal doesn't make up for that loss, right? And so what do you think about societal justice that way? Like, you know, we know what what so we have the opposite problem as well. Like, you know, people are put in for years behind bars for small minor offenses based on their race or based on so many different things, right? We are also putting people to death. And some of these folks don't we don't know if they were necessarily in the right state of mind when they committed the crimes that they committed. And I don't know, what do you think about that? Like, what do you think about that kind of justice?

SPEAKER_00 15:34

Yeah, I I think um I think moving away probably from eye to eye, eye for an eye, is probably the right thing. And yet I think it depends on the severity of the act, too. And yeah, I I mean I come back to the question too is the death sentence is that unjust in and of itself? Like taking take you know, like a life for a life, like is that is that an unjust act, or is that is that equal justice, right? I mean, that's that's where there are people who have been to your point incarcerated since the 70s for a bag of pot. And you know, it's probably because they were a person of color and not because they were a white male. The white male may have gotten a slap on the wrist, right? Like that's that is not equal justice. And yet, I was just talking about this yesterday. There is a person who is clearly mentally ill. They're currently determining whether or not he should get the death penalty for the acts that he committed. The acts that he committed, we we don't even need to get into the details here. They're so atrocious that that it made me question my beliefs in the death penalty. Is it at that point? Is that even uh like a person like that? Do they're just a different topic, I think. But it's it comes to is that is that justice to them end their life because of it? Because of their crimes, they were clearly also mentally ill. They also have a history of being abused as a child, like their whole history explains why they the the act happened. It happened, and they were there was mental illness, there was they were on the spectrum, they they were abused sexually, physically, yeah. They created a monster, they created in act, and they but it wasn't this person knew exactly what they were doing. It was premeditated. There was planning involved.

SPEAKER_02 17:54

Yeah.

Natural Justice Rational Actors

SPEAKER_00 17:55

Exactly. So is the death penalty in this scenario just?

SPEAKER_02 18:01

Yeah, so I at least what what we are discussing here is the fact that this is so messy. That is it's very hard when it comes to justice to say for sure what a state should do and what acts are unjust acts. What acts are then just acts. I think one disclaimer we should make is that when it comes to the state acting on a citizen or two citizens engaging in a voluntary transaction, those are as close as you can get to a rational act. I mean say logical, there's some logic behind it. In those transactions, it behooves us to do what is as close to the right thing to do because there's there is a natural justice that exists in the world. There are certain things that you don't do, and that they are not written down in any tablets anywhere or any constitution, right? There's something that we all know intrinsically, what is it to be a good human being, and those things can be done. And similarly, there are certain things that a state should do. Because I don't think that those that natural justice dissipates when you talk about a state. A state is not a natural thing, it is an it is a voluntary thing, it's an artificial thing, but still it is something that is is it can act in a natural way. So those are some things that should be done. Now, when it comes to though the violent parts of an inter-individual transaction, there are two issues here. One is an irrational person. These are psychotic people, these are sociopaths, psychopaths. I mean, these are pathologies, hence the name paths in there, right? I mean, these are pathologies, but they're not they are not logic, they're not thinking about things logically. It is extreme bad luck to come upon people like this. Because once if you if one does, they meet a terrible fate. It's just bad luck. But majority of the world is humans are not psychopaths. The majority of them are logical creatures. And so our discussion about what is it to be a just individual or a just corporation or just state, the it is underscored by the fact that we are talking about a rational being, yeah and not an irrational being.

SPEAKER_00 20:53

Yeah, we're not talking about the outliers. I keep reading the outliers of the extremes here, but then that's a good distinction.

Just Individuals Create Just States

SPEAKER_02 21:00

So now when we talk about a rational individual, a rational individual is one, and there are many definitions of it, but the but the highest definition of this is someone who knows the difference between good and evil. Now, a rational individual knows the difference. The just individual chooses to do good, right? The unjust individual chooses to do evil. I think the same thing is true for a corporation. When it comes to the state, because the state is formed voluntarily, as it is being formed, those decisions are made. The people who form the state are considered rational individuals. They mean they know what is good and evil, and if they choose evil, they create an unjust state. If they choose good, they create a just state. It is a choice. What do you think about that?

SPEAKER_00 22:20

It brings up an interesting thought as you mentioned that. Which is yeah, the idea of a two-party system that we have now is not something that was encouraged. I don't remember who said that, which famous Valveier had said, Don't have don't set up a two-party system because it'll never work, it'll tear apart in another country. But I I wonder if we actually are set up in a just state now, or if we're actually living in a unjust state times where there's a shift away from democratic states across the world, right? There's more autocratic uh nations that have come into play, the percentage is there. Uh I actually just read an article about this, that there's an increase in autotopy, right? But the idea around setting up the system and the state to be just, it's set up by just individuals, even at the time that the US was set up. I think I think there's the ideal, and then there's then there's reality. I mean, the system was set up by slave owners with these philosophical ideals in place, and and even the philosophers who were talking about this were slave owners. So it's it's it's interesting how maybe that's um what were we saying about Aristotle being um he just, yeah, thank you. Uh and then and and this is kind of an example of that. Like, isn't it nice for me to say as the white man, like, oh, we live in a just society, yeah. And that I get it's easy for those who are the majority to be able to say that, yeah, because that have people privileges that they the others don't have and don't experience.

Corporate Justice Boeing vs Purdue

SPEAKER_02 24:19

Yeah. So see, that is that is the just state uh concept, and and I do agree with you that that states can change, but the opposite is also true, that rather than devolving into a tyrannical state, there is a version where a state can actually ascend into a philosophical constitution as well. And what that requires is for each individual in that state to be given the opportunities to be able to self-actualize, to be able to be become wise. And for that, one has to have those bottom layers of that Maslow's hierarchy met. Majority of the population should have access to good health, education, social security, relationships, all of that. Then they could they could ascend into this space where everybody can then be rational beings who know the difference between good and evil and end up choosing good each time. That's that is what Aristotle is trying to say when he says a just republic. Plato believes that it is not possible for you and me to go out there and change the third person. All we can do is change ourselves. And if everybody in an in a in a republic changes themselves to be this rational being, then you will have, in effect, a rational republic, a rational state. I think the same thing is true for a corporation. Corporation is just like an individual.

Just Acts vs Just Character

SPEAKER_00 25:53

Yeah. So I was gonna ask you, uh if we shift to corporations and institutions. I have a couple of examples here, right? Different scenarios Boeing 737 max. Yeah, boy. Is that failure, mistake, injustice, proper was that you know, the FAA self-certification process? Does that create recover for negligence versus the opioid crisis where Purdue Pharma is marking oxy cotton for decades, deliberately knowing what they were doing, like what they had in the damage it could cause? Like, is that injustice at the institutional level versus Boeing 737, which is more a product of the system and more around negligence versus like was that intentional, or is that just it was it not necessarily where does that fit in terms of just versus injustice?

Unjust Acts Ignorance Chance Compulsion

Profit Over People

Can Companies Be Unjust

SPEAKER_02 27:04

Fantastic, fantastic question, Jeremy. And I can I don't know the I should know it, but I don't know the particulars of this of the Boeing controversy. I do know a lot about the Purdue one. But before that, I think the the bigger question here, and which will answer this question, is what does it mean to be just? What is the difference between performing a just act and being a just individual? I think there are acts that are just, but just because someone performs a just act doesn't make them a just individual. So what I mean by that is, and when I say I, I'm saying what Aristotle means by that is that in order for a person to be called just, performing good acts, performing just acts should be part of their character. They choose to perform those acts. Those acts are not performed out of chance, and they're not forced to perform those acts. They choose to do it. And the reason why they choose to do it is not for their own gain. They choose to do it because that's the right thing to do. And they know that it's the right thing to do because they have lived life, they have thought about the actions that they take, then performed those actions, and then learned from the results, and then reflected on that and modified their actions each time. That thought, action, reflection cycle has happened over and over again. And over time they have gained the wisdom that is needed to choose the next right thing to do. They have knowledge of both the general good and of the particular good, and they then they go ahead and choose to do that. Right? It is a very high bar to meet. And most of us, first of all, most of us don't even know that concept exists of the thought, action, reflection cycle, repeating over and over again and learning in each step along the way, changing one's uh approach to life. Of those who know to do it, they have to do several such cycles in order to get there. And of the ones who get there, there are some who live long enough to be wise in many different fields. And so it's it's a very narrow group of people. Most of us can at least be worthy of that. And that is what this whole process is. The foundations of model obligation course is what we're doing. And the the reason why you want to build a foundation for your moral obligation is because when you when you undertake the moral obligation over time, it changes your character, it makes you a better person. Now, what that means is just because someone ends up doing an act, not knowing the particulars, not knowing the general character of what that act is, or doing it for reasons of convention, doing it because you want to keep up with the Joneses, uh, I you know, showing up at a charity ball and auctioning just because your neighbor sees you do it, or because you like the thing that's being auctioned, and then, or happening by happenstance, it's like that guy on the joke, my dad's joke about the guy in the river who's drowning, and there's there's a loud splash from the bridge, and this guy falls into the water and saves the man and brings him to the bank, and everybody's cheering up this guy who jumped from the bridge to save the guy, and he's like, Forget all that. Who's the guy who pushed me into the water? You know, so it's like that guy is not a just guy, he's not a he didn't do a good act, it just happened stance or accident, or that he ended up doing it. Or someone puts a gun to someone's head or says, do it, or else do this good task, like community service after drunk driving. Those acts or whatever you do, it doesn't make you a good person. Those acts, in and of itself, are just acts. All those acts that were done, though out of compulsion, though out of chance, though out of ignorance, the act itself is a just act, but doesn't make the the actor a just individual. Same, by the way, the same thing is true to answer your question about Purdue Pharma, same thing is true for injustice. If one commits an unjust act out of ignorance or out of by chance or out of compulsion, we don't call that person an unjust person. Like you was given examples, if you're driving and you make a mistake and you end up hitting another car, that's an accident. We call it an accident. You don't get your character doesn't get judged based on that. Right? Same thing is true, maybe now we even know addiction is kind of like that too. Like addiction is is a quirk of genetics and and all of that. So you know, you may end up you may be inebriated because of being an addict and commit an act, you know, we don't necessarily call that person unjust. Similarly, if someone puts a gun to a loved one's head and says, you need to go do this bad act, otherwise, or else, and you do it, no one is gonna say that you are an unjust person. Right? But a person who chooses to create a medication that they know has a very high addiction potential, and go out there and market it and tell people that this is not going to get you hooked on to the medication, knowing full well that that's exactly what's gonna happen, and go out there and and and tell primary care physicians and everybody else that you know, look, this is gonna be wonderful for your patients, knowing full well the results, like you know what is good and evil, and you choose evil for the sake of profit. That is injustice. It is yes, and if one is an individual who is otherwise choosing to do the right things but ends up causing an accident, it doesn't strike his uh doesn't put a strike against the name. Suddenly, it's not that you know if Mahatma Gandhi ever got into a car wreck, it's not that he's an unjust individual, suddenly.

SPEAKER_00 33:28

Sure, sure. So can a corporation be just or unjust as an entity, or is it the people within it then who are it? And I think Purdue Forum is a good one, I think lifted right in Uber right now, who both knew that there were sexual assaults happening by Uber drivers to their customers and chose to not change their hiring practices or uh or put cameras into mandate that cameras are in cars or improve their technology to have a push button right. You know, they they had these options, they chose not to and say this is a cost of doing business. Is the company therefore an unjust corporation or institution versus there were people within that that made that decision?

B Corps And Real Impact

SPEAKER_02 34:31

I think that that's a that's a great question. Look, I don't know necessarily if every company can be judged on the basis of whether it is just or unjust. Give me an example, like I'll give you an example. Maybe it's not well, maybe it's not the best example. You know, there's there's a company that makes uh razor blades, uh Harris or something like that, right? Yeah, very sure. Yeah, yeah. Is Haddies a just company? Is Lululemon a just company?

SPEAKER_00 35:12

There are B Corps. There's this idea of a B Corp certification now, which is exactly that, though. It's actually if you go and you qualify for a B Corp, Patagonia is a B Corp certified company, for example. I was arguing that they are just in order to make in order to qualify to be a B Corp, you need to be actively environmentally, like all of how you make your products, how you source your products, they have to be environmentally friendly, they have to be, you know, everyone within the organization has to be paid a living wage. The the in most many cases, uh okay the employees are also either part of an ESOP, like an employee-owned organization, or have some type of real share in all of their decisions are made in some sense with being just in mind. Now that's not how they are looking at it necessarily, but they are it's just packaged differently.

When Corporate Power Matters

SPEAKER_02 36:19

Well, let me put it a different way to you, right? So so say Lululemon, right? Say Lululemon. I don't know if it is, right? I don't know. Maybe it is, I don't know. But maybe it's a B Corp. But at the end of the day, it makes it makes yoga pants, right? I don't know if it m I look, if they are a B Corp, fantastic, good for them, right? Same thing for Patagonia. Congratulations, right? But so what? My point is so what? Like what is you know, I'm not a big like I'm not saying that I'm a maybe people like to wear Patagonia, but uh, it doesn't change the world for me. Whether the Patagonia existed or didn't exist, it doesn't necessarily you know change the state of the world in any way, shape, or form. So I think there are companies out there where it matters. And there are companies out there that it doesn't matter. So what kind of corporation you are it matters, right? So let me put it a different way Meta or OpenAI, Google, right? BP, amongst those oil companies, right? I think Apple, I think there are from hospitals to educational institutions, universities, to I think there are places in the world where it matters a whole lot more because they it has got more to do with creating those bottom layers of the Mars Laws hierarchy than yoga pants are.

Mistakes Versus Malice

SPEAKER_00 37:46

Yeah, and yeah, so I mean every entity exists. But there are institutions exist, some that actually have purpose that benefit society, some that produce you're supposedly providing something that's gonna help people, knowing that it didn't. There are institutions that have power, and that power if if used incorrectly because of what they do, it's not Lulu Lemon's yoga pants, right? But it's pharmaceuticals, anyone that's providing like car makers, they have they can cut corners. Yes, choose not to. Yes, so if the responsibility is there, then they have an opportunity to be just or unjust.

Vertical Development Stages

SPEAKER_02 38:38

I would tell you, like you bring up a good point. Like Toyota Production Systems is probably the best production system out there, right? Toyota still has recalls. That doesn't make Toyota an unjust company. That is a mistake, that's a chance. Despite doing everything, they find themselves where they miss something. As opposed to you go out there and create a product that you know is going to get teenagers hooked, and they're then there's a chance that they're gonna have low self-esteem and then they're gonna go kill themselves, and you know that, and you still go out there and and push for it. I think there's something to be said about that, and now who drives that? Is it one individual, is it several individuals? You know, that's a different conversation. But my point is that that there is a difference between an unjust act being committed and someone who's unjust. There's a difference between a just act being done and someone who is just.

SPEAKER_00 40:11

At the top of the pyramid for Maslow's hierarchy of needs is self-actualization. If you are lucky enough to reach that point in your development, you're probably living a just life. You are probably a just person. I think in order to get there, one needs to be able, so it there are different levels of vertical development, and in the center where most of us sit is what we call like the expert or the achiever. Those that those stages, even the redefining stage after that, there's still opportunities.

SPEAKER_02 40:49

Jeremy, if I don't want interrupting you, for the sake of the audience, can you describe the stages again for the vertical? I could, maybe.

SPEAKER_00 40:58

From opportunist, it's opportunist, diplomat, opportunist, then diplomat, uh expert, then achiever, then redefining, transforming, and then alchemist. Okay. Alchemist is probably maybe 2% of the population, maybe less. Uh opportunist and diplomats are very early stage functioning. It's all about, it's truly all about me and what I can get. It's kind of fight or fight responses. Um, this is where you might see more narcissistic type of behaviors, especially in adults, where they can do no wrong and uh they believe that they are the greatest thing that you know uh that ever existed with no proof, um, or when everything is saying subjecting. Otherwise, the expert is is a person who's still focused on themselves, but and how in the corporate world, how are they climbing the expert ladder? They are becoming the expert, like you're a cardiologist, like at some point you spent the time to truly become the expert in cardiology, right? And a practitioner then that that's where a lot of yourself, where where your identity comes from, the achiever starts to recognize that they can't necessarily do this on their own. There's more to it. There's you know, you're you're there, you need to work with others to really make this, you know, to make something else happen. And but you're still kind of going and trying to kind of climb the corporate ladder, redefining this, recognizing that we you know, it's it's a lot of this is about sense making. You start to recognize that there's both and scenarios here, and that there's more of a we, and we need to be working more to collaboratively and transforming it is kind of a stage where all of a sudden you are recognizing that there is an us and that we cannot be doing this. That it's not about me anymore, it's not about you, it's about all of us, the collective, it's more societal thinking and community focused and less of and no longer focused on ourselves. And so you see, as I'm kind of just even describing some of this, the basic level of me describing this, how one becomes more just over time, yeah. At the expert level, you still might be making some decisions that are unjust to others because you're seeing them as a benefit to yourself. I'm not saying that you can't be an expert and be just, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying you can you can absolutely be both. But the wisdom comes with realizing it's no longer about you being an expert anymore. It's about what we can do together versus I.

Self Justice And Addiction

SPEAKER_02 43:41

Yeah, I could push back a little bit and say uh for the sake of what Aristotle believes and what uh you know Plato believes, that that that if justice is a voluntary act and one has to be wise in order to perform voluntary acts, then it is probably true that experts are not just, they do perform just acts, but they're not just because they don't possess the virtue of justice because they've not had the wisdom. I like that. Thank you. That's good. Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 44:08

Yeah. So bringing this back to the inner self, I um I just want to point out some of that because I think it's important with this video as we start to focus in on the inner self and then on the wisdom too. Beyond that, let's use so Meta, you brought up. Meta has a lot of an algorithm that knowingly harms adolescents. Adolescents that are not developmentally like their brains aren't developed enough. They it's created addiction, not just in adolescence, it's created addiction with all of us humans. Yep. Um what do we when it comes to the self and looking at being just and unjust? Can we ourselves can we be unjust or just to ourselves? And using examples like being addicted to social media, being addicted to internet porn, being you know, being compulsive gambling, even though you you you know the odds are against you, but yet you still do it anyways. Uh these are these are unjust actions. Yeah. That we're doing to ourselves. Like an anorexic so an anorexic person who has an eating disorder, another example, like they might want to eat and shoot. They that's it's an illness, but so is addiction. So, but and so we're being unjust to ourselves in these scenarios when there's another rational part of ourselves who recognize that these things aren't that's aren't just, but we're doing it. There's a and then the other side of us is doing it. So it gets to the devil on one side and the angel on the other, it gets to the hydra that we've talked about in the past, the three-headed monster.

Inner Republic Explained

Ignorance And The Paradox

SPEAKER_02 46:07

Yeah. Yeah, so so if to frame that in a question, yeah, justice as it pertains to organizations, to state, to the laws, to individuals, is how one commits acts that affects another. But the question you're asking is is there something like self-justice? Can one be unjust to oneself? Can one be just to oneself? I believe that again, this is my based on my readings, right? Uh, the Platonic works, the Republic talks about justice as it pertains to oneself. And what that means is that when as one is making choices that affect one's own life, one can choose to do things that bring about momentary pain. And with knowing that momentary pain would actually lead to longer-term happiness. So when I say momentary pain, it'd be like saying that you know there is donuts in front of you. You want to eat the donut, but you don't eat the donut because you know it's not good for you in the long run. So, who is telling whom not to eat the donut? It's like you are telling yourself. That means there are two, there is a part of you that wants to eat the donut. And there's a part of you that knows that that's not the right thing to do. Both of those, both of those are germis. There is a there is a germ in a hierarchical state, there's a germy that controls the other germy. And the germy that controls the other germy is what in in if it's ordered the right way, in a in a philosophical mind, in a philosoph in a person who has wisdom, the rational principle, which is the part of the brain that can that knows the difference between good and evil, that controls the honor-seeking part of the of the brain, which wants to do the right things to gain honor, who then controls the appetitive elements, which with the elements that only want to do the things that make its itself feel good. So the rational principle is the smallest part that controls the larger part, which then controls the largest part. And the and the analogy there was the man controlling the lion, the lion controls the multi-headed chimeric monster. The multi-headed chimeric monster is the appetites. We have appetites that are multitudinous, millions upon millions of different wants and desires. If we were to go out there and just spend our time participating in those desires, you have like a rock star lifestyle. And rock star lifestyles usually end in terrible addiction, terrible suicides, death, and so on and so forth. Right? That is the argument against following a life of pleasure. It's a tyrannical life, it's a tyrannical existence, right? Honor seeking is what most of us end up doing. We tame the chimera because we don't want to come across as people who are just taken in by appetites. And we do that because we don't want to be seen as somebody who's taken in by appetites. There's a difference between doing that as opposed to doing it for the right reasons. The right reason being because that's the right thing to do, because that is the just thing to do, that's the wise thing to do. If you do it for those reasons, then you have then you're following a rational principle. So Jeremy, maybe telling Jeremy to not eat the donut because Jeremy wants to look good in a fitted shirt, which is the honor-seeking element. Jeremy telling Jeremy to not eat the donut is also because Jeremy knows that's the wrong thing to do, because it creates a bad example for his kids. That's a whole nother Jeremy. So wisdom being leading that is the top of it. So now to answer your question, one can be unjust if one does not have this ordered republic in their minds where the rational principle controls the honor-seeking elements, it controls the aberrative elements. Right? Now, for some people, it's not a choice. If one is like we talk about a rational individual, a rational individual has a rational principle that ends up saying don't do it. But they haven't ordered their constitution where they can prevent themselves from doing that. Right? Their honor-seeking part takes over the rational part where they follow convention, they seek profit instead of seeking good because they want a better house or they want a bigger car or they want a better looking spouse or whatever. Right? And then there are those who are completely enmeshed in the appetitive parts, which are just driven by passion, and that's why they neither seek honor nor do they seek wisdom. That is most of us in the early stages, in those opportunist diplomat stages. I think opportunists are probably in those stages, right? Um, and so those folks are folks who who are there's really no point having conversations about rational thoughts and justice and injustice. As you ascend that vertical development, there's a time when that conversation can be had. Why do you choose to do the right thing? Because that's the right thing, because I want to be seen as the as the person who does the right things. I want to do this because I want a promotion. As opposed to why do you choose to do the right things? Well, because those are the right things to do. My I have more self-respect. Those are things that lead to a good life. I'm following the path of virtue. Those are two different individuals, right? So I think I think one can be unjust to oneself if one understands that paradigm and still chooses to do the wrong things. That is an unjust individual. And I I don't I find it very strange. I'll be it'll be very strange to have an individual like that who knows the difference between good and evil, but chooses evil for themselves. No, no, it is most likely people who are choosing to do evil to themselves are doing a lot of ignorance.

SPEAKER_00 52:20

Yeah, I mean it's it's really it's it's fascinating the loop that's that it's creating in my mind around inward and outward. Yeah, if you're you know, if if you're in right there on the on your to yourself, there's I don't see how you could possibly be outwardly just to others. No, you can't.

SPEAKER_02 52:42

Absolutely not. No, no, you can in a conventional way, you can just follow the laws and say I'm a just person, which we now know that when we say someone who's just that that's a person who voluntarily chooses to do the right thing because they know it's the right thing to do, and they're not doing it out of chance and not doing it out of compulsion. That is the definition.

SPEAKER_01 53:00

That's right.

SPEAKER_02 53:01

That person will not choose to harm themselves. There, but there is you are right, it's a paradox.

SPEAKER_01 53:09

Yeah.

Wisdom As The Way Out

SPEAKER_02 53:10

The paradox is like a hunger strike. Yeah, you're causing self-harm for something that is beyond you. Martma Gandhi did it, Nelson Mandela did it. I'm sure I don't know if Martin Luther King did it or not, but I'm he I'm sure he suffered many other ways. But my point is you can choose self-harm. But the difference there is that self-harm that we are talking about is the disappointment you feel because you're not going to chew on the donut. It is harm to your appetitive side, not harm to your uh wisdom side, definitely not harmful to your honor-seeking side. Like they say that a only a good man can harm himself. That's why Socrates drinks hemlock. You see, because because choosing to not participate in philosophy, choosing to to go into exile is harming himself. So he ended up drinking hemlock, which was the lesser of the two evils.

SPEAKER_00 54:20

Which brings us to then wisdom as the way out.

SPEAKER_02 54:24

Wisdom is the way out. Yeah, justice and wisdom are very tightly linked. I mean, so is courage and so is temperance. As a matter of fact, you need to have each of those to you cannot be uh uh a person who is intemperate and uh and cowardly and be wise. It doesn't work like that. It doesn't work that way, no, no, no, no.

SPEAKER_00 54:50

It's a path that one has to strive for their entire life, right? We've talked about that. Once you you never truly arrive, uh maybe you're on your deathbed, you know, looking back and saying, Well, I've lived a just life, right? I was courageous. There are there are moments in time, there are decision points every day that that you can choose to be courageous or temperate or just, and that all leads to greater wisdom over time, and we have a temple wisdom here, but but it is that it it this is all it may it it be growth or of development, yeah.

Who Runs Your Republic

SPEAKER_02 55:30

Absolutely, absolutely, and just because one commits one act that is unjust, otherwise they leave they are just individuals, doesn't strike them out from the just pile. And just because someone commits one act of justice doesn't make them a just individual. It is all about a state of character. One has to do the right things, thought, action, reflection every day, all the time. Yes, you can make a couple of mistakes, which you will, that's how you learn, um, on the path to uh the good lives. That's right.

SPEAKER_00 56:07

The question is who is running Urina Republic?

SPEAKER_02 56:10

That's right. Who's running your inner republic? And that's a good point. Yeah. What we're both the republic that we're talking about that has the ordered republic is the rational principle on top, honor in the middle, controlling the appetite of Chimera. And if but if it's flipped the other way, whether Chimera is ruling, yeah. That is absolute anarchy. Right? If you have the honor-seeking element that's ruling and it's not doing it with wisdom, you could be you could be ordering on injustice quite a bit.

unknown 56:46

Sure.

SPEAKER_02 56:46

Right? Choosing profit over the over good. I think that's where we see most of the world. The people that you can that blame can be ascribed to are those folks who are seeking honor and honor being profit, bigger house, whatever, instead of doing the right thing. The the chimera, when the if the chimera is is uh is ruling, that is just an irrational being. There's no conversation to be had there. All of us who are honor seeking should ask ourselves, are we wise or not?

SPEAKER_00 57:19

That's right. Great question. The wise one will say I'm not that wise.

SPEAKER_02 57:28

You know, wisdom is a very high bar. I I don't think we should say that we are wise, but are we worthy? Are we worthy?

SPEAKER_00 57:34

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 57:35

Great reframe. Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 57:38

Excellent.

SPEAKER_02 57:39

All right, Jeremy, this was great. Thank you so much again for a great conversation, man.

SPEAKER_00 57:43

Yeah, thank you, Anish.