Justification is a term which on initial perception or audition is construed to be as a tool towards validation or vindication of one’s argument pertaining to an issue or subject or matter of individual or group concern. Any argument, whether intellectual or comical, is articulated according to precedence or a belief that has been constantly maintained in awareness through the exploitations of two central questions – What is to be held as justified? And by whom or, more appropriately, by how many it is held? Each form or type or method of justification is based on the roots of three main sources of empowerment through impartment – History, Religion and Intuition, with each varying on levels of societal value, effectiveness and sustainability. This trinity of justifiable opinions and actions, all carry altering impressions towards what an individual, or a community, holds to lead towards a happy or at least a satisfied living. This is a mean which I have always presumed to be self-contradictory and derogatory. How can an interpretation of human satisfaction from the past or fiction or sense, which has to be assumed by a majority, dictate the devise of happiness for the present if time, space and human behaviour are all believed to be erratic factors? Hence, taking into consideration the manners of justification, or claimed justification, and initiatives of happiness, claimed happiness, that persist in our social world today, I have come to conceive a simple thought. Justification in itself is not justified; notions of contemporary individual satisfaction are a prerequisite.
Every justification is premised on a principle difference of what is to be held as right or wrong. In order to thoroughly elucidate my stand and comprehend the fundament deficient in our, recent or past, methods of justification I must first hypothesize as to what is right. However, in order to perceive the right, I shall foremost have to classify the assorted alleged rights that bear to exist in our world, and derive the core facet of a satisfied human living which maintains the key to a utopian or most feasible ideal right. The sense or knowing of virtue or morality is deemed on three pillars – History, Religion and Intuition. Here intuition includes the self-inflicted emotional or physical gratifications or dismay that may be caused by the consequences of supporting or patronising an action or opinion and the intellectual self-argumentation that a person manoeuvres a thought in the course of formulising it as a personal belief. And so, intuition is being regarded as a thought provoked by sense. History and religion even though are two distinct entities; certain sects of spiritually active individuals hold them to be two parts of a whole. For this reason, I shall delineate each form of the possible combinations. For an individual who holds history to be the guiding factor towards morality, will believe in that opinion or action to be right which holds a populist precedence, and which is maintained to be as a verified and authenticated fact of occurrence by the guardians of past. An individual who maintains religion to be his or her guiding authority towards a moral compass, will retain that to be right which all is claimed or prophesied to be, by their respective prophets or champions of the faith, within the sphere of what shall generate prospects for both their mortal and after life. An individual who moderates in-between the two and perceives religion as the beginning and history its continuation, will mediate his or her beliefs in what his or her faith gathers to be most indispensable and what time has come to make as being essential towards preserving a healthy ethnical being. And at last an individual who holds his or her inner indications or conscious, which have no substantial explanations, to be the director of a right which in no aspects interferes or rather encourages a state of tranquil and proportionate mental and physical being. Within the realms of each particular outlook of morality and ethics, there are many existing commonalities. In the democratic sense, which is the prevailing sense of our times, right is what the majority holds to believe in and advocate towards a more physically and emotionally rewarding prolonged life, and possible afterlife. The commonalties between the heterogeneous rights have been the vital basis for the unification and imagination of a democratically structured and chosen collective right.
All the pivotal rights that I deemed to classify overlook the zenith of a true justification, which is the necessity for a confirmation and certification of an act or belief by a higher authority or a being in touch with the mystic greater truth that eludes mankind. In every instant of time, there have been several mystics or holy men and women who claim to be in a state of osmosis with such an evading legitimacy, but none have provided more than words on paper or through vocabulary to legitimise their eloquence. Their inability has forever nourished the eternal human mechanical reaction of questioning one’s existence in an attempt of solidifying it. Why should an individual believe what another claims to be a reality that only he or she can foresee? Hence, I believe if none attain the gift to corroborate their facts, then they are nothing more than an opinion of mine. The rights induced from religion, history and intuition all enclose the equivalent deficiencies. An act or opinion justified in the forgone past by another individual does not legitimise the infinite acts or opinions held in the present, unlike the position that history has from eternity preserved. An act or opinion justified by a considered prophet or champion of faith who says to be in direct exchange with a higher metaphysical entity lacks the same virtues of authentication, and consequentially cannot be asserted as a proof of a superior norm of right. An act or opinion justified on the foundation of an individual’s emotional or physical reactions towards an issue or entity is similarly redundant as it lacks hard evidence that can be comprehended by the human psyche. Hence, religion, history or intuition, with a motive of their existence alone, cannot be the grounds for a foundation of a healthy and satisfied human existence. All exemplified entities are variable to human thought and existence, and have undergone countless measures of retraction and restatement with the coming of a newer age at several locations of time.
If history, religion or intuition is not to be the firm centre of a content living or society, then what ought to be? An aspect that lies in common within all forms or types or avocations of right is happiness. Instead of formulising what happiness is for a human being through the utilisation of past preferences or the words of a believed holy person or book or natural human inclinations, why not consider the choices of the contemporary strand of beings? I consider every form of happiness to be in a direct or indirect relation with an individual freedom to act and think. In order to corroborate this derived elemental facet of a content human living, I must beforehand develop its meaning in union to the three types of individuals. There being individuals based on emotions, on desires and on reason. For an individual who believes that happiness lies in a kinship or camaraderie, will require the freedom to feel and perform on behalf of their sustenance and well being. An individual who holds desires of whether power, wealth or lust as a corridor towards happiness, shall require the luxury of acting in an attempt for their attainment. An individual who believes knowledge to be the ultimate director towards a fulfilled being, shall need the freedom to question anything or everything in order to departmentalise facts concerning towards finding a larger whole. Individual freedom is crucial to ease all outlines of individuals, and therefore should be the foremost governing ingredient towards the innovation of a right.
Distinct individual freedoms are bound to clash for overlapping wishes for bringing ease to their respective disgruntled lives. For a prosperous shared right to be conventionalised, all individuals must be either persuaded by reason, influence or force into a state of occupation within the realms of a common good that is considerate to each variety of individual interests. Violence and non-violence are two opposing elements which can both be exploited towards reaching a same end. The end I derived is of society caring towards individual freedoms within the rule of a common good. This rule can either be attained through the means of physical harm or mental and societal torment. Violence has always remained a tool towards attaining one’s personal craving and trumping any other wistful contenders. Non violence is no different to violence in apart from replacing physical harm with mental and societal torment towards reaching a conditioned end. A struggle being non-violent cannot be the sole reason as of which an individual’s or a group of individuals need is to be respected and adjusted within the restrictions of a common goal oriented democratic community. The aspect of harm being done to separate individual freedoms and facets of a satisfied living are also to be contemplated. Why use violence or non violence to invent a society which holds individual freedoms at the apex of its provisions? In every community or group of individuals, there is always a minute fraction of beings whose desires are to remain unbound by the confines of a common good and the welfare of a community. These persons of unbound wants cannot be persuaded to see the prospects of living in such a mutual harmony based democratic community, and consequently require something more far effective or coercive to carry them under the observant eye of such a condition of being in order to restrict their personal freedom from conflicting with any other’s. The use or effect of this deployment of violence or non violence can also only be measured in deference to effects on individual freedoms, as they are the only portions that can truly be verified.
Individual freedom is the most achievable ideal form of measure for right, and subsequently justification, as being the only variable in a system of equations designed around human satisfaction that actually can be verified. However, the implementation of such a standard of right requires the extremes of time, resources and labour which not all of the varied human societies possess. I believe there to be three major standards of implementation that have always seemed to exist at varied points of time. The first standard of right is of the established, where a community abides by the most fine print of a collectedly decided upon rule or law by its citizens. They are able do so since they comprise the requisite resources, public support and social harmony needed for such an elaborate human organization to functions proficiently. The second or inferior standard of right is of the establishing, where a community abides by the most crucial and fundamental aspects of right while disregarding the less imperative fine print. In such a community, the citizens either do not withhold the necessary resources or lack social harmony or mass public support to enforce the rules or laws of such a superlative right to the finest extent of its capabilities. For this reason, they rely on the most crucial aspects of supervision. And last and the least preferable standard of right is of the nearly non-existent, where the citizens are preoccupied by far more severe and dire needs of attention like nourishment, shelter, etc to bare a snag to their minds about instituting a collective interest directed module of rules or laws. Such a community is troubled by wars, famine and balkanisation of individual views or outlooks which curb them from imagining a collective strain of thought or voice. Like the distinct individuals of a mutually concerned community, these three varying standards of an identical society need to develop a vision towards the integration of universal, societal and individual interests in order to prolong a healthy running planet and function as a singular organism aiming towards an objective or goal.
In the end, to capsulate the entire matter of distress, we human beings have failed to provide individual freedom with the obligatory extent of our concentration while configuring the right and justified, by outwardly replacing it with conjectures of history, religion or intuition. A satisfied individual is less likely to disrupt the harmonized prospering bond of a cooperative social entity, and hence not hamper advancement and progress from taking place. Like any other proposition of a society, this society also lays vulnerable to the variations of time, space and human behaviour. Nevertheless, it is apt for the present based upon the existing variables harboured from modifications and alterations.