The Justice Project
What is justice, or at least my idea of it? This is the main question that I feel this entire unit aims to answer and help us students discover. We first became versed with different ideas of justice, discovering things like utilitarianism or compassion as justice. The first step of this project was really to discover some of the baseline ideas of what some different ideas of justice are, and so that set us on the path to question our own idea of justice and is the point where I figured out I highly value autonomy, the ability and freedom to make choices about one’s self and happiness. And so I applied this to my first justice monologue, as kind of a question of how punishment works when one’s own autonomy is one of the things that should be honored most, especially when considering that punishment; at least as it applies in this country, actively takes away autonomy.
This broad question of Justice was narrowed down for our next monologue, to the question of what is environmental justice? In this we learned a lot about land usage, and especially about how certain communities are actively being taken advantage of by things like oil and gas. So when we specifically chose our environmental justice, my take was geared towards intergenerational misjustice, this was the monologue that had the most personal investment given that I have a lot of strong feelings regarding the planet my generation is going to inherit. And that relates back to my main idea of justice, in that I feel my generation's autonomy and choice for the future is being made by people who won’t be around to see the consequences.
And that led us to the finale of this project. We were given free reign to choose a topic of misjustice to approach, which is actually one of my favorite things about this project given that I felt more invested about really learning about this topic. For my final Justice project, I approached the issue of systematic disregard for human life for material gain, and the place where I really saw that is the pharmaceutical field. And so my final product was an adpiece with the aim of drawing attention and thought, to kind of insite some sort of interior visceral reaction within my audience.
This broad question of Justice was narrowed down for our next monologue, to the question of what is environmental justice? In this we learned a lot about land usage, and especially about how certain communities are actively being taken advantage of by things like oil and gas. So when we specifically chose our environmental justice, my take was geared towards intergenerational misjustice, this was the monologue that had the most personal investment given that I have a lot of strong feelings regarding the planet my generation is going to inherit. And that relates back to my main idea of justice, in that I feel my generation's autonomy and choice for the future is being made by people who won’t be around to see the consequences.
And that led us to the finale of this project. We were given free reign to choose a topic of misjustice to approach, which is actually one of my favorite things about this project given that I felt more invested about really learning about this topic. For my final Justice project, I approached the issue of systematic disregard for human life for material gain, and the place where I really saw that is the pharmaceutical field. And so my final product was an adpiece with the aim of drawing attention and thought, to kind of insite some sort of interior visceral reaction within my audience.
Monologue #1
When you consider the life and existence of all living things, a constant across all is the desire for continued existence. Essentially we’re all just trying our best to live our lives, and that’s what forms my belief in Justice. To me, Justice is the guarantee from society, or rather the greater rule of law to all of its denizens to allow them peaceful happy lives within society. Justice forms and upholds the moral parameters of how we should act as members of society. In my eyes this is simply the shared appreciation and understanding that each individual is just trying to live their lives happily. And so in a word, what defines my concept of justice, is autonomy.
The Dalai Lama believes in compassion as the truest form of justice, that compassion in justice drives the best outcomes when it comes to punishment for wrongdoing. “Nothing in the principle of compassion---the wish to see others relieved of suffering—involves surrendering to the misdeeds of others. Nor does compassion demand that we meekly accept injustice.” This concept I can accept, I agree with the principle of the desire to see others relieved of suffering. That we can use compassion to understand each other and the contexts/feelings/circumstance to work toward greater outcomes in situations where someone has done wrong. However it begs the question about punishment in regards to these cases, specifically how much is an individual defined by their actions, and is there a point where we can no longer separate the individual from their actions?
I believe that in the practice of Justice, the Lama’s point about separating the perpetrator from the crime is considerable and important within our consideration of Justice. But at what point is the individual defined by their actions? Most situations lie in a sea of grey morality, for which the Lama’s idea of justice is very applicable, it helps clear away the fog of bias in a just determination. However, what about when an individual has in no question committed a heinous and reprehensible act, to such a degree that it is debatable whether they should continue living? On punishment the Lama writes “To my mind, the purpose of punishment isn’t to inflict suffering as an end in itself. Rather the suffering inflicted by punishment should have a higher purpose, namely to discourage the wrongdoer from repeating the offence and to deter others from similar acts. Punishment is, therefore, not about retribution but deterrence.” Punishment as a higher purpose to benefit society makes sense, but what about the deterrence piece? In theory shouldn’t there be ultimate crimes? Things that societally a human being should never do and as such would be met with an equal deterrent, death.
This is where Howard Zinn’s Law and Justice comes in. He contemplates the differences between the rule of law and the rule of men, and the similarities/differences between the whims of a system and an individual as it pertains to Justice. “But those advantages lead us to overlook the fact that the modern era, replacing the arbitrary rule of men with the impartial rule of law, has not brought any fundamental change in the facts of unequal wealth and unequal power.[...] Except that this no longer seems to be the arbitrary action of the feudal lord or the King; it now has the authority of neutral unpersonal law.” This quote highlights just why the death penalty shouldn’t have a place in the human rule of law, as well as just why I believe the perfect form of autonomous justice can’t exist. Zinn posits that the rule of law is just as subject to the whims of powerful men/entities as the rule of men. “In the era of corporate bureaucracies, and representative assemblies, and the rule of law, the enemy is elusive and unidentifiable.”
To summarize my point, I believe that within our practice of justice as a society it is important to implement an element of compassion and understanding within our deliberation of punishment. For the most part I agree that if we approach defendants with compassion and understanding with things like circumstance, it can lead to much greater outcomes for previous offenders. However I think this compassion only goes as far as the understanding of how a reasonable person should function in society goes. What I mean by this is that there should be certain lines drawn in the sand by a perfect legal justice system, for which an individual should never cross. In a perfect justice system, one of absolute impartiality and understanding concepts like the death penalty might have a place as ultimate societal detterents to protect the autonomy of the masses. However because our justice is tied to the rule of law and as such the whims of people, a perfect Justice system is in my opinion impossible.
The Dalai Lama believes in compassion as the truest form of justice, that compassion in justice drives the best outcomes when it comes to punishment for wrongdoing. “Nothing in the principle of compassion---the wish to see others relieved of suffering—involves surrendering to the misdeeds of others. Nor does compassion demand that we meekly accept injustice.” This concept I can accept, I agree with the principle of the desire to see others relieved of suffering. That we can use compassion to understand each other and the contexts/feelings/circumstance to work toward greater outcomes in situations where someone has done wrong. However it begs the question about punishment in regards to these cases, specifically how much is an individual defined by their actions, and is there a point where we can no longer separate the individual from their actions?
I believe that in the practice of Justice, the Lama’s point about separating the perpetrator from the crime is considerable and important within our consideration of Justice. But at what point is the individual defined by their actions? Most situations lie in a sea of grey morality, for which the Lama’s idea of justice is very applicable, it helps clear away the fog of bias in a just determination. However, what about when an individual has in no question committed a heinous and reprehensible act, to such a degree that it is debatable whether they should continue living? On punishment the Lama writes “To my mind, the purpose of punishment isn’t to inflict suffering as an end in itself. Rather the suffering inflicted by punishment should have a higher purpose, namely to discourage the wrongdoer from repeating the offence and to deter others from similar acts. Punishment is, therefore, not about retribution but deterrence.” Punishment as a higher purpose to benefit society makes sense, but what about the deterrence piece? In theory shouldn’t there be ultimate crimes? Things that societally a human being should never do and as such would be met with an equal deterrent, death.
This is where Howard Zinn’s Law and Justice comes in. He contemplates the differences between the rule of law and the rule of men, and the similarities/differences between the whims of a system and an individual as it pertains to Justice. “But those advantages lead us to overlook the fact that the modern era, replacing the arbitrary rule of men with the impartial rule of law, has not brought any fundamental change in the facts of unequal wealth and unequal power.[...] Except that this no longer seems to be the arbitrary action of the feudal lord or the King; it now has the authority of neutral unpersonal law.” This quote highlights just why the death penalty shouldn’t have a place in the human rule of law, as well as just why I believe the perfect form of autonomous justice can’t exist. Zinn posits that the rule of law is just as subject to the whims of powerful men/entities as the rule of men. “In the era of corporate bureaucracies, and representative assemblies, and the rule of law, the enemy is elusive and unidentifiable.”
To summarize my point, I believe that within our practice of justice as a society it is important to implement an element of compassion and understanding within our deliberation of punishment. For the most part I agree that if we approach defendants with compassion and understanding with things like circumstance, it can lead to much greater outcomes for previous offenders. However I think this compassion only goes as far as the understanding of how a reasonable person should function in society goes. What I mean by this is that there should be certain lines drawn in the sand by a perfect legal justice system, for which an individual should never cross. In a perfect justice system, one of absolute impartiality and understanding concepts like the death penalty might have a place as ultimate societal detterents to protect the autonomy of the masses. However because our justice is tied to the rule of law and as such the whims of people, a perfect Justice system is in my opinion impossible.
Monologue #2
The historical negligent mismanagement and use of land in the pursuit of material gain has left the global environment in shambles. Now, the future generations are forced to inherit an aftermath in a world which we did not envision nor create. As such it is the obligation of the older generation currently in power to begin the initiatives that may guarantee the futures of their children, even if the fruits of such labor only manifest decades down the line.
For a very long time we as people have idealised the future, as always better than now, like a false prophet preaching salvation from upon his mound of offerings. We have followed along with the advancement of industry, in anticipation of the exciting new future it claims will come. Yet now, for the first time, the future promises not the grandiose dreams of future technologies and advanced civilisation, but the collapse of our global environment while our economies spiral downward.
The national climate assessment of 2018 states[2] “Climate change has already had observable impacts on biodiversity, ecosystems, and the benefits they provide to society. These impacts include the migration of native species… and the spread of invasive species. Such changes are projected to continue, and without substantial and sustained reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions.” This is to say, that the planet has already been directly impacted by climate, and is only projected to get worse at the current rate. The new generations are stuck inheriting a dying planet. And so it is the job of those in power right now to begin the initiatives that will manifest as a just future for the next generations.
What should a just future include? The principles of environmental justice[1] touches on many aspects of this topic. The 17th principle states: “Environmental Justice requires that we, as individuals, make personal and consumer choices to consume as little of Mother Earth's resources and to produce as little waste as possible; and make the conscious decision to challenge and reprioritize our lifestyles to ensure the health of the natural world for present and future generations.”
In other words, the next generation should have equal opportunity for the planet’s boon. That should come in the form of efforts towards global sustainable energy so that hazardous energy sources may become obsolete..
This in turn can work to preserve our natural environments for the future. There are already companies working towards this. Such as the marine conservation initiative. Their mission aims for marine conservation and sustainable management of marine ecosystems. They create high priority conservation targets such as working to stop overfishing and habitat degradation. This demonstrates how generally as a species we should seek justice by making steps to let the planet recover from the destruction caused by our industry and to move toward a future guaranteed for the next generations by investing in initiatives, such as the Marine Conservation Initiative.
In her writing, ‘The Pall of Our Unrest’[4] Terry Tempest Williams sums up the folly of the old generations. “We have cajoled and seduced ourselves into believing we are the center of all things; with plants and other sentient beings …. remaining subservient to our whims, desires, and needs. This is a lethal lie that will be seen by future generations ….[as] a grave moral sin committed and buried in the name of ignorance and arrogance.”
Despite this folly; it still isn’t too late. The future isn't set and we can still see changes through projects like the Marine Conservation Initiative. There still may be a just future, those in power just need to plant the seeds that will make the difference decades down the line.
Justice Ad/ Artist Statement
Do you remember when cable television drug ads would zip through all the mandatory associated risks at something like 20x speed? You couldn’t really understand what any of the risks actually were, but sometimes you might catch a word or two, such as ‘risk of fatality’ or ‘may cause bleeding from the eyes’. That’s like a microcosm of the questionable practice found within American corporate pharmaceuticals, for example when Purdue Pharma went to the extent of merchandising opioids[2]. “Purdue aggressively distributed branded promotional items to healthcare professionals, including OxyContin fishing hats, stuffed animals, and music CDs, a move unprecedented for a Schedule II opioid.” Or when they specifically trained staff to downplay the risks of Oxycontin, saying that it isn't actually super addictive. “Finally, Purdue severely misrepresented the risks of OxyContin, training its sales representatives to carry the message that the risk of addiction was less than 1%. While an affiliate of Purdue, alongside three company executives, pled guilty to criminal charges for misbranding OxyContin by claiming it was less subject to abuse and addiction than other opioids” Essentially corporate pharmacy is littered with sit sort of knowing corruption, where they are actively making decisions that will negatively impact and exacerbate our society and its issues.
The purpose of my project is to create a satirical piece in the vaine of Adbusters, with the intent of highlighting the two faced nature of corporate pharmacy in America. My piece depicts a child receiving a bag of Oxycontin pills from some sort of doctor/dentist figure. The intent is for this to be seen as a dentist given the child’s swollen face and a tooth related poster in the background, but unfortunately I neglected a lot of the other details that might paint this figure as a dentist. The actual detail of the child receiving the pills for pain is a reference to the real life lobbying by corporate Pharmacies to include “pain” as a metric to receive narcotics[2], whereas all other metrics are concrete and non subjective. This obviously created a major fault that could be abused given that pain is only able to be measured subjectively by the patient. This is where the right hand on the side of the image comes in, this is representative of a greater corporate entity providing the opioids to be distributed, the red glove is supposed to suggest this entity as questionable or bad. My piece as a whole is made in a satirical vein, but it's really interesting how it rubs up with some legitimate practices by actual companies. It's almost like if you took away the red glove, this piece could exist (albeit in a more refined form) as an actual advertisement from a corrupt pharmaceutical company in another reality, because in truth we’ve already seen this sort of thing before.
The purpose of my project is to create a satirical piece in the vaine of Adbusters, with the intent of highlighting the two faced nature of corporate pharmacy in America. My piece depicts a child receiving a bag of Oxycontin pills from some sort of doctor/dentist figure. The intent is for this to be seen as a dentist given the child’s swollen face and a tooth related poster in the background, but unfortunately I neglected a lot of the other details that might paint this figure as a dentist. The actual detail of the child receiving the pills for pain is a reference to the real life lobbying by corporate Pharmacies to include “pain” as a metric to receive narcotics[2], whereas all other metrics are concrete and non subjective. This obviously created a major fault that could be abused given that pain is only able to be measured subjectively by the patient. This is where the right hand on the side of the image comes in, this is representative of a greater corporate entity providing the opioids to be distributed, the red glove is supposed to suggest this entity as questionable or bad. My piece as a whole is made in a satirical vein, but it's really interesting how it rubs up with some legitimate practices by actual companies. It's almost like if you took away the red glove, this piece could exist (albeit in a more refined form) as an actual advertisement from a corrupt pharmaceutical company in another reality, because in truth we’ve already seen this sort of thing before.
Project Defense/Reflection
For the project piece of my Justice project, I chose to play into relevant feelings; personal and otherwise, regarding corporate and systematic corruptions that take advantage of people and disadvantaged communities. It’s a very broad way of stating my project approach to the topic of injustice, so a narrower case that I focused on is pharmaceuticals and how corporate pharmacy is exacerbating systemic issues such as opioid addiction and overdose for greater profit. This is why I chose to create an advertisement, in the vaine of something from adbusters; The objective was to create an image that would make for kind of a sobering deadpan reaction from the audience, the idea being to pass a horrifying concept off as normal in the context of the advertisement.
So in my first justice monologue, I tried to talk about my belief in a person's right to autonomy and life. Essentially I believe we should all be free to live our lives independently of any third party to guarantee this.The Dalai Lama wrote about treating each other with compassion as the best way of handling justice, and I completely agree when it comes to the matter of people just trying to live life.
This is why I took the stance I did for the environmental Justice monologue; I feel I see a trend where the younger generation’s guarantee for the future is being taken before we are really getting a chance to try and fix things. And it's really frustrating to know all the people whose decisions would matter in this case, will likely be dead by the time the consequences of their choices come to fruition in full force. So relating back to my choice to pursue pharmaceutical injustice specifically; that’s because I see the people's trust in the doctors and medicine meant to help them is being abused in a matter that is creating addicts and destroying lives. And so at the very core of this issue, is the disregard for human life for greater personal profit from these companies. It’s seeing articles like this, that motivates me to pursue this specific topic of injustice.
So that gets to my actual project. Part of my choice to create an ad was a consideration of my talents and interests. I felt I would be more engaged in a project that had creative/fun aspects to it; however I think there was a surprising amount of value, particularly in the research that went into the ideation phase of my topic. My idea was to raise awareness/thought about this particular issue with pharmaceutical companies by making an advertisement that looks real but depicts an absurd scenario. So in this vein, I depicted a drug ad for toothaches, except the drug is oxycontin and the audience (at least in the ad) is a child. So as to why the actual research struck me, it’s because the research made the depicted scenario in my advertisement feel much less absurd than I anticipated. In my research I discovered there’ s actually quite a bit going on that’s relevant to themes in my ad, real issues such as downplaying dangerous substances, or withholding life saving ones at the highest bidder. The point is that it was much more blatant than I expected, and that honestly validated the actual message from my ad that much more.
At the beginning of this project I had in mind a very professional ad piece, something that could pass as almost real. The intent was to advertise an absurd concept as normal, and in this area I feel both failure and success. The realism piece that would help craft a greater reaction was lost in my final product, it wasn’t something that looked clean or professional enough to pass as such. Part of this is because of a failure on my part to learn and understand the online drawing format. I have strengths in drawing via traditional pencil and paper that I should’ve played with when considering learning the online format, and as a result my final product looked like a more basic drawing. As to my success, in my project proposal I mentioned making something also in the vein of adbusters. So where I failed to create a realistic advert that will elicit a response, I succeeded in the actual messaging. There’s a lot in the metaphoric images of the advert that references legitimate and actual aspects of my topic I’m trying to highlight. In the research aspect of this project, there was a lot that I learned to help me add lots of small details to my ad piece that made it feel relevant.
So in my first justice monologue, I tried to talk about my belief in a person's right to autonomy and life. Essentially I believe we should all be free to live our lives independently of any third party to guarantee this.The Dalai Lama wrote about treating each other with compassion as the best way of handling justice, and I completely agree when it comes to the matter of people just trying to live life.
This is why I took the stance I did for the environmental Justice monologue; I feel I see a trend where the younger generation’s guarantee for the future is being taken before we are really getting a chance to try and fix things. And it's really frustrating to know all the people whose decisions would matter in this case, will likely be dead by the time the consequences of their choices come to fruition in full force. So relating back to my choice to pursue pharmaceutical injustice specifically; that’s because I see the people's trust in the doctors and medicine meant to help them is being abused in a matter that is creating addicts and destroying lives. And so at the very core of this issue, is the disregard for human life for greater personal profit from these companies. It’s seeing articles like this, that motivates me to pursue this specific topic of injustice.
So that gets to my actual project. Part of my choice to create an ad was a consideration of my talents and interests. I felt I would be more engaged in a project that had creative/fun aspects to it; however I think there was a surprising amount of value, particularly in the research that went into the ideation phase of my topic. My idea was to raise awareness/thought about this particular issue with pharmaceutical companies by making an advertisement that looks real but depicts an absurd scenario. So in this vein, I depicted a drug ad for toothaches, except the drug is oxycontin and the audience (at least in the ad) is a child. So as to why the actual research struck me, it’s because the research made the depicted scenario in my advertisement feel much less absurd than I anticipated. In my research I discovered there’ s actually quite a bit going on that’s relevant to themes in my ad, real issues such as downplaying dangerous substances, or withholding life saving ones at the highest bidder. The point is that it was much more blatant than I expected, and that honestly validated the actual message from my ad that much more.
At the beginning of this project I had in mind a very professional ad piece, something that could pass as almost real. The intent was to advertise an absurd concept as normal, and in this area I feel both failure and success. The realism piece that would help craft a greater reaction was lost in my final product, it wasn’t something that looked clean or professional enough to pass as such. Part of this is because of a failure on my part to learn and understand the online drawing format. I have strengths in drawing via traditional pencil and paper that I should’ve played with when considering learning the online format, and as a result my final product looked like a more basic drawing. As to my success, in my project proposal I mentioned making something also in the vein of adbusters. So where I failed to create a realistic advert that will elicit a response, I succeeded in the actual messaging. There’s a lot in the metaphoric images of the advert that references legitimate and actual aspects of my topic I’m trying to highlight. In the research aspect of this project, there was a lot that I learned to help me add lots of small details to my ad piece that made it feel relevant.