What is Fair and What is Just? | Julian Burnside | TEDxSydney

Summary

In this powerful speech, the speaker delves into the concept of fairness and justice, highlighting our innate sense of justice from a young age and our paradoxical tolerance for injustice when it doesn't directly affect us. Historical examples illustrate society's past acceptance of unfairness, such as women's suffrage and slavery. The speaker challenges the audience's perception of justice through thought experiments and discusses the complexities of a just society, as proposed by philosophers like John Rawls and Avishai Margalit. Personal anecdotes, including the tragic story of a refugee child, underscore the urgency of addressing injustices, particularly in the treatment of refugees. The speech concludes with a call to action, encouraging everyone to stand up for justice and to never give up the fight against injustice.

Takeaways

• 😀 Fairness is a fundamental human instinct that children grasp early in life, often recognizing unfairness before fairness.
• 🤔 People tend to be more tolerant of unfairness when it doesn't directly affect them, overlooking historical injustices like women's suffrage and property rights.
• 🚢 The historical example of the Zorg ship illustrates the appalling consequences of tolerating unfairness, where slaves were thrown overboard for economic reasons.
• 🏛️ Justice, closely related to fairness, is valued but can be elusive and ambiguous, as demonstrated by the thought experiment involving a mother and her children.
• 👨‍💼 John Rawls' theory of a just society emphasizes equal distribution of opportunities and goods, with compensation for starting disadvantages.
• 📚 Avishai Margalit questions whether a just society can tolerate humiliating institutions, arguing that dignity is essential for a meaningful existence.
• 🌎 The distribution of resources, even if just, can be humiliating if the process degrades individuals, as illustrated by the example of rice distribution in a starving community.
• 🔒 The treatment of refugees and aborigines serves as a stark example of how modern societies can still tolerate humiliating institutions.
• 📢 The speaker's personal journey into advocating for refugees was sparked by a tragic incident of a young girl's suicide in a detention center, highlighting the urgent need for justice.
• 💪 The speaker encourages everyone to be passionate about justice, to stand up against injustice, and to ensure that their actions align with these values.

Q & A

What is the main theme of the speech?

The main theme of the speech is the concept of fairness and justice, and how society's tolerance for unfairness can lead to unjust systems and institutions.

Why does the speaker mention historical examples of unfairness?

The speaker mentions historical examples of unfairness to illustrate how society has evolved in its understanding of justice and to highlight the capacity of people to tolerate injustice when it does not directly affect them.

What is the significance of the ship Zorg story in the speech?

The story of the ship Zorg is used to emphasize the appalling consequences of tolerating unfairness and to show how historical injustices were once considered acceptable, leading to horrific acts.

How does the speaker define justice in the context of the thought experiment with the vase?

In the context of the thought experiment, justice is explored through two scenarios that challenge the audience to consider whether the process or the outcome is more important in achieving justice.

What does the speaker suggest about the justice system's tolerance for pockets of unfairness?

The speaker suggests that the justice system is designed to produce right results more often than not, and society tolerates cases of unfairness because the system is generally seen as worth it, as long as one is not personally affected.

Who are John Rawls and Avishai Margalit, and what do they contribute to the discussion?

John Rawls is an American philosopher known for his theory of a just society, which emphasizes equal distribution of opportunities. Avishai Margalit is an Israeli philosopher who questions whether a just society can tolerate humiliating institutions, arguing for the importance of dignity in addition to justice.

What is the example given by Avishai Margalit to illustrate the difference between a just distribution and a humiliating one?

Avishai Margalit uses the example of distributing rice in a starving community, where the same just distribution can be achieved either by handing a bag to each person respectfully or by dumping the bags and having armed guards ensure no one takes more than one, with the latter being humiliating.

Why does the speaker feel passionately about refugee issues?

The speaker feels passionately about refugee issues after discovering the indefinite detention of innocent refugees under deplorable conditions, which they view as a humiliating institution that leads to despair and self-harm.

What was the turning point for the speaker in becoming a public critic of the mistreatment of refugees?

The turning point for the speaker was a phone call informing them about the suicide attempt of a young girl in a detention center, which led them to become a public critic of the mistreatment of refugees.

How does the speaker express their determination to continue advocating for justice despite challenges?

The speaker expresses their determination by stating that they will continue to stand up for justice and never give up, drawing comfort from the fact that they can say 'at least, I tried' with their last breath.

Outlines

00:00

📚 The Concept of Fairness and Justice

The speaker begins by discussing the innate human sense of fairness, noting that children quickly grasp the concept of unfairness. They point out the paradox of our heightened sensitivity to personal injustices versus our tolerance of injustices affecting others. Historical examples are provided to illustrate society's past acceptance of unfair practices, such as women's lack of voting rights and property ownership, and the once-justified slave trade. A thought experiment is introduced to explore different perceptions of justice, contrasting a mother's immediate punishment with a more analytical approach, both leading to different outcomes. The speaker emphasizes the importance of justice and the inherent ambiguity in its application, suggesting that while the justice system may not always be perfect, it is generally accepted as long as one is not personally affected by its flaws.

05:00

🌟 The Impact of Humiliating Institutions on Justice

The speaker delves into the question of whether a just society, as defined by John Rawls, can still harbor humiliating institutions. Avishai Margalit's example of rice distribution in a starving community is used to illustrate how even a just distribution can be degrading if the method of distribution is humiliating. Margalit argues that the possibility of a dignified existence is essential for a meaningful life, and without dignity, other societal goods lose their value. The speaker reflects on the presence of such institutions in their own country, citing the treatment of aborigines and refugees as examples. They share a personal story of a refugee family's tragic experience in a detention center, highlighting the devastating effects of indefinite detention on innocent people. The narrative culminates in a call to action, urging the audience to stand up for justice and to never give up in the face of injustice.

10:02

💪 Standing Up for Justice: Personal Reflections and Call to Action

In the final paragraph, the speaker shares their personal journey as an advocate for refugee rights, detailing the challenges and threats they faced for speaking out against injustice. They recount a specific incident that solidified their resolve to continue fighting for justice, despite the personal cost. The speaker reflects on the importance of standing up for what is right, even when it is difficult, and poses a rhetorical question to the audience about the appropriateness of silence in the face of injustice. They conclude with an impassioned plea for everyone to be passionate about justice, to take action against injustice, and to find the strength to persevere, ensuring that they can look back on their lives with the satisfaction of having made a difference.

Keywords

💡Fairness

Fairness refers to the state of being just, equitable, and impartial. In the script, fairness is described as a profound human instinct that even children understand early in life. It is contrasted with unfairness, which is what remains when fairness is absent. The speaker uses historical examples to illustrate society's past tolerance of unfairness, such as the denial of voting rights to women and the existence of slavery, to highlight how our understanding and application of fairness have evolved over time.

💡Unfairness

Unfairness is the opposite of fairness, indicating a situation where justice or equality is not maintained. The script discusses how people are often more sensitive to unfairness when it directly affects them but can be astonishingly tolerant of unfairness affecting others. This concept is used to critique societal complacency and to emphasize the importance of recognizing and addressing unfairness wherever it occurs.

💡Justice

Justice is the concept of moral rightness based on ethics, law, or natural rights. It is closely aligned with fairness but is also depicted as elusive, particularly in its application. The speaker uses a thought experiment to illustrate the ambiguity of justice, showing that even when the outcome appears just, the process leading to it can be flawed, as in the case of punishing an innocent child based on circumstantial evidence.

💡Injustice

Injustice is the lack of justice or fairness, often resulting in harm or disadvantage to someone. The script mentions that the justice system inevitably creates pockets of unfairness, which are tolerated because the system is designed to produce right results more often than not. However, the speaker points out that those who experience the negative outcomes of such injustices feel the sting of unfairness more acutely.

💡Dignity

Dignity is the state or quality of being worthy of esteem or respect. In the script, dignity is highlighted as fundamental to a contented and meaningful existence. The speaker argues that even a just society can be marred by institutions that humiliate individuals, thereby undermining their dignity. The example of rice distribution in a starving community illustrates how the manner of distribution can either preserve or strip away the dignity of the recipients.

💡Humiliation

Humiliation is the state of being degraded or reduced to a lower status. The script uses the concept of humiliation to critique institutions that, while maintaining a just distribution of resources, do so in a way that demeans and devalues individuals. The speaker emphasizes that the presence of humiliating institutions in a society contradicts the ideal of a just society, as they can lead to despair and self-harm among those affected.

💡Refugees

Refugees are individuals who have been forced to flee their country to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster. In the script, the speaker becomes an advocate for refugees after discovering the injustices they face, such as indefinite detention in poor conditions. The speaker's personal involvement with the refugee issue underscores the human cost of systemic injustice and the importance of standing up for the rights of the vulnerable.

💡Detention

Detention refers to the state of being confined or imprisoned. In the context of the script, detention is used to describe the practice of holding refugees in facilities, often indefinitely and under harsh conditions. The speaker's account of a young girl's suicide in a detention center highlights the devastating impact of detention on the mental health and well-being of those seeking asylum.

💡Advocacy

Advocacy is the act of supporting a cause or arguing for a particular viewpoint. The speaker's transition from a commercial lawyer to a public critic of the mistreatment of refugees exemplifies advocacy. The script details the personal risks and challenges the speaker faced in advocating for justice, emphasizing the courage and commitment required to stand up against systemic injustice.

💡Innocence

Innocence refers to the state of being free from guilt or sin. In the script, the speaker emphasizes the innocence of refugees who are detained despite not having committed any offense. This concept is used to argue against the legitimacy of detention as a form of punishment, and to highlight the moral and ethical issues surrounding the treatment of refugees.

💡Despair

Despair is a feeling of utter hopelessness and loss of confidence in a situation or outcome. The script describes how the prolonged detention of refugees, coupled with the harsh conditions and lack of hope for a better future, can lead to despair. The speaker uses the example of refugees harming themselves as a manifestation of the desperation that arises from such hopelessness.

Highlights

Fairness is a deep human instinct understood from an early age.

People are sensitive to unfairness affecting them but often tolerate it when it affects others.

Historically, society has overlooked significant injustices such as women's suffrage and property rights.

The 18th-century slave trade and the Zorg ship incident highlight past tolerance of extreme injustices.

Justice is closely aligned with fairness but can be elusive in its application.

A thought experiment about a mother and her children illustrates the ambiguity of justice.

The justice system is designed to produce right results more often than not, tolerating some unfairness.

John Rawls' theory suggests a just society provides equal distribution of opportunities.

Avishai Margalit questions if a just society can tolerate humiliating institutions.

Dignity is fundamental to a contented and meaningful existence, beyond material goods.

The treatment of aborigines and refugees in Australia exemplifies humiliating institutions.

The story of a family fleeing Iran and the tragic outcome in a detention center underscores the urgency of justice.

The speaker's personal transformation into a public critic of refugee mistreatment.

The challenges faced by the speaker in advocating for justice, including societal backlash and threats.

The importance of standing up for justice and not remaining silent, even in the face of adversity.

The speaker's resolve to continue fighting for justice, inspired by the potential to make a difference.

A call to action for everyone to be passionate about justice and to stand up against injustice.

Transcripts

Translator: Ilze Garda Reviewer: Denise RQ

I don't know what to say, thank you for that, or not.

Probably not. (Laughter)

I want to talk about fairness.

Fairness is a very profound human instinct.

Children understand fairness from a very early age.

Actually, they understand unfairness.

Fairness is what is left over when unfairness is got rid of,

and everyone understands that.

But although we're very sensitive to unfairness when it affects us,

we have an astonishing capacity

for tolerating unfairness that affects other people.

It's easy to overlook the fact that just over 100 years ago,

men argued sincerely that women should not be allowed to vote.

It's easy to overlook the fact that up to about 150 years ago,

women in Britain were not allowed to own real estate.

It's easy to overlook the fact that until the early 19th century,

people sincerely argued

that the maintenance of the slave trade was essential

for the economic survival of Britain.

It's easy to overlook some of the appalling things

that happened as a result of people's capacity to tolerate unfairness.

In the late 18th century,

a ship called the Zorg set out from the west coast of Africa,

headed for Jamaica, with a cargo of slaves on board.

But it got becalmed, and disease broke out,

and the water supply looked as that might not be enough

for the balance of the voyage,

so Captain Collingwood took 133 living slaves

and threw them overboard to make sure

that they could make the rest of the journey.

Now, not surprisingly, this ended up in court in London

not, as you might think, on a charge of mass murder,

but on an insurance claim for the value of the lost slaves.

I would hope that things like that couldn't happen these days,

although sometimes it's not easy to be confident.

Now, justice is closely aligned to fairness,

although it is also somewhat elusive in the way that it is applied.

Justice is something we all value in the same way that we value fairness,

but I wonder how much we understand it.

Try this thought experiment:

imagine that it's the last day of school holidays,

mom has had a pretty difficult time, the kids have been ratty all day,

she's in the kitchen preparing dinner, and she hears a crush in the living room.

She rushes in, the kids have disappeared,

but her best, most valuable, most precious vase

is smashed to bits on the half.

Scenario 1:

She knows with the certainty that mothers have

(Laughter)

that it was the boy who did it.

She finds him, punishes him, and sends him to bed without dinner.

As it happened, he did do it.

Scenario 2: Having done an undergraduate degree in law,

she decides that she should try and discover the facts,

so she goes, and she asks each of the children in turn

for their version of events.

She puts all the evidence together as carefully and analytically as she can,

utterly dispassionate about it,

comes to the conclusion it was the boy who did it,

she finds him, punishes him, and sends him to bed without dinner.

As it happens, he didn't do it.

Now, which of those scenarios is closer to your conception of justice?

Most people can't answer that question quickly,

and that tells you the ambiguity of justice.

Justice is very important, of course,

and especially it's important when it is marred by injustice.

The justice system inevitably creates pockets of unfairness,

but we think that it's OK

because the justice system is calculated to produce

the right results more often than not,

and we tolerate cases of unfairness because the system itself is worth it.

That is OK,

as long as you are not the one who pays the price.

If your the one who gets a dead result,

then you will feel the sting of unfairness more sharply

because no one else is prepared to understand why you're complaining.

Now, justice in society is an even larger and more difficult problem.

John Rawls, the American philosopher, came up with a spectacular theory

for a just society.

Summarizing, it was that a just society would provide for an equal distribution

of the opportunity for all the goods that society has to offer;

on terms of equal opportunity for everyone,

but in cases of starting disadvantage, you could compensate for them

in what we would call affirmative action.

And this, he said, would provide a just society.

The Israeli philosopher Avishai Margalit

posed a fascinating and important question.

He said if you have a society which is just in Rawlsian terms,

is it possible for that society

to tolerate the existence of humiliating institutions?

Now, of course, the first thing is to say, "Well, what does he mean by that?"

He meant it really literally, and he gives an example.

He gives the example of a community in some country

where the community is of 100 people,

they are all starving, they all need some rice,

and there is a truck that comes in with 100 bags of rice.

Each person should get one bag of rice,

and that would produce a just Rawlsian distribution.

But there are two ways in which the rice can be distributed.

One would be to take a bag of rice and hand it to each person in the village.

The alternative would be to tip it all off the back of the truck,

and have a couple of armed guards standing around,

so that no one tries to take more than one bag.

Both, he points out, will lead to a just distribution,

satisfying Rawls's condition, but the second is humiliating.

He then argues

- and it's a devastatingly effective argument -

that the possibility of dignity

is fundamental to a contented and meaningful existence.

And if you do not have the possibility of a dignified existence,

then all of the other goods in society lose their point.

He says - and I'm sorry I have to quote -

"The distribution may be both efficient and just, yet still humiliating.

The claim that there can be bad manners in a Just Society may seem petty,

confusing the major issue of ethics with the minor one of etiquette,

but it's not petty.

It reflects an old fear that justice may lack compassion

and might even be an expression of vindictiveness."

If you consider the application of Rawles's theory to any society,

his meaning runs very deep.

Unfortunately, we think that we run a just society,

and yet, we tolerate humiliating institutions,

and it's not difficult to find them.

The treatment of aborigines in our country over the last century

has been a profound example.

The treatment of refugees in our country now is a living example,

and one which has occupied a lot of my time.

Now, I'm passionate about justice,

and when I stumbled into the area of refugee issues

and discovered, to my horror,

that refugees don't commit any offence, but they get locked up indefinitely,

and they get locked up in dreadful conditions,

and they gradually lose hope.

And when hope runs out,

they fall into despair and start to harm themselves,

and try to kill themselves, and sew their lips together, and so on.

All of these things are deeply distressing to anyone who is concerned with justice

because the detention of innocent human beings

is, on any view of things, a humiliating institution

which drives people into despair.

I thought, when I stumbled into the area,

that perhaps getting the truth across to the public

would resolve the problem.

It turns out I was wrong about that. It took a little longer.

Although I'm passionate about justice, I sometimes wonder

whether my resolve might have given way,

until I got a call, a telephone call that changed my life.

Backstory to the call:

a family fled Iran in terrible circumstances.

They belonged to a goup who were regarded as unclean

and suffered the consequences of that assessment.

They fled Iran in terrible circumstances one night:

mom and dad, and two young girls

who at that relevant time were 7 and 11 years old.

They were locked up in Woomera Detention Centre.

After about 15 months, they were all doing it hard,

but especially the 11-year-old girl who had completely given up.

She was assessed by a visiting psychiatrist

as being at extreme risk of harm.

It was urged on the department

that the family should be moved to a metropolitan detention centre,

so this kid could get daily clinical help which she needed.

Eventually, they were moved to Maribyrnong in the western suburbs of Melbourne.

There, although the reason for moving them

was that that child needed daily psychiatric help,

for the first 18 days of their stay in Maribyrnong,

nobody came to see her.

Not a psychiatrist, not a psychologist, not a doctor,

not a nurse, not a clinician, not a social worker, nobody at all.

And on the Sunday night in May of 2002,

while her mother, father and young sister were off having their dinner,

this little kid took a bed sheet and hanged herself,

alone in their cell, in Maribyrnong Detention Centre.

When the family came back and found her still strangling,

she was taken down,

and she and her mother were taken to the nearby general hospital

with two guards - so they were still, as a matter of legal analysis,

in immigration detention -

the lawyer who had been looking after their visa application

heard about it, went to the hospital at 9 o'clock that night,

said "G'day" to the guards, said he just wanted to speak to the mother

to see what they could do to help.

The guards said, "No.

You are not allowed to see them

because lawyer's visiting hours in immigration detention are 9 to 17."

And they sent him away.

He then rang me at home and told me the story,

and that telephone call changed everything for me.

It led me to being,

I guess, a public critic of the mistreatment of refugees.

It's been not easy,

it's not an easy thing actually for a timid little commercial lawyer

to be loathed by many people in the community,

to receive death threats

because I'm trying to stand up for people who are being mistreated by us.

So now, 13 years after that telephone call,

I find us in a circumstance

where things are getting worse and worse, it seems, by the day.

In fact, I'd never thought I would say this,

but the combination of Abbott and Morrison

made me wish that we could have Howard and Ruddock back.

(Laughter)

But, please, don't quote me!

(Applause)

But my resolution firmed one evening

when Kate and I were at a glittering social function,

and the wife of a very senior, very respected colleague

came up to me and said rather harshly,

"Do you think it appropriate that a member of the bar

should speak publicly about these matters?"

And with more wit than preparation, I said,

"Well, do you think it appropriate to know about these matters and remain silent?"

(Applause)

She hasn't spoken to me since.

(Laughter)

But while I suspect that this struggle will not end in my lifetime,

I have at least the comfort of knowing

that with my last breath I will be able to say,

"At least, I tried,"

instead of, "I wish I had done something."

And it occurred to me,

as I was thinking about what to talk about this afternoon,

all of you can do the same.

All of you can have the same comfort in knowing

that you can with your last breath say, "At least, I tried."

And all you have to do is to be passionate about justice,

to stand up against injustice whenever you see it,

and say that whatever you do, in whatever area you live,

make sure you stand up for justice.

Stand up for justice and never ever give up!

Thank you.

(Applause)

(Standing ovations)