Some thought on ethics and social justice

This is a paper I wrote for my Intro to philosophy class:

Callie Pool
Intro to Philosophy
November 27, 2007
Philosophy
Ethics: Chapters 11 and 12

I think these two chapters have been the most interesting by far, and the most challenging. When I think of ethics, I think of social justice, something that I am very passionate about. I’ve never thought about why I do it. I admit, at times I get caught up the crowd, but mostly, it just seemed like the right thing to do: alleviate pain and hunger from children, clothe and shoe needy Africans, show love to people of all backgrounds and walks of life. Leaving God out of it, isn’t this what we’re supposed to do as human beings? For the greater good?
According to Rachels, in Thrasymachus’s time, the definition of justice was something real and important. Thrasymachus had to convince his acquaintances and colleagues of his idea that people believe in right and wrong only to obey the rules of their society. He wanted objective truth. Herein lies the challenge: Is ethics nothing more than human invention?
It is true that different cultures have different ideas on what is right and wrong. More definitively, I think they have customs that are debatable to us as Americans. Think of the war between us and the Iraqis. Do they really think they are doing anything wrong? And who are we to tell them that they are? They have been doing things (relating to women, government, etc) that way for centuries. Not to say that we can’t accept or formulate change, but who are we to tell them that their women should not wear full body scarves? As Rachels says, “Respecting a culture does not mean that we must regard everything in it as acceptable.” Rights of women is another subject that is close to my heart, but for this matter, we’ll leave it be. Nevertheless, the right and wrong culture seems inbred in all of us. Even if our cultural customs are different, one long standing fact remains. It’s not whether or not the social issues are bad for us, or we agree with them or don’t but if they are bad for the people who are the victims. Rachels, however, goes as far as to say that there is no such thing as objective right and wrong. Who decides? Who has the answer? This could lead to all sorts of discussions about good and evil, free will or determinism, or God. My mind wants to go there, but I’ll steer it back to Ethics.
A final thing I noticed was the similarities and differences between ethics and science. Who would have thought that something as calculated as science could be compared to something as emotional and passionate as ethics? They are both alike in the number of disagreements that exist. But, they are different in terms of value. It could be argued that decisions about science could determine life or death, but ethical arguments, though they may not solve anything, most decidedly do so. But what is value? Does it exist objectively? Rachels says that, “values do not exist, at least not in the same way as rocks and rivers.” What this tells me, then, pessimistically, is that according to the way different cultures interpret right and wrong, and the values that do no exist objectively, there is no logical reason why we pursue social justice. Is it because it is consciously right? Are we really sure that even if we do donate to a “good cause” that it will be recognized and used for what it was intended? Consider this: What if a social justice organization gave $1,000 to be put towards the rights of women in Iraq? Would they understand or appreciate it at all? Is this really communicable across cultures?
I have to conclude, for my own sanity, that I will still support social justice causes, whether the money or time I give is used appropriately or not. Call it conscious thought, reason or whatever. It’s a decision from passion, and that’s what ethics is all about, right?