9 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Incredible Insight-Transformational observations, December 25, 2001
By A Customer
The title is slightly misleading-it is ideas that are always in conflict. The measure of Justice is how those conflicts are dealt with. The transformational concept presented by Hampshire is that which side of the argument prevails is not nearly as important as the system used to determine which side prevails. He observes that there are always arguments to be made on each side of a difference of opinion whether it be pro or anti abortion or pro or anti assisted suicide or pro or anti welfare state or pro or con on ethnic cleansing. The important thing to a civilized society is that when decisions are made on these issues that both winners and losers in the debate accept the outcome peacefully rather than degenerating into violence. The measure of Justice is the willingness of the interested parties to accept the result peacefully rather than resorting to violence. If there is to be any hope of peace in the world it is through the kind of Justice that Hampshire describes, where parties in conflict are willing to trust institutions rather than war to eventually determine which side will prevail. As a measure of Hampshire's power of persuasion, he won me over even though I am quite conservative while he describes himself as a liberal who holds a number of opinions on social issues I strongly disagree with.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
16 of 32 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
The foundations of our justice, July 26, 2000
This review is from: Justice Is Conflict (Hardcover)
Like the superb book "A Darwinian Left" by Peter Singer, this is a marvelous discourse on one of the fundamental principles of our society -- for anyone who wonders about the meaning of life, both are fascinating excursions into the realm of new thought.
This book is founded on an image out of the Middle Ages -- when two men, wrapped from head to toe in gleaming steel, carrying wicked lances, mounted on massive horses, charged full speed at each other to settle disputes about truth and justice in the confrontational medieval way.
That, in essence, is the basis of `Justice is Conflict.' It's been the basis of Anglo-Saxon justice for at least a millennia, and for unknown hundreds of years before that. It's far from the idea that "might is right," instead it embodies that God is on the side of the just. Movies always depict it in that manner. From the meekest knight to the American fictional cowboy with a six-gun on his hip, justice always triumphs. It's a confrontational system of justice based on combat, as explained by Thomas Jefferson when he said he was not afraid to tolerate error "so long as reason is left free to combat it." The key word is "combat." Today, when lawyers challenge each other in court battles, they are staging a ritual re-enactment of those old jousts.
In contrast, the Navajo spirit of K'e emphasizes a consensus system of justice. The goal is not that God can be counted on to favor the just; instead, it is a search to find truth and thus assess blame properly. There's usually no clear "Guilty" and "Innocent" verdict; instead, blame is assessed on a proportional basis. In other words, even if you are guilty, perhaps you are only 90 percent guilty. Perhaps the other person did contribute somewhat to the problem. Perhaps the solution requires a compromise to achieve justice. Harmony, rather than win-loss absolutism, is prized.
Hampshire is undoubtedly correct in asserting that our society is based on the ethics of confrontation; he asserts this eternal "conflict" produced our modern world. He's very persuasive; and, as a friend used to say, "Interesting . . . if true." But, what was the situation a thousand years ago when Europe was the weakest and most backward region in the world. The question then, is whether transforming the direct confrontation system of justice into a careful and precise ritualized procedure made all the difference, or were other factors involved in European society becoming dominant.
Twenty-five hundred years ago, Plato argued for the Navajo approach -- reason should be used to achieve agreement and harmony among warring ideas. That was at a time when society worshipped a pantheon of gods; two thousand years ago, the concept of a single God began to take hold. The same idea took hold in matters of justice; instead of a panopoly of truths, people began to seek one truth -- a person was either guilty or innocent, with no Mr. Inbetween. Justicfe became an all-or-nothing decision. Forget about the middle of the road, the only thing you find there are yellow stripes and dead armadillos. As Thomas Paine said in 1792 in `The Rights of Man,' "moderation in principle is always a vice."
Hampshire, like Singer, goes to the heart of what makes our society tick -- perhaps. It's a book for readers who like to think about philosophy and the fundamental roots of our society. These books will make you think; for people who love ideas, Hampshire and Singer are two original thinkers. Both are eminently worth buying.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
