Essay Sample on The Science of Morality and the Concept of Injustice

The world has been witness to a considerable amount of injustice since time immemorial. One would think that perhaps from the particular historical events like colonialism and slave trade, which were the epitome of injustice, a lesson was perceived. However, despite the numerous unpleasant events, the attempts to amendments went down the drain. The variations drawn from such happenings were intense to the extent that correction of such injustices bore more injustices. Cultures and societies all in a bid to mould morally upright individuals ended up creating more differences. In understanding the concept of morality, it is essential to comprehend its definition. Wong (2013) explained that morality had a vast range of diversity and that it is a kind of intuition indicating perceived permissions and requirements. Morality is a form of guidance for the evaluation and engagement of behavior and attitudes (Wong, 2013). A distinction exists in morality when looking at the descriptive and normative senses (Wong, 2013).In the descriptive sense, people follow what they want, and it may be wrong, and the normative sense indicates the correct guide (Wong, 2013). Morality in practice is the descriptive kind, which is a product of belief and conceptions by the mind. Sam Harris believes that science could eventually offer answers to questions of right and wrong in morality (TED, 2010). The inclusion of science as a means of responding to morality queries proves that the mind is the main driver, for what the brain decodes translates into words and actions. The same way feelings and beliefs define morality; they also determine what is just and fair. Even though people reserve the right to free will of thoughts and actions when it comes to morality, it should not be the reason for committing injustice.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Should Freedom of Speech be a Rationale for Injustice?

What Say You on this Issue?

Freedom of speech, association and expression are integral for human well-being. One should be in a position to express themselves in accordance to what they hold dear as facts. Sam Harris indicated that we could not stand in the way of how different people think and feel because when it comes to morality, there is no certainty in expertise (TED, 2010). The overall well-being or flourishing of human beings depends on the mind. People's brains adapt to the cultures they interact with and hence the decision of whether one thing is wrong or right counts on the type of information and data the minds feeds. When it comes to the concept of injustice, Heinze (2013) argued that the lack of justice, its failure or negation does not necessarily make it an injustice. The constant norms, traditions and values associated with justice together with its regimes are what constitutes injustice (Heinze, 2013). For Heinz (2013), one cannot always correct an injustice with acts of justice because sometimes, justice is the rationale for an injustice. Similarly, just because there exists inequality, it does not necessarily mean that an injustice occurred because, at times, the inequalities could be a sign of injustice (Bufacchi, 2012).

The differences in culture drive people's minds to think and behave differently in all aspects of life. As the mind adapts to a certain culture, a person would be bound to a certain opinion and belief about a particular thing. Every person, even without set standard rules, believes that their view on things should matter. America is the heart of the controversial morality debate concerning injustice, considering it is predominant in racism and discrimination. Considering that on the one hand, the nation permits freedom of speech and association while on the other, give a leeway to groups to practice unconstitutional acts of prejudice. For instance, Richard Spencer, head of the National Policy Institute, Montana, believed that America is for the white race (McShane, 2016). Despite all the racial drama going on, the nation will always be the white man's land (McShane, 2016). For Richard and his group, they believe the white people including him own America because it cannot exist without them and whether socially, culturally or politically, the country is always theirs (McShane, 2016). Therefore, the White extremists who feel that the whole of America belongs to them are right in their way. No one can stand in their way to say otherwise.

Such strong opinions perhaps stem from the extremities of colonialism that left scars for many generations. The seed of white supremacy germinated in their ancestor's hearts long back and as it passed through generations, intensified. It is a culture and norm to such sections of the White American citizens and considering their freedom of expression; they are not on the wrong. If looked upon on the normative sense of morality, then such associations are negative for a nation, however, in reality, people follow what they believe to be true and not what is true according to the laws of nature. I believe that one's right of expression should not hinder another person's constitutional right. People should consider other's welfares before expressing their concerns. The world consists of so many different people and multi-cultures and to ensure that there is a future for the generations to come, peaceful co-existence is a requirement. Therefore, while exercising one's right to speak and associate, respect for other people should be a priority to ensure that one's speech and expression is heard and at the same reserve the peace.

Did the IRS err in these Cases?

How the government handles extremist groups with the likes of Richard Spencer is wrong. Although the freedom of expression and association is a constitutional right, using the taxpayers' money to subsidize such groups which, in a way, spread prejudice is wrong. The American taxpayers consist of not only white people but also the Black people, Asians and Latin Americans and many others. A group that incites one citizen against the other should not receive assistance from the same people it maligns. According to Samuel Brunson, Chicago's Loyola University's tax professor, it is wrong for the government to offer a tax break to the white extremist groups because it sends the wrong signals (McShane, 2016). Brunson also believed that such a tax status ought to make the citizens uncomfortable as the government financially supports such groups (McShane, 2016). For Brunson, the values espoused by these groups had a high incompatibility with the majority of the American citizens (McShane, 2016). The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is in error when it comes to this subject, considering that they victimize other races by including their hard-earned money into things that eventually cause them pain. For instance, the taxpayers' funds subsidize a white supremacy group which in turns helps a white man set up a company. A black man who is also a taxpayer and whose money contributed to the startup of this company faces discrimination in terms of employment at the same company.

Such an example might be a long haul but not impossible, but perhaps the government does not think along such lines. McShane (2016) reported that Dobzinski, the IRS spokesman could not comment on the matter because it concerned individual nonprofits and hence against the policy. However, one could think that perhaps the government, including the IRS believe in the philosophy that all American citizens not forgetting organizations, reserve the right to equal rights despite their different point of views. If this philosophy were in full play, then perhaps it would be easier for groups like the Black Lives Matter Movement to get funding without anyone feeling apprehensive. The sense of injustice comes in where only the white people's groups get to enjoy such privileges, and with the presence of leaders such as President Trump, the discrimination prevails. The Martel Society, among other white extremists groups, supported Trump's campaign, which was against immigration and multiculturalism (McShane, 2016). President Trump accelerated the wedge in racial discrimination among the American Citizens and considering he has a right to freedom of speech, expression and association; such groups saw an opportunity to make most out of his administration. The government could also be working under the notion of Hall, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it". Such a notion enables the IRS to help the white supremacy associations with ease. As a government agency, the IRS should be neutral and support every other group out there even if they do not believe in its mandate. Islamic associations should be able to receive funding and not labelled terrorists. Black people's movement should also receive assistance and linked to violence. Every other race, like the Latin and Asian Americans, should also be in a position to fight for their immigration rights at ease. However, from the look of things, only the white people's groups receive such privileges, and hence the IRS is at error.

To What Rights Are Such Groups Entitled?

The freedom of speech, association and expression gives such groups the full rights to exist and run their affairs freely. What these groups say is not against the constitution. When the people they are up against funding them unknowingly then an injustice comes into existence. The groups have a right to access finding just not through taxes contributed by the multi-racial numerous citizens across America. The government can choose to defend the groups' rights of association and speech in other ways apart from the taxpayers' money because it brings in the sense of injustice through the acts of discrimination. One's right to speak should not deter another's sense of belonging for all Americans deserve equal treatment. Therefore, if the IRS decides to turn a blind eye on the kind of messages such groups convey to the public, then as a government agency it should support all the other groups by other races available in the country as well. The rights accorded to one group should be an entitlement to all groups. The associations have the right to funding; hence they should look for alternative funding from individual donors or organizations and spare the government's involvement to avoid retributions.

What Statuses Would You---or Would You Not---Confer Upon Such Groups?

Considering that, such groups as the Martel society already exist, and the constitution and human rights laws accept them, I would let them proceed with precaution if bestowed with such authority. First, the status of being in existence is their right, and they deserve to keep on operating because America is a free country with vast freedom for its people. However, these groups have brought about a lot of turmoil because they cannot peacefully co-exist with other groups as they spread hateful words and malign others who do not belong to the white race. Secondly, for exercising their freedom of movement, expression and speech, these groups are doing quite well, but at the same time violating other citizens' peace of mind by robbing them with their sense of belonging. How does one explain to a Latin, Black or Asian American Teenager that America is not their home? Keeping in mind that this particular child has been born and raised in American soil, and when they look at their ancestry, they discover that their grandparents and parents also had the same fate. This particular teenager is American in all aspects and deserves all rights accorded to them and hearing words like, "America belongs to the white people", is confusing and unpleasant. Such groups do not deserve the status of approval for such reasons.