http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/us/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=0
As one of the most prevalent stories in recent media coverage, Kim Davis is a Kentucky legal clerk who refused to issue court mandated marriage licenses to gay couples. Davis claimed to make this decision because she placed her religious beliefs above her duties as a clerk. Because of her unwillingness to follow through on the court orders, Davis was placed in jail. While she was released under the agreement that she would no longer hinder the issuance of marriage licenses to homosexual couples, While it is admirable that Davis would go to such an extreme extent to defend her moral beliefs, as Ryan said in his critique of this situation, "Davis was being unjust when looking at if from a societal standpoint." The interest to the author here is not the nature of whether it is better to fulfill the social contract as established in Hobbes' Leviathan or place one's personal beliefs above that contract. Rather, it is to attempt to determine whether or not Davis' actions would be deemed just by Plato, as defined loosely in his Republic.
Plato argues that a just polis is just because is is the aggregate of the just souls that inhabit the polis. While he does not offer a concrete definition of what justice is, Plato does outline actions that are taken by just souls in a tripartite system. Appetite refers to physical desires: sex, money, tangible belongings. Spirit refers to the emotional contingent of humanity in which we get impassioned and animated about happenings in our lives. In order for one to be just, the third piece of Plato's system (Reason) must govern and control the other two. These three pieces must work together to create harmony in the individual soul, which will lead to harmony across all souls and therefore harmony in the polis. A polis is just when all souls in the polis are doing their individual jobs justly.
It is the opinion of the author that Plato would deem Davis' actions as unjust because she let spirit dictate her actions to an unacceptable extent. If she had reasoned through the situation, she may have realized that it is not her job to determine the morality of homosexual marriage in Kentucky. Rather, it is her job to listen to the courts and issue marriage licenses as they see fit, not the other way around.
What are your thoughts on the Platoian justness of this sitation? Do Davis' actions fall in line with Plato's broad definition and outline of Justice? What reasoning supports your stance?
I would be interested to see you think modern thinkers like Locke or Rawls might say about this incident. First, Locke is ok with resisting government but way about her reasons?
ReplyDeleteI think Locke would agree that in the legitimacy of breaking the law if it does not uphold your natural rights, I'm not sure if Davis' actions would warrant overthrowing of the government in his eyes. Davis was not doing her job, and the government was not impeding her individual rights because the legislation on gay marriage was not restricting her.
DeleteI think that Plato would think she was acting unjustly. Her position was to issue marriage licenses, not give her own personal opinion on it. She knew the job she had to do and still didn't fulfill it. She had an obligation to the people of Kentucky and the government itself to issue these marriage licenses. She was directly putting herself before the "polis" as Plato would put it. She was essentially messing with the social order. Without her doing her job properly, she was committing several unjusts to everyone.
ReplyDeleteI agree that in Plato's eyes she was unjust. She had a job to do and failed to fulfill those job requirements. Deciding the validity of legislation is not her job.
DeleteI agree that Kim Davis let her desire control her actions instead of reason. She can only hold herself to her standard of justice. It is not up to her to create laws for everyone else because she is not the sovereign .
ReplyDeleteThanks Clem, I appreciate the feedback. Ms Davis definitely let her feelings get the best of her.
DeleteI believe that Plato would say Kim Davis was acting unjustly when she decided to let her personal views get in the way of her job. As a judge you are promising to the citizens of the United States that you will uphold justice. The moment she refused marriage licenses to citizens of the United States, I believe that Plato would say that she was doing something that he would consider to be unjust. Kim Davis should have abided by the law set in place because the laws are viewed in this country as guidelines for how to maintain justice. If all judges went against laws, the citizens would not trust in our legal system.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely, Ms Davis definitely did not do fulfill her role in society and attempted to circumvent our legal system.
DeleteI also believe that Plato would say she was acting unjustly. Instead of being an expert of the society, she was imposing her beliefs upon others as a common person. It was very unjust of her refusing marriage licenses to citizens since she was acting against the expert decision. Or in other words, it won't be just of her unless she do what the society asks her to do.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, she did not adhere to her role in society.
Delete