37 THE PHILOSOPHERS 'DILEMMA
In several of my books I have tried to explain in detail all the details of the theory of the exceptions of justice, the reason for doing so is not because I believe that it is necessarily true, but because since the beginning of time it is common both in the animals as in people that the majority are not completely fair, although only a minority of them become scoundrels or criminals. This is the reason why it is necessary to try to understand whether it can have a scientific or a social meaning. It is also good to study all its details to try to explain metaphysically why it happens and how it can be controlled. Because the truth is that most people are not always fair even if they do not want to admit it. That is to say, what is ultimately about is trying to find out the difference between good, evil, justice and injustice from a scientific point of view, so that we can control it and understand what are the limits in which we we can move.
I do not know for sure, if the destiny of humanity is to be completely fair or to be fair with exceptions, but my conclusion is that, in any case, justice has to be the axis of moral conduct so that people can live together stable form. I sincerely believe that total justice is preferable, because the fact that in the past total justice has not been generally applied in society may be due to the fact that an evolving world is only capable of understanding circumstances with a very immediate and short-term perspective, which prevents the circumstances from being understood globally or thinking about the future. This is so, because primitive beings do not have enough knowledge to understand the consequences that the cyclical nature of the universe has on our lives. In any case, those who prefer total justice may consider that the compensation that the cyclical character of the universe supposes, self-defense, and the fruits of technology, may be enough to be happy, because those who admit exceptions to justice Perhaps they can obtain more material resources in the present, but they also risk suffering the consequences of being wrong and provoking a reaction against those who have been harmed by their unjust attitude, this would make them have more material things but less happiness.
Defending total justice is also comfortable and simple as a moral philosophy, because by using a fixed attitude and defending the same attitude in all cases, it is not necessary to decide in which situations the exceptions to justice can be justified and in which not because they would be defended in all the assumptions, in this way you do not run the risk of being wrong. For those who think like this, the question is simple, because they consider that this attitude is the best because it reduces the risk of falling into evil compared to those who admit exceptions. Those who defend total justice will surely think that this attitude is necessary for a society to be morally complete. In other words, for them it would be what makes the difference between the primitive and the evolved.
On the other hand, those who defend the exceptions of justice could say that the moral difference that exists between an evolved person with respect to another that is not, consists in that a person with a primitive moral behavior does not know how to differentiate injustice from evil. This would be important, because from the point of view of the theory of the exceptions of justice, it is considered that injustice by itself is not socially harmful if it is done within established rules. For this reason, they accept the exceptions of justice, but reject evil because they consider it the consequence of being dominated by tyranny and vanity, this, for them, would be what makes the difference between the primitive and the evolved.
Some may think that defending total justice is a radical and uncompromising attitude for not admitting exceptions, because if justice corresponds to the crystalline and blue dimension, and injustice corresponds to the warm and red dimension, then, refuse to use both options could be a mistake by not combining both dimensional aspects. But that depends on the circumstances, because it is true that in general exceptions to the norm should be accepted but only in what makes sense, because in the world, degenerate behaviors have occurred many times that must always be rejected. In those cases, since there is only one option, it would not make sense for the rules of the norm and the exception to come into play. The question then is to find out if in this case it is correct to accept exceptions or not, therefore, when in doubt, I am inclined to defend total justice.
Nor do I know for sure, if my position in this regard can be derived from my special dedication to philosophy, because it is undoubted that in order to delve into the metaphysical nature of things, it is better to defend total justice as a means to increase mental concentration. . This is due to the fact that the philosopher moves mainly in the spiritual, feminine, rigid and vertical dimension of nature, which is the one that corresponds to justice and is also the one that considers the universe as a whole. But the exceptions of justice are connected with the solar, masculine, warm and horizontal dimension that is concentrated in the circumstances of the present. This dimension acts mainly on people who live their lives in a less concentrated and more physical way, that is, it acts on the majority of the population. Because normal people live life in a very extroverted way and with their minds much more dispersed and merged with the rest than philosophers, because they need to get out of general opinion in order to discover new ideas. The problem for normal citizens is that with a level of concentration so under the control that instinct or the immediate dimension of time have on people is much greater than in the case of philosophers because they are specialists of the mind, this is This is because their greater concentration allows them to better understand the essential mechanics of nature globally and in the long term.
Therefore, the dilemma is to know, if philosophers tend to defend total justice and without exceptions because they have the evidence to think this way, or instead, it is the consequence of carrying out a different task than that carried out by society as a whole. It must also be borne in mind that it is convenient for a philosopher to be fair because this way he moves away from the possible common conflicts in man, this allows him to dedicate himself to his philosophical task without the inconvenience of having to worry that someone may interrupt his work or your concentration on having done something unfair in the past. In other words, unfair behaviors, in this case, would correspond only to those who would be living in the red and horizontal dimension in which it is common to have a scattered mind and especially dedicated to the immediate events of time. Instead the philosophers, would be concentrated in the vertical, spiritual and blue dimension that refers mainly to global and universal questions. For them it is more comfortable to think this way, because it is evident that with a clear conscience it will always be easier for the mind to fly towards the spiritual world beyond present time and space. Furthermore, philosophers should defend total justice, because only those who are just can have an adequate perspective on things and are able to judge those who are not. Only the righteous can discover demons even if they disguise themselves as political or religious leaders.
It is also possible that the key to the dilemma lies in knowing how to separate injustice from tyranny, that is, according to this assumption, injustice would be exceptionally well, but without entering the plane of tyranny, because then the evil. If that were true, then the unjust behavior that is common in both people and animals would be correct in some cases, because it would be the consequence of applying the two dimensions of life, the warm horizontal that leads the present and favors injustice. , and the rigid or vertical one that leads the future and favors justice. This means that in those cases in which the injustice is devoid of tyranny and is within the law, the consequences of that injustice would be secondary and would not generate reactions in self-defense of other people, except in those cases in which it is came out of these assumptions by mistake.
If this were the case, then the explanation of the dilemma would be that for unfair behavior to make sense it should only be done exceptionally and not enter the realm of vanity or tyranny. Furthermore, justice and injustice should be organized in the form of majorities and minorities or rule and exception. In other words, the approaches that would initially be general or the same would have to be defined later in majority and minority systems by adapting to the vertical and horizontal dimensions. The fact that moral leadership is part of the vertical dimension, which is where justice is found, determines that it is this that should predominate over moral conduct, that is, possible acts of injustice could only be something exceptional and are They would concentrate on the organs of power that lead the exception in the masculine and horizontal dimension, because in the horizontal or masculine dimension the aspects of political or material power predominate, or in other words, there is a greater risk of injustice appearing in this Instead, because power facilitates the possibility of acting unfairly, although that does not mean that being a politician necessarily implies being unfair, because in reality for them, as for the rest of the citizens, justice is the best option as a rule moral. It must also be borne in mind that according to this theory, so that legal exceptions do not cause serious and inadvisable effects on those who cause them, it is necessary to always remain within the law.
According to these assumptions, injustice would be correct when it is as an exception and is not associated with tyranny or crime, because then evil arises. Because evil is actually an imbalance that occurs when by mistake we give an excessive value to the masculine or material dimension over the feminine or spiritual one, or to the red part of life over the blue one. Evil is, ultimately, the consequence of unbalancing the two dimensional aspects that should govern our lives, because only when the masculine and feminine dimensions are in balance does the life represented by the color green emerge. If this were true, then the key would not be to teach citizens to be completely fair, but to teach them to be fair as a general rule, but without being dominated by vanity. Because regardless of the wealth that we can achieve, we must never forget to live with dignity or the importance of small things. In the world, there are two forms of wealth, one is spiritual and the other is material, spiritual wealth is only acquired when it is lived with justice and dignity. There are people who believe that all the poor are decent and all the rich are scoundrels, but that does not necessarily have to be true, it is true that poverty can favor humility and wealth can favor vanity, but it does not guarantee it, because spiritual wealth may or may not be present in all people regardless of the material goods they may have.
For this reason, in the world we can see people who are poor in the material aspect, but instead they are rich in the spiritual aspect, and there are also people who are poor in the material aspect and are also poor in the spiritual aspect, because against From what many people believe, poverty does not grant dignity, and there are many poor people who live like this because they are scoundrels and that is why their life has ended that way. Material wealth can also foster arrogance and evil, because success can lower their guard both to individuals and nations and that also leads to their destruction. For this reason, it is absurd for a rich man to criticize a poor man just for being so, because he can be rich in money, but at the same time he can be poor in dignity, and many times it happens that the lack of dignity causes the rich man to be less happy than the poor in spite of all your money.
Although this is true, it does not mean that having material wealth necessarily causes vanity, it all depends on how it is managed, because many rich people are obsessed with accumulating money, but they do not do it out of vanity, but out of fear of returning to the poverty from which they come. This means that if society gave more importance to equality than to economic growth, it would surely have a ruling class with much less fear of losing its wealth, and consequently would have less interest in accumulating it.
In any case, we must bear in mind that in the universe there is no one who possesses all the knowledge or the absolute security of everything. Therefore, it is absurd to create myths to worship or turn people into gods, because in the world there are many people who can be experts in something, but there is no one who is an expert in everything, because even those who are experts in something have always a new path to explore in their research in which they are ignorant, because no matter how many levels of wisdom they have passed, they will always have new ones to overcome, that is why even the wisest philosophers doubt many things, just like the rest of the citizens.