Two Diverging Approaches to Social Justice
Welcome to Up for Debate. Each week, Conor Friedersdorf rounds up timely conversations and solicits reader responses to one thought-provoking question. Later, he publishes some thoughtful replies. Sign up for the newsletter here.
Last week, I asked what you think about an argument between Petra and Rodrigo.
(As a reminder: Petra thinks people should do their job, narrowly construed, as well as they can. CEOs should maximize profits. ER doctors should strive to save the life of every patient. Lawyers should do their best to represent every client. Scholars should publish their findings as accurately as possible. And parking-meter attendants should write citations without regard for who is getting them. Rodrigo thinks the world is better if everyone is not only doing their job, but taking a broader view. CEOs should feel a social responsibility to donate some corporate profits. ER doctors should treat shooting victims before treating the shooting perpetrators. Lawyers should try less hard when their clients are odious. Scholars should withhold findings that cut against social justice. And parking-meter attendants should give a break to, say, a shift worker who always refills her meter but is regularly five minutes late because at her job, she must clock in and out on the hour.)
Replies have been edited for length and clarity.
Ann argues that your conscience should be your guide:
What we say and do matters. What we feel within ourselves as we are
