Chanel Ison

Journal 2, Distributive Justice

I dont think theres a real way to resolve political, ethical claims simply because all 7
canons have validity in their respected natures. We as humans are just so complexand our
human experience has taught us to be flexible with our methods (in order to survive)I dont
think we can truly resolve the battle between different ethics.
For instance, I agree with some of these canons more than others but I do see where each
stems from; and if need be, I would change my mind and my ethics to fit a certain situation. I
think that the different forms of ethics is meant to be debated overbecause like the title of the
work Distributive Justiceethics is meant to be distributive: not controlled by one idea or
explained by a single person. By opening the subject of What is ethics? into a debate, we allow
distribution of power to occur: we see the ranges of ethics and which of its forms would be best
to handle an issue. These different ideas get incorporated into what defines ethicsthus creating
a broader respect and knowledge for whats out there.
The biggest thing I got from this work was the fact that each ideology was imperfect and
missing some ideaI find this a beautiful thing because it reflects how we are as humans:
always trying to do better, but always missing some key aspect. Its the drive to find that missing
key-piece that really defines What is ethics? Perhaps ethics is beyond our own canons, maybe
its more ethical to understand, rather than to force ourselves into being understood.