Leslie
Professor
Religion 101
November 3, 2013
Application of Service, Peace, and Justice in Society After attending college, graduating high school, getting confirmed in the Catholic Church, and participating in several sports/recreational activities, one will recall many speeches about the importance of peace, helping others, and “doing the right thing”. To me these concepts were only theoretical, of little consequence or application in my life. I think most of my peers thought along similar lines. The parents in my community also never appeared interested in these topics. When service was spoken of by a teacher or a priest, they would all smile and nod, but they never seemed particularly concerned. My fellow community members could speak about peace and a senseless war overseas, but they were all too far removed to really feel its impact. To them, “service” meant the community service hours that were required to pass a religious requirement. These concepts were almost only theoretical, if not a quick rite of passage. The photo of me behind a soup kitchen counter was a parenthesis between studying for a chemistry final and working the weekend shift at my part-time high school job. The reasoning behind charity has deviated greatly from its definition in the 4th and 5th centuries. Aristotle wrote, “If all men vied with each other in moral nobility and strove to perform the noblest deeds, the common welfare would be fully realized, while individuals could also enjoy the greatest of goods, inasmuch as a virtue is the greatest good.” Aristotle is claiming that the society we live in could be utopian, if everyone made a joint effort to collectively improve the welfare of society. To put this quote in a more applicable, modern context, college students should choose careers that will help improve society and their fellow man. Become a scientist who works with cancer treatment, an educator, or someone who offers great benefit to their community. Everyone must earn a proper livelihood to be a self-sustaining citizen. If one is not in a field of work that directly aids society, they should still find a way to aid in the improvement of society. For instance, give money to charity, or take more initiative and start your own charity. One hears politicians talk of programs that will aid the poor and improve society (which may be good causes), but on a personal level this may not be satisfying. One can just as easily “serve” society by lending a help to a neighbor. Provide them transportation when they are unable, or give them possession you do not need. Many are content with voting for a political platform that promises to provide aid and programs to the poor. Others give yearly donations to a children’s hospital or a fund for impoverished children overseas. These are great causes, but they are not always personally satisfying. People need to find ways to give back to society on a micro-level as well, even if the acts are not publicly acknowledged. According to Aristotle, the gentrified upper middle class of Westchester should not tolerate poverty fifteen minutes away in the Bronx (“Charity”, 1554). Social justice is perhaps more unevenly practiced than service. Social justice is defined as “the pursuit of and realization of political, legal, economic, and social equality among peoples.” Most would agree with this definition, and agree that all members of society should abide by its contents, but in reality this definition is very abstract. Some people may be very deeply devout religious people who believe they do what is best for society, yet they may treat certain groups unjustly. They do not see their actions as wrong, believing themselves to be very righteous. People who believe deeply in helping the poor may treat their neighbors horribly. Inversely, people who do not care about income inequality may be very kind and loyal to members of their own community. The literature states that political equality is defined as giving all citizens the right to vote along with access to their representatives. In America there are many state and municipal governments which have recently taken action to make it more difficult for various minority groups to vote. These individuals, who aim to disenfranchise certain voting blocks and therefore democracy, may become righteously indignant when dealing with the subjects of abortion, the death penalty, etc. Human beings are unbelievably good at rationalizing. They compartmentalize their right and wrong moral actions in accordance with what their parents have taught them, their community claims is correct, or what is personally convenient for them. Everyone wants social justice, but they feel much less strongly when it does not affect them. While no one is perfect, people ought to question themselves and reflect on their own moral principles. People should be open to new ideas and empathize with others in less fortunate situations (“Social Justice”, 70).
On a micro-level, when a group you are associated with is unnecessarily cruel to another individual, do not partake in the group’s actions. When someone drops some cash, pick it up and give it back to them. While many of the largest moral decisions are made by judges, corporate executives, and public policy members, the smaller decisions count as well. Consider a teacher who has full jurisdiction over his/her students. If a teacher later realizes that she made an error in correcting an exam, he/she should go back, admit the error, and correct the mistake. It is easier and looks better not to revisit this error, but it is the right thing to do.
Laws are intended to be moral and just, but whether laws are definitively moral is a matter of subjective opinion. Believing that a law is immoral suggests a principle person. The fact that great social justice still exists in society suggests laws are not always just. Some people interpret gray areas in our moral code, in which people fall on two sides. For instance, at birth babies are given certain vaccines to prevent them from contracting various crippling and fatal diseases. Philanthropists and scientists have worked hard to eradicate these diseases from society, and their vaccines have yielded overwhelmingly successful results. However, an anemic percentage of the population (less than .00001%) may develop complications from being given these vaccines. If one was not given these vaccines, their chances of contracting illness would be substantially higher, as has occurred recently with vaccine-resistant parents in the southwestern region of the United States. Some may argue it is immoral to administer a vaccine that may potentially cause a problem. They may claim that it is better to never cause a sin of commission. If the child was to contract smallpox and die unvaccinated, at least it was not intentionally administered to them. I would argue these individuals have an omission bias. They view social injustice only in terms of acts of commission. If one were to steal from another, they would view this as deeply socially unjust behavior that requires a legal remedy. However, if someone is in a state of great poverty, a state in which they cannot fully provide for themselves, they may see it as acceptable to ignore this individual’s needs. They may think, “no one committed an act against them, therefore this outcome is just.” Members of society realize that acts of omission are socially unjust.
Peace is a concept we are getting substantially closer to in modern society. Many philosophers have written of the “End of History”, a point in which there will be no more wars. Most regions of the world have now converted to liberal democracy. While the Middle-East remains the last remain to engage in regular war, many are projecting all fighting to end in that region around 2030. However, peace may be a concept that can be applied beyond a just a global scale. According to the literature, “peace” may include relationships among people, or a stable condition. Many also believe that attaining peace is a never-ending process. Through centuries of violent, unnecessary wars, society has learned that peace is difficult to attain. Once it is attained, nations are able to be permanently stabilized. Analysts have found that there are certain factors which make a society more susceptible to war. One factor found in countries with a proclivity for war is an aristocracy who “arouses, sustains, and exacerbates antagonisms against other countries or groups.” The Soviet Union during the Cold War would be a prime example of this sort of behavior. Nations in which the rich promote ethno-nationalist ideologies are also at high risk for war. The United States during the Bush Administration would be a prime example of how nationalism leads to unwarranted war. In both of the examples mentioned, military and political leaders coaxed their nations into war for personal gain. It is difficult to achieve “peace” on a practical level, but peace really is not a practical subject. To best create a peaceful environment, promote peaceful ideas and teachings. (“Peace”, 2044).
The concepts of peace, justice, and service have a great amount of overlap. They are all unequivocally good, abstract, important, subjective, and emphasized by all mainstream religions. They separate human beings from other animals in that they are not instinctual. War, self-centeredness, and greed are instinctual. The concepts discussed in this essay require a certain depth of soul. All three concepts may never be perfected, but they are worth always striving towards.

References
“Charity.” Encyclopedia of Religion. 2nd Edition. 1553-1554.
“Peace.” Encyclopedia of Sociology. 2nd Edition. 2044-2045. “Social Justice.” Encyclopedia of Race and Racism. 2nd Edition. 70-71.