Issue of Justice and Pain

(This is extremely long and I apologize) Bare with me:

Both writers, that is to say Scarry and Foucault, have very strong topics on which they write. Although they do not discuss exactly the same topics, in my opinion, there stories and examples to support there theory’s can when analyzed, go hand in hand. Both have a key topic of correlating there issue with justice and that in turn brings in possible pain. My main argument is to say that physical pain is more or less unnecessary and wrong and that it actually serves an injustice. In the paragraphs below I shall attempt to show that justice can and should be morally served with as little pain as possible.

Scarry’s first reading, “On Beauty and Being Fair” strongly supports my theory though our unconscious actions. She stated that, “Noticing its beauty increases the possibility that it will be carefully handled.” (pg. 65). And that in turn lead to, “…the extraordinary vase involuntarily introducing me to the recognition that vases are fragile, and I then voluntarily extended the consequences of that recognition to other objects in the same category.” (pg. 67). To sum this up she is starting that once we notice an objects beauty, it is our unconscious action to serve it justice by handling it properly, thus preventing pain to it. Once you hit this recollection, you unconsciously adapt to do it justice and prevent it pain. She would agree that we need to keep noticing objects beauty so that we can do it justice and prevent if from receiving unnecessary pain. In her next piece, “The Body In Pain” she takes a different route. Although a bit more difficult to correlate, her topic here is the fact that physical pain is destructive to language. Torture is used to attempt and expel information from a captured victim, through brute pain and force. Through both pieces we see that causing physical pain is wrong and should not be done. Your body unconsciously wants to prevent you from causing physical pain on anyone or anything. It is unjust to cause such torture, even when done for “good” reasons. Socrates once stated that, “One should never do wrong in return, nor injure any man, whatever injury one has suffered at his hands.” ** To cause such a destructive action to occur is unjust, regardless of the reason. Although punishment is needed to serve justice, it should not be with the intention to cause as much physical pain as possible. Physical pain can be prevented and/or reduced and still serve an object or an issue justice. Scarry’s quotes prove that she is in agreement that justice should be served to everything and that the destructive nature of physical pain is not necessarily needed or deserved to grant this.

Foucault’s piece was titled, “Discipline and Punish” and the section I used for this piece was labeled, “The body of the condemned”. Foucault indirectly agreed with all of my arguments. I believe that society naturally realized that causing intentional physical pain was wrong and began to drift away from in. In the mid 1700’s quartering apparently was an acceptable punishment for a wrongdoer. Many things in addition to this horrific pain were also involved, including, “…flesh will be torn away from his breasts, arms, thighs, and calves with red-hot pinchers, his right arm…burnt with sulphur, and, on those places where the flesh will be town away, poured molten lead, boiling oil, burning resin, wax and sulphur melted together.” (pg.3). This is an unimaginable way to be killed, especially out in public with no one willing or even wanting to save you. Even in Foucault’s piece he made a comment on how, “…though he was always a great swearer, no blasphemy escaped his lips; but the excessive pain made him utter horrible cries…” (pg.3). While this victim was under excruciating pain he was not able to say a word, thus proving the theory of the destructive nature of pain. Luckily things have drastically changed over the year through our natural understanding of justice and pain. Over time, “Punishment had gradually ceased to be a spectacle.” (pg. 9). Naturally public physical pain was dying out and new thoughts began to form on the issue of justice through pain. On pg. 10, Foucault explains, “It is ugly to be punishable, but there is no glory in punishing. Hence that double system of protection that justice has set up between itself and punishment it imposes.” People no longer found it right to cause such public physical pain for someone found guilty of breaking the law. Instead it began to become, “…less cruelty, less pain, more kindness, more respect, more ‘humanity’.” (pg. 16). I think that people began to see that it was wrong to cause such pain and began to naturally or unconsciously turn towards less painful ways of fulfilling punishment. Punishment is needed, even though no one wants to do it, it must be done to keep the balance of justice and the well being of society. I think that the society began seeing the true punishment being served through a different way. Society began to lean against this physical materialistic way of punishment and began to indulge in the theory of the “soul”. Foucault states that everything had been about the body, when in fact, “The soul is the prison of the body.” The soul had control over the body and therefore physical punishment was not only wrong, but ineffective to true justice. Foucault therefore undeniable agrees that through society’s natural adaptation to justice, it has proved that causing physical pain is ineffective and wrong.

Although physical punishment still exist today, punishment is way less severe. For the death penalty, those found guilty are first put to sleep so that they do not feel the pain, they simply just sleep forever. We have turned towards human ways of fulfilling people justice by naturally causing them less pain. We have seen where we were at fault and have since adapted to this need of less pain. Through each writers stories I have come to the conclusion that both writers would agree with my statement that physical pain is not the correct way of serving justice and that it is also destructive and wrong. Reflecting on oneself or a particular object serves it true justice. It is not the physical body that is to receive justice, but the inner “soul” of it and what it stands for. This is true justice.


** (pg. 45) in Steven M. Cahn’s, “Classics of Western Philosophy” Story of Crito.