Justice and the World Cup

2014:

"Peace is not the absence of war, but the presence of justice."

"Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary."

"There is a higher court than courts of justice and that is the court of conscience. It supersedes all other courts."

Madam Toastmaster, fellow members and guests,

As many of you know, we're in the middle of a celebration: a Quadrennial mega-event that connects billions of people around the world in a shared passion. I'm talking, of course, about the Football world cup.It is a wonderful event in which we cheer for our favorite teams, and become immersed in something bigger than ourselves. It enables us to subsume ourselves to a sense of global community. It makes us believe in fairness and sportsman-like behavior. It teaches us that no matter where we come from, if we play fair, the world will applaud us. Clearly, the Fifa world cup is such a grand event with noble intentions, we cannot fathom that it might be associated with any kind of injustice. Right?

Well, not quite. When Fifa awarded the world cup to Brazil, it came with certain preconditions about the quality of the stadiums. 

Therefore the Brazil government, not FIFA, had to spend over 15 billion dollars to build stadiums that were acceptable to FIFA. As you can imagine, there were a lot of people- "protestors"- who were very unhappy with this decision. They felt that the billions of dollars could be better used to build hospitals and schools that many Brazilians desperately need. What do you think is the right thing to do? What is justice in these circumstances? In order to answer this, we've to first explore the concepts of justice using the dialectic method.

The first concept I want to illustrate is the principle of utilitarianism. The basic premise is that if you have a choice between making one person happy and making five people happy, you generally pick the many. In this case you would pick the world cup, because it's making a billion viewers happy, so never mind the few million Brazilians who have limited access to schools and hospitals. But now, imagine the following situation - You're a doctor and you have 5 patients who need an organ each to survive. Then, a healthy person  walks into your office for a checkup. And he's lying there on your seat, taking a nap. As a doctor, would you kill the healthy person and take his five organs to save your 5 patients? If you're like most people, you will find something inherently wrong with this approach. That is because there is something beyond utilitarianism. And this is the second concept, which is principle of individual rights.This means that a person has certain inviolable rights and cannot be used as means to an end. Based on this principle, we've to respect the individual rights of the protestors to have true justice. 

Now, some people will use the same concept of individual rights to make the case for the world cup. For example, there are many construction companies and businesses and hotel chains who want to build the stadiums for the world cup. They too have paid taxes- maybe more taxes than the people who're protesting the world cup. Isn't it their right- their individual right - to have these stadiums, even if it means lesser schools or hospitals? That is definitely a valid question. Now who's side would you take ? Usually, if you're in the construction or hotel business, you'll want stadiums. If you want to schools and hospitals, you'll be on the side of the protestors. We're at a deadlock. 

A very clever philosopher, John Rawls, figured out a way to end this deadlock, and that is our third concept- Rawls theory of justice. To understand this, imagine that you need to pick your answer first, as to whether the stadium should be allowed or not. Only then will you be told whether you are in the construction business or whether you are part of a group that needs social services. For eg., if you answered that you want stadiums, it might be revealed that you are a patient in desperate need of healthcare. Would you still favor the stadiums? I believe this is a much deeper concept of justice, because you're making the decision without knowing which group you might be placed in. This veil of ignorance, this "blindness", is essential for justice.

My goal here, and yes the pun was intended, is not to antagonize you towards the world cup. It creates unity in so many other ways, and it is indeed a cause for celebration. There are much bigger things that we need to fight against, such as poverty, hunger, war and disease. However, we really need to have a deeper sense of justice to tackle - yes, I did it again- all of the above problems and make the world a better place. And that will be much more cause for celebration than a ball flying through a net.