We all construct an image of ourselves, and others create one for us as well. To maintain that image, we often continue certain behaviors without fully considering their consequences. For example, we may continue showing leniency or, conversely, remain strict in order to uphold a particular image. However, there are moments in life when situations demand a change in our actions. If we cling to preserving our image rather than addressing the immediate need, we may not only pay a heavy price but also end up damaging the very image we were trying to protect.
But how do we judge what a situation truly demands? I believe that the principle of natural justice should guide us, rather than simply maintaining the status quo. For instance, the nature of ‘social justice’ often urges us to offer concessions, such as affirmative actions or accommodating marginalized groups like the LGBT community. However, natural justice may sometimes compel us to reassess these concessions.
I use the terms ‘social justice’ and ‘natural justice’ to describe a recent struggle I faced. A friend’s family, during a major financial crisis, wanted to sell some of their jewelry. They approached one of my relatives, hoping to sell the jewelry to them with the intention of buying it back when their situation improved. My relative, understanding their crisis, agreed to purchase the jewelry, even offering to let them redeem it on the market price of that time.
Unexpectedly, the head of my friend’s family passed away, and they continued to struggle financially. Over the next seven years, their children completed their education and began working. When they eventually managed to save some money, they approached my relative to buy back the jewelry. Although my relative was willing, they asked for a small interest to be paid, not for personal gain but for charitable purposes. This shocked the family, who reminded me of the original understanding that no interest would be charged.
The family turned to me for help, knowing that if I intervened, my relative would likely waive the interest. My relative, however, pointed out that they never promised to return the jewelry for the principal amount alone. They had foregone the opportunity to invest that money and earn a return, and now sought only a minimal interest for charity. The family insisted that they were still struggling and could not afford even a small extra payment. They also argued that, once more stable, they intended to help others in need as well.
In this situation, I found myself caught between my friend’s family’s plea for leniency and my relative’s desire to stick to their principles. Ultimately, I advised my relative to follow their conscience, balancing ‘social justice’ (the family’s immediate financial need) with ‘natural justice’ (the fairness of asking for some interest for charity). It was up to them to decide. My relative was correct as they never ask for that minimum interest for their personal need but to use it for charity.
I can multiply countless examples of people who, in desperate situations, seek help from sympathetic individuals. However, once they recover from their difficult circumstances, they often refuse to repay the money they borrowed, offering various excuses centered around their post-recovery needs. In such cases, balancing ‘Social Justice’ with ‘Natural Justice’ becomes a delicate matter. There is no universal principle or rule that applies to all situations; each case must be addressed individually, based on its own merits.
2-7-2021
Leave a Reply