justice 続き フルートなどについて考える

According Aristotle, justice means giving people what they deserve.

good evening, this is series of hitosu justice.

you may say well thats obvious enough, but the real question is who deserves what and why.

Take the example of flutes. Suppose you are distributing flutes.
Who should get the best ones? Who should get the best flutes?
You can just call it out.

Audience: Random
Sandel:OK

Audience:worst flute player
Sandel:OK

Audience:best flute player
Sandel:ok!! How many say the best fulte player? Why? That is actually Aristotle's answer, too.

Audience:The gretest benefit to all.
Sandel:Ok!!
We will hear better music if the best flute should go to the best flute players. That's Tujisan?

Audience:Tujisan.

Micheal Sandel Hitosu: Ok, thats good reason, but Aristotle doesnt agree with you thats the reason.
He had a different reason for saying that best flute should go to the best flute player. He said, that's what flutes are for?

To be played well. He says that to reason about just distribution(公正な分配)of the thing, we have to reason about and sometimes argue about the purpose of the thing, in this case, musical performance. And the point is we have to think about the essential nature of the thing, in this case, to produce excellent music. We will be happy its by product.

Aristotle says, what we need to think about is the essential nature of the activity in question and the qualities that are worth
honoring and admiring and recongnizing. One of the reasons that the best flute shoud go to the best player is that muscial performance (purpose) is not only to make us happy, but to honor and recongnize the excellence of the best musicians（essential nature）.

※あるモノの公正な分配のために
（実は大前提としての、質問"What flutes are for?―to be played well"が大事）
①まず渡すものの目的、機能について考える
②その目的の目指すべきところ、について考える、モノもモノを扱うヒトも賞賛を受けることができる高みについて＝大前提と一致
（とマイケルヒトスサンデルもどき、は解釈しています）


but in this case, it is more clear to think about the thing which has limited function. If the thing is too complicated and has many functions, it is hard to adjust the thing into the methods above.
Flute is better example because not so many people can play well. Most people do not think about the function of the flutes difficultly.

Take the example of ipod. maybe ipod is not suitable for the method because it is more complicated device. it is hard to determine its purpose and essential nature. function of phone is important. function of mail is also important. Internet browsing function is also important. It is hard to choose which is fundamental.

How about money?
It looks hard, too. Some people wants to save it, others wants to spend it. And money involves human complicated sense. Money is regarded as infinite interpretations up to people. Most thing maybe similar. So, to adjust the method into each case in daily lives, we need to omit some aspects from the thing and make the thing simple.

原文
考えてみるとこのモノに入るモノは、機能がわりかし限定されているもののほうがわかりやすいな。多機能のモノだとややこしくなる。
例：フルートは音を出す、楽器、という意味で分かりやすい、しかもそんなにうまく演奏できる人は少ないと、考えられる。
iphoneはどうだろう。多機能すぎるな…。
しかも大体みんな説明書読んだり慣れたりすればすぐ使いこなせるようになるしな…

お金は…
これは意外と複雑そうだ…
貯めたい人もいるし使いたい人もいる…
かなり人間の思惑が絡んできそうだ…
一口には言えないな…

一回切ります
ありがとうございます。