Module 1: Foundations of Justice

1. When Justice Meets Emergency

In times of crisis — war, terrorism, pandemics, rebellion — governments often claim they must suspend rights to protect the public.

But justice delayed or denied in an emergency can have permanent consequences.

“The first casualty of war is truth. The second is justice.”

2. The Problem of “Temporary” Injustice

Emergency powers are often introduced as short-term solutions. But history shows that:

• They tend to expand beyond their original scope (known as “mission creep”)

• They often outlive the crisis

• They are used first on the most vulnerable populations

Examples:

• USA PATRIOT Act (2001): Allowed mass surveillance; led to concerns about erosion of privacy and due process

• Guantanamo Bay Detentions: Enabled indefinite detention without trial; violated habeas corpus

• COVID-19 Lockdowns: Imposed movement restrictions; disproportionately impacted low-income communities

• Myanmar Coup (2021): Military seized power and ended all rule of law under the guise of restoring order

3. The “State of Exception”

Philosopher Giorgio Agamben described emergencies as states of exception — moments when the law is suspended, but not abolished.

“The state of exception is where law steps aside so power can act.”

In these moments:

• Leaders decide who is protected by the law

• Some people are excluded from rights altogether

• Violence can occur without accountability, all in the name of security

This is not a lawless space — it is a place where law is manipulated to justify lawlessness.

4. Philosophical Tensions: What Should Justice Do in a Crisis?

Different schools of thought offer conflicting views on the legitimacy of emergency powers:

• Utilitarianism: May justify suspending rights if it protects the majority (e.g., lockdowns during pandemics)

• Libertarianism: Strongly opposes emergency powers as threats to individual liberty

• Kantian Ethics: Believes in protecting human dignity at all costs, even in crisis

• Rawlsian Theory: Might tolerate temporary injustice, but only if the rule would be accepted from behind the “veil of ignorance”

• Critical Theory: Argues that emergency powers often intensify inequality, harming already oppressed communities first

5. Famous Quotes to Reflect On

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants.”

— William Pitt (1783)

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

— Attributed to Benjamin Franklin

6. When Emergency Becomes Permanent

History provides chilling examples of emergency powers that never ended:

• Rome: Julius Caesar declared “dictator for life” using emergency justifications

• Germany: After the Reichstag fire, Hitler used Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution to destroy democracy

• Philippines: Ferdinand Marcos imposed martial law for 9 years, claiming to defend national security

“The greatest threat to justice is not chaos — it is order without accountability.”

Discussion Questions

1. Is it ever acceptable to suspend justice in order to preserve society?

2. Who should decide when an emergency ends — the government, the people, or an independent body?

3. Are rights absolute, or are they negotiable in a crisis?

4. Have you or your country ever experienced injustice disguised as “necessity”?

Assignment (Optional)

Write about a real or imagined emergency. In your reflection, consider:

• What rights were (or might be) suspended?

• What were the government’s justifications?

• Was the action fair, biased, or abusive?

• Which theory of justice best supports — or opposes — the response?

Next Lesson Preview:

Lesson 6 – Justice and Technology: Algorithms, AI, and the End of Fairness?