Relationship between the Mind and the Conscience
Who is a human being? A human being is a ‘person’ characterized by some specific and specified physical properties and endowed with shame and conscience; a human being is able to differentiate (as opposed to ‘knowing’) between good and evil, justice and injustice, and right and wrong. Shame is a quality inherent in human beings the underlying essential nature of which (to wit, shame) is determined and determinable by human conscience.
Moral is contained, not in the mind, but in the conscience, which the latter communicates to the mind. This communication between the mind and conscience is instinctive and, therefore, does not depend upon reason or understanding. A great deal of co-ordination and accommodation is required for this communication to be effective and meaningful. In the absence of any external factor undermining the smooth and unhindered working of the conscience by manipulating the working of the mind, the latter usually makes room for those innate impulses that spring out of the former.
Morality is the natural power of our conscience. While thought is the content of mind, morale, in its purest form, is the content of the conscience. The fundamental difference between the mind and conscience lies in the fact that the former not only gives rise to our thought, understanding (product of thought), and judgment (product of thought and understanding, taken together), but, in the process of doing so, also directs and controls them, while the latter only, and only, gives rise to our moral being which is nothing but the sum total of all moral principles that it contains; while the former is a rational process (under normal mental conditions), the latter is an innate process characterized by the spontaneity of human conscience; the ultimate effect of the moral that resides in our conscience is manifested in the spontaneous responses of our conscience to certain external stimuli that, in turn, are communicated to our mind in order to produce certain feelings (in us) so as to guide our actions.
The Concept of Social Reality
This piece of writing is about the structural components and content of Social Reality as I see it. Social Reality is comprised of the following two interrelated components:
- Social System can be defined as the aggregate of social organizations that are divided into various subsystems the interrelation of which, as a composite whole, presupposes a certain purpose (i.e. definite, but unspecified, end). These subsystems, if considered apart from the ‘Social System’ they form the parts of, are systems in themselves (i.e. economic system, political system, and so on). However, the purpose of each of these subsystems is to be found in the fact of its being a part of the composite whole. Therefore, the relationship that exists between the ‘Social System’ and any of its subsystems is supposedly characterized by reciprocity.
- Norms, customs, doctrines and principles that collectively determine the nature and behavior of any ‘Social System’. Social System forms the structure (i.e. construction) of “Social Reality”, while norms, customs, doctrines and principles (taken together) form its content. Social System as a structural component of “Social Reality” envelops its content, as such. The manner in which any particular ‘Social System’ is to be used and utilized, according to its determinant purpose, is delivered through a kind of political bias of the individuals, living within any societal space, towards any particular ideological disposition that, in turn, determines the underlying principles and doctrines of the ‘Social System’.
Thereby, principles and doctrines underlying any ‘Social System’, taken together, is the proximate cause of the way things are arranged within the System with their roots in some particular ideological disposition. For instance, popular bias towards the conceptual framework of the free market capitalistic ideology, say, in the USA (so as to keep things simple) gave rise to such principles as the ‘principle of private ownership’, and so on, that in turn shaped the manner in which things are arranged within the framework of the existing ‘Social System’ of that country.
Social norms and customs, on the other hand, dictates the manner in which any ‘Social System’ should operate (as opposed to its use and utilization), and is not relevant insofar the use and utilization of any ‘Social System’ is concerned. One simple example of such use and utilization under the pure concept of an economic system (which is a sub-system in relation to the “Social System” it forms a part of) consisted of a small government and a free market within the ideological framework of neo-classical liberalism is the role of the former (small government) limited to the delivery and regulation of public goods so as to foster the operation of the latter (free market) without interfering with its functions, while the mechanism of the latter is used to allocate resources towards the most profitable economic activities. Social norms and customs, on the other hand, dictate the manner in which various government and private organizations – as constituent parts of the ‘small government’ and ‘free market’, respectively – should operate.
While social norms and customs pertain to specific and specified aspects of any ‘Social System’, the principles and doctrines concern themselves with broad and general aspects of it.
In the absence of political bias towards a particular ideological disposition, no clear-cut principle and doctrine would (possibly) underlie a ‘Social System’ which (the principle and doctrine), in fact, stems out of a political base that is established on a political bias as such. In such situations, nature of the use, utilization, and operation of a ‘Social System’ tends to be unclear and ambiguous which, in turn, makes the nature and behavior of the System unpredictable.
This is because, in the absence of any particular set of guiding principles and doctrines underlying a ‘Social System’, the System would lack mechanisms through which the manner in which it is to be used and utilized, according to a determinant purpose, could be delivered; such situation, if persists over time, may create social chaos and confusion, giving rise to anarchy or revolution.
Provided a ‘Social System’ has been formed to some specific end (which may or may not be specified) to begin with, the prospect of attaining the end is barely assured under such uncertain conditions. For, under such situation any ‘Social System’ would be like a ship thrown into the middle of an ocean without any compass (or any sense of direction), although the captain of the ship (in our specific case, the sovereign ruler of a state) may have a direction on his mind in which he would like to go.
Appearance of Social Reality
Social Realities are observable in two ways. First, their construction, that is, Social Systems are observable. Secondly, their contents – norms, customs, doctrines, and principles – are readily manifested through the nature and behavior of those Social Systems that they underlie. Therefore, various Social Realities could be perceived, at different degrees, as mutually distinct and separate observable appearances.
The primal creation of the contents of various Social Realities had been arbitrary, at different degrees, in cases where their formation didn’t entirely depend on the variable external (physical) conditions, the degree of such arbitrariness being inversely related to the proportion of the content of any Social Reality that can be attributed as originating as a result of variable external (physical) conditions.
The primal creation of the contents of various Social Realities didn’t depend on the “Social Systems” the nature and behavior of which they, supposedly, determined. The apparent difference, therefore, between the contents of various Social Realities, as we presently perceive them, pertaining to mutually distinct and separate ‘Social Systems’ is a proof more of Man’s arbitrariness in setting the standard of norms, customs, doctrines, and principles than of any supposed relationship between the constructions and contents of various Social Realities after having ignored the impact of the variation in external (physical) conditions on norms and customs, in particular, and all of the four constituents, in general.
There exists no invincible set of norms, customs, doctrines, and principles underlying and governing any particular ‘Social System’, whatsoever. Within the context of any society, therefore, Social Reality is what one makes of it. There exist no necessary connections among variables of any particular subsystem (among the variables of an economic system, for instance) within the broader context of a ‘Social System’.
Nevertheless, the underlying disposition of any (particular) ‘Social System’ depends, largely, on the nature of the variables that dwell within it; depending on the differential nature of the variables operating over and across Social Systems that themselves may or may not be differentiable from one another, the joint actions of the variables operating within each of these mutually separate (and with the possibility of being mutually distinct, as well) Social Systems should, in each particular instance, be expected to bring about differential outcomes in cross-Social System perspectives.
And consequently, mutually differentiable sets of variables, as they pertain to identical or similar or differing Social Systems in cross-Social System perspective, should be expected to assume differing operational significance relative to one another, the degree of such cross-sectional differential in operational significance being dependent on the nature and extent of difference in the qualitative outcomes of the joint actions of the variables of each of these separate and distinct sets (of variables) as each one of them (to wit, each set) pertains to one particular ‘Social System’ insofar the power and/or influence that any particular ‘Social System’ exerts over individuals exposed to it has its source in the joint action of the variables operating within it.
Human Conscience Acts against Social Reality
Resistance of the conscience against ‘Social Reality” is spontaneous that results from non-conformity of “Social Reality” with the innate principles of morality that the conscience upholds. Conscience of a child gets distorted and/or disfigured as a result of the direct influence of social orientation that she has been subjected to and, consequently, loses its natural power of influence on her being (i.e. mind) over time as she keeps on adopting herself, progressively, to the “Social Reality” that surround her.
If the child’s conscience in the course of social orientation gets disfigured and/or distorted to the extent that her conscience loses all or most of its natural power of influence over her being to guide her actions, then her conscience would no longer be capable of resisting “Social Reality” that is incompatible with its imperatives. Thereby, “Social Reality” would, ultimately, take precedence over the imperatives of the child’s conscience in directing and controlling her actions and setting their underlying motives.
More the child internalizes social condition (to wit, “Social Reality”), the less likely it’s for her conscience to be in a position to resist those social factors that are aggregated against it. Thereby, the extent to which the child’s conscience is distorted and/or disfigured and the resulting loss of its natural power of influence depends on the cumulative effect of two variables, namely, the extent to which “Social Reality” deviates from the innate standards of conscience concerning moral responsibility and the extent to which the child adopts to this “Social Reality”; these two variables, taken together, is the true and ultimate measure of immorality that any “Social Reality” upholds.
Principle of Pleasure versus Principle of Morality: Non-Conformity of the Two Principles
Without instinct there is no pleasure and without conscience there is no honor and dignity of humankind. In other words, “human pleasure” and “human dignity and honor” are inseparable from the instinct and conscience, respectively. Human conscience holds humankind in honor and dignity, while human instinct holds humankind as the means to satisfy its need for pleasure.
These two distinct and separate positions of our conscience and instinct concerning humankind lack concord that is necessary for their compatibility. Once an individual has subjected his will to the satisfaction of one, he would be incapable of satisfying the other. That is, these two diametrically set positions cannot be occupiedsimultaneously; one (of them) has to give way to the other, if, indeed, any one of them is to be satisfied at all.
While the motive power of our conscience is themoral principle, the motive power of our instinct is, fundamentally, the pleasure principle. An individual is free to lend his will to the satisfaction of one or the other of these two principal causes of our actions (Instinct and conscience are not inseparable, by any means, from the body of an individual they dwell in; what is inseparable from the body of an individual is his free will).
In the presence of forms, shapes, and figures such as to excite human greed, individuals within any society would be exposed to the emergence of tension between the pleasure principle and the moral principle that the instinct and conscience upholds (respectively); this could, ultimately, lead to the distortion and disfigurement of their conscience.
Fame, power and authority, social status, wealth etc. can be conceived as represented and signified by distinct and separate combinations of various forms, shapes, and figures that are liable to excite human greed. Instinct pertains to the realm of shapes, figures, and forms as such, while conscience pertains to the realm of faith and love; the former is ruled by greed, while the latter is ruled by the heart (Human heart is but an unreasonable child, sole passion of whom is to love. Instead of reasoning with our heart, we should obey it like a servant; for, it’s no wise man of ours, but our dearest child.).
In life we don’t have so many ways as we think we have to choose from; we, in fact, have only two ways – one would lead us to the realm of faith and love, while the other to the realm of shapes, figures, and forms; the former (way) is prescribed by our conscience, while the latter (way) is prescribed by our instinct.
The former is an upward-sloping, slowly bending way covered and lost under a veil of mist – a way of perpetual excitement and discovery at the end of which, at the top of a beautiful hill turfed with fresh and green grass, we are to confront with an empty house. The latter is a downward sloping way lost in the midst of perpetual darkness which would fill our heart with nothing but monotony and dread. These two ways starts off a common point, only to diverge greatly. This I call the greatest of all divergence ever known to man.
Two Stages of Deformity of the Human Instinct
Insofar the instinct takes on objects other than human beings as the means to gratify its need for pleasure its impulses are not in conflict with those of the conscience, provided its actions as they pertain to these objects doesn’t violate the moral principle and each of the two (conscience and instinct) holds on to their respective impulses without disturbing that of the other. It’s only when the action of the instinct sets humanity in indignity and dishonor – either by using individual members of it (humanity) solely for the purpose of satisfying its need for pleasure or by using objects other than human beings (which include various types of living and inanimate objects) in ways that violates the moral principle and are potentially harmful to humanity in one way or the other – that its impulses conflict (and contradict) with those of the conscience and the pre-existing consonance between the conscience and instinct collapses.
When the instinct takes on and acts and/or reacts upon objects other than human beings (which include various types of living and inanimate objects) as the way to secure individuals’ physical well-being, its impulses are in absolute conformity with those of the conscience and the distinction and separation of these two forces disappears (In other words, they exist as two sides of the same coin). This consonance between the instinct, in its purest form, and conscience is only too natural. For, in order to hold humanity in dignity and honor (which is the sole aim of our conscience) it’s of prime importance that the physical well-being of each and every individual members of it (humanity) be secured against all and every possible harm that may arise from external conditions, ranging from food shortage to natural calamities such as earthquake, floods, and infinite number of other possibilities.
The apparent discord that, first of all, arises between the instinct and conscience is the consequence of failure on the part of the former to complement the latter. In so doing, the former, in fact, doesn’t harm or conflict with the latter. Human instinct, in such instances, proclaims its independence from the “divine tyranny” of human conscience and does what it chooses to do without consulting with the principle of conscience (i.e. moral principle) that it previously used to follow. At this stage, which I call “the first stage of deformity of the human instinct”, the instinct, eventually, forms its own principle (pleasure principle) without harming or conflicting with that of the conscience (A purely animal instinct is never subjected to deformity as such; because, it never transgresses its premier state of being). It’s only when the instinct takes its principle so far so as to disregard human dignity and honor in its quest to satisfy its appetite for pleasure (This I call “the second and final stage of deformity of the human instinct”) that a complete inversion of the previously complementary relationship between the instinct and the conscience occurs and makes them conflicting (rather than complementary).
The first stage of deformity or, to put it in other words, development represents the natural ramification of the instinct and occurs during the childhood of an individual; however, it doesn’t, by any means, disrupt the status of the premier principle of conservation of our physical well-being as the fundamental precept of our instinct; what happens, in effect, as a consequence of this deformity or development (whatever one may call it) is the diversification of the sphere of action of our instinct, guided and controlled by an emerging principle (pleasure principle).
Formation of this specific principle transforms our instinct into a distinct and separate identity that is different than that of our conscience; however, this transformation doesn’t alter, in essence, the heart of our instinct wherein dwells the premier principle of conservation of our physical well-being – a principle that is perfectly in accord with that (the moral principle) of our conscience; indeed, these two principles are even complementary (to each other). Further we go off this focal point the further we diverge from this innate principle of our instinct, and at the ‘second (and final) stage of deformity of our instinct’ (a fatal development in itself) we start to contradict this principle and in so doing we dismantle the integrity of our whole being – our instinct is no longer in accord with itself, nor is it in accord with our conscience.
Our whole (rational) being, as a consequence, is reduced to nothing less than a pitiable (and perhaps dreadful, as well) scene of total collapse. We are then, as it seems to me, thrown away into a ‘world of disorder’, characterized by perpetual chaos and confusion: order, first of all, has to be within ourselves. In the absence of an internal order as such, no external order is possible.
Man’s Natural Will is the Ultimate Basis of Social Justice and Equality
In its premier state, our instinct holds on to only one principle: this innate principle of our instinct, the ‘principle of conservation of our physical well-being’, is in perfect conformity with (as well as complementary to) the principle of our conscience (the moral principle). The first stage of deformity of human instinct signifies the emergence of another principle as an integral part of human instinct – the ‘pleasure principle’, which, in its premier state, is also in perfect conformity with (as well as complementary to) the ‘principle of conservation of our physical well-being’ and principle of our conscience (the moral principle).
This lets our will to alternately lend itself to the impulses of our instinct and conscience without having to sacrifice its wholesomeness which, in turn, depends upon the absence of any inner conflict of the will. Thereby, in its primal (and natural) state our will is, fundamentally, one and the same. We are all born with this Natural Will.
At the first stage of deformity of the human instinct the will continues to be one and the same. For, in the absence of any conflict between the instinct and conscience there exists no inner conflict of the will that can, supposedly, result in the destruction of its wholesomeness (The reason why I would like to identify the emergence of ‘pleasure principle’ as an integral part of human instinct as a form of deformity is this: The ‘premier state’ of anything, whatsoever, is its purest state; whatever (state) follows that state is its deformed state).
There is a period that extends between the first stage of deformity of human instinct and the second (and final) phase of the second stage of deformity of human instinct (first phase of the second stage of deformity of human instinct) wherein the instinct is in conflict with itself, owing to the conflict between its two contending principles – the ‘pleasure principle’ and the premier ‘principle of conservation of physical well-being’ (in other words, these two principles are no longer in conformity with and complementary to each other) ; this is the initial phase of the second stage of deformity of human instinct at which the instinct continues to maintain these two distinct and separate principles as before, – only with this change (and this is a significant change) that it (the instinct) doesn’t have the wholesomeness (i.e. integrity) that it has been characterized by at the time when these principles have been complementary rather than conflicting.
Through the entire process of the ‘first stage of deformity of human instinct’ human instinct is eventually and ultimately split into two distinct and separate entities, one of which (the premier principle of conservation) would like to performin accordancewith the supreme principle of our conscience, while the other (the pleasure principle) is ceaselessly striving against it (Here the readers need to be careful to note that the conflict arises, at this phase of post-natural state, within the instinct, and not between the instinct and conscience); thereby, depriving the will of its natural state of wholesomeness. What this, obviously, brings about within any society is ‘total confusion and perplexity’ – a preliminary to ultimate social injustice and inequality.
At the second and final phase of the second stage of deformity of the human instinct, however, the innate principle of our instinct – the premier ‘principle of conservation of our physical well-being’ – gives in to (and, in turn, is engulfed by) the ‘pleasure principle’. In short, through the entire process of this second stage of deformity the heart of our instinct is, eventually, destroyed. This, in turn, gives rise to a conflict between the instinct and conscience; and, in consequence, the will is ultimately torn asunder owing to the persistent conflict between the former and the latter and is no longer capable of maintaining its characteristic wholesomeness (i.e. integrity).
This ultimate “post-natural state of our will” is the key to all social injustices and inequality. For, when the will of the individuals within any society lacks natural integrity, the very basis for social justice and equality is lost.
On the Nature of Social Transformation (Part I)
Man’s Natural Will as being the only basis for social justice and equality, its degradation (due to the influence of any adversarial exogenous (i.e. external) element) as it (the degradation) pertains to individuals living within any societal space is reflected in a regressive change in the state of social justice and equality. Deepening of this process depends on the extent to which adversarial exogenous elements restricts the fulfillment of innate and spontaneous impulses of the Natural Will of individuals living within the society, and the extent to which they adopt (i.e. internalize) to this particular Social Reality (Here exogenous elements in general could, possibly, be defined as things originating, made, and produced outside the human).
Natural Will, in its premier state, has been characterized by an unconditioned condition and a deterministic trait of human nature in its purest form, which is now conditioned on a particular “Social Reality”. Within this Social Reality various exogenous elements (which are themselves not unconditioned conditions, but contingent upon other things) are aggregated against it (Natural Will). Under the scenario of degrading state of the Natural Will of individuals within a “Social Reality” as such, the nature and composition of its content ingredients underlying a ‘Social System’ varies over time (See The Concept of Social Reality for a discussion on Social Reality). On the other hand, under the condition of the state of the Natural Will of individuals being static at its purest form (in other words, the Natural Will of individuals is at its premier state), the nature and composition of the content ingredients underlying any ‘Social System’ is time invariant.
In other words, the content of any “Social Reality” transforms into a variable when the original state of the Natural Will of individuals living within any societal space is degrading as opposed to its (the content’s) status as a time-invariant constituent of the “Social Reality” under the condition of the Natural Will of the individuals as being static at its purest form. Knowing that the content that underlies any ‘Social System’, in turn, determines the System’s nature and behavior, the continual change in the content of any “Social System” under the former condition could, possibly, make the nature and behavior of each and every of its (the System’s) individual elements inconsistent and/or unpredictable as they relate to one another (Predictability depends on whether the inconsistency has an identifiable/observable pattern or not. Thereby, individual elements of a Social System, as they pertain to each other, could be inconsistent and predictable or both inconsistent and unpredictable.). The worst case scenario of such occurrence would be the total collapse of a ‘Social System’, while social content as a time-invariant constituent of a “Social Reality” under the latter condition could, possibly, result in consistency and predictability in the nature and behavior of individual elements operating within the ‘Social System’ as they relate to one another.
First, the sources of social content under the former and latter conditions are fundamentally different; in the latter case the source of any social content is an unconditioned condition, the source as such being ‘moral principles’ embodied in the spontaneous and innate impulses of the Natural Will of individuals living within any societal space, while the source of any social content is not an unconditioned condition in the former case, the source as such being ‘exogenous elements taken together’ (in other words, in this case the source as ‘exogenous elements taken together’ is contingent upon other exogenous elements); this makes the underlying nature of social content in these two cases fundamentally incomparable (Here exogenous elements, in general, could be defined as things originating, made, and produced outside the human body – both within any particular ‘Social System’ and outside of it). Secondly, Natural Will of the individuals living within various societal spaces is exposed to variable adversarial endogenous and/or exogenous elements that, in turn, result in differential constraints to its fulfillment. Third, exposure of the Natural Will to exogenous elements – in terms of their numbers and degrees of presence – that are adversarial to the former brings out differential reactionfrom individuals across various societal spaces; this, in turn, result in their differential degrees of adoption (i.e. internalization) to (their) respective Social Realities (Here exogenous elements in general could, possibly, be defined as things originating, made, and produced outside human body – within any particular society).
Inter-societal comparisons along these lines, taken together, can possibly explain much of the variations across Social Realities at their content level after having ignored the portion of the differences across various social content that have, supposedly, been caused by the difference in external physical conditions that various Social Realities are subjected to. One important clarification is in order: if individuals within and across all societal spaces lived under the condition of their Natural Will as being static at its purest form, then social contents ofvarious Social Realities could, possibly, be held constant after having ignored the impact of the differences in the external physical conditions that each of these Social Realities are exposed to on their respective social contents.
On the Nature of Social Transformation (Part II)
The variability in social condition over time that is consequent of any change in “Social Reality” at its content level presupposes a social adjustment process that starts with the latter event (change in “Social Reality” at its content level) and ends up in the former event (variability in social condition). This social adjustment process constitutes that portion of the total variability in social condition that is unrelated to any change, whatsoever, in the ‘Social System’ the process operates within and to any change in the external physical conditions (brought about by such calamities as earthquakes, droughts, floods and so on, for instance), making the process untraceable, hence uncontrollable as well (However, as a result of this social adjustment process the ‘Social System’ the process operates within and/or the external physical conditions may change). The process becomes relevant only, and only, within the context of a continual transformation of any ‘social condition’ from one state of existence to another, the process being characterized by the degrading state of the Natural Will of individuals living within that condition specific societal space, the amount of transformation as such being infinitesimal at any given point in time.
Another kindof variability within various Social Realities at the level of their construction results from any change in the ‘Social System’ through reformation of social organizations and/or the change in the nature of their underlying relationships with one another. Variability as such within various Social Realities at the level of their construction is traceable, hence can be controlled by any established authority (political or otherwise). The variability in social condition over time consequent of any change in “Social Reality” at the level of its construction (in other words, ‘Social System’) presupposes a ‘social adjustment process’ that starts with the latter (event) and ends up in the former (event).
This social adjustment process constitutes that portion of the total variability in social condition that is unrelated to any change in “Social Reality” at its content level, but has much to do with any change, whatsoever, in the ‘Social System’ the process operates within and any change in the external physical conditions brought about by such calamities as has been mentioned earlier. The process is traceable, hence can be controlled and is relevant in the context of any societal space regardless whether individuals living within it operate under the condition of their Natural Will as being static at its original state or otherwise.
Meaningful and substantial social change is the consequent of an antecedent change, whatever it may be, in “Social Reality” at its content level (and not in the level of its construction, viz. ‘Social System’), although the latter component of “Social Reality” (‘Social System’) would, supposedly, change over time as a result. There cannot be any partial change at the content level of any “Social Reality”, at least in the long-run. This is because, the determining ground of a meaningful and substantial social change, viz. an ideology (whatever it may be) after having been substituted for another (ideology) would always, in turn, affect the content of “Social Reality” in its totality; that is, it would eventually pervade in all of the constituents of “Social Reality” at its content level. Change of ideology as such, in effect, brings about a corresponding change in the principles and doctrines that underlie a ‘Social System’; this, in turn, alters the manner in which the System has been used and utilized before the change, whereby the foreground of a possible and probable change in the social customs and norms is prepared – a change that is apparently reciprocal to the change in the principles and doctrines that underlie the System.
In other words, while the underlying principles and doctrines that dictate the manner in which any ‘Social System’ should be used and utilized are changed consequential of the change in the formerly held ideological disposition, social norms and customs at the content level of “Social Reality” that, together, dictate its (the System’s) manner of operation may remain unchanged for a while, but not for long (Reverse of this process represents impossibility. For, the change in the latter presupposes an antecedent change in the former. Another crucial point is this that when the former is changed, the latter is bound to change as a result of a change as such). Therefore, both the manner of use and utilization as well as the manner of operation (insofar it’s dictated by social norms and customs) of any ‘Social System’ are ultimately altered as the consequence of a change in the ideological disposition within any societal space.
Manner of use and utilization of Social System presupposes a goal or/and objective or a set of goals and/or objectives, either specified or unspecified, underlying the System; while, manner of operation of Social System presupposes a method or style of execution. For instance, a Social System could be used and utilized for protecting the economic and financial interests of the “owners of capital” (manner of use and utilization of Social System), and the method or style of execution of a design as such determines the manner in which the System would operate or be operational to this end (manner of operation of Social System).
No “Social Reality” at the level of its construction, viz. ‘Social System’ is inherently unjust. For “Social Reality” at its structural level represents a ‘passive’ Social System, whatsoever, which is devoid of any capacity to do good or harm in case it is left to itself, its significance being no more (and no less) than instrumental. Ultimate effect of any ‘Social System’, thereby, rests on the nature of its use, utilization, and operation that are determined by the ‘ideological disposition of individuals’ and ‘social norms and customs’, respectively, within any societal space. The very seed of injustice rests, not in the advent of any particular ‘Social System’, but in the characteristic imperfection of the human mind; this is amply manifested by the imperfection of those ideologies that spring out of it (the human mind) – following the various intricate ways human mind is construed, depending upon the variable nature of Man’s mental faculties; this, in turn, determines the nature and prospect of the use, utilization, and operation of any ‘Social System’ vis-à-vis a corresponding set of principles and doctrines.