Justice - Wikipedia. Justice is the legal or philosophical theory by which fairness is administered. An early theory of justice was set out by the Ancient Greek philosopher Plato in his work The Republic. Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is officially out throughout most of the world now, just having its early showings debut in the US last night. Theaters already had multiple showings last night and will have them all day. Definitions: Environmental equity: Poison people equally Environmental justice: Stop poisoning people, period. Environmental racism is the disproportionate impact of environmental hazards on people of color. Advocates of divine command theory argue that justice issues from God. In the 1. 7th century, theorists like John Locke argued for the theory of natural law. Thinkers in the social contract tradition argued that justice is derived from the mutual agreement of everyone concerned. In the 1. 9th century, utilitarian thinkers including John Stuart Mill argued that justice is what has the best consequences. Theories of distributive justice concern what is distributed, between whom they are to be distributed, and what is the proper distribution. Egalitarians argued that justice can only exist within the coordinates of equality. John Rawls used a social contract argument to show that justice, and especially distributive justice, is a form of fairness. Property rights theorists (like Robert Nozick) take a deontological view of distributive justice and argue that property rights- based justice maximizes the overall wealth of an economic system. Theories of retributive justice are concerned with punishment for wrongdoing. Restorative justice (also sometimes called . Each culture's ethics create values which influence the notion of justice. Although there can be found some justice principles that are one and the same in all or most of the cultures, these are insufficient to create a unitary justice apprehension. Harmony. Justice is a proper, harmonious relationship between the warring parts of the person or city. Hence, Plato's definition of justice is that justice is the having and doing of what is one's own. A just man is a man in just the right place, doing his best and giving the precise equivalent of what he has received. This applies both at the individual level and at the universal level. A person's soul has three parts . Similarly, a city has three parts . If one is ill, one goes to a medic rather than a farmer, because the medic is expert in the subject of health. Similarly, one should trust one's city to an expert in the subject of the good, not to a mere politician who tries to gain power by giving people what they want, rather than what's good for them. Socrates uses the parable of the ship to illustrate this point: the unjust city is like a ship in open ocean, crewed by a powerful but drunken captain (the common people), a group of untrustworthy advisors who try to manipulate the captain into giving them power over the ship's course (the politicians), and a navigator (the philosopher) who is the only one who knows how to get the ship to port. For Socrates, the only way the ship will reach its destination . Murder is wrong and must be punished, for instance, because, and only because, God commands that it be so. Divine command theory was famously questioned by Plato in his dialogue, Euthyphro. Called the Euthyphro dilemma, it goes as follows: . For example, some Christian apologists argue that goodness is the very nature of God, and there is necessarily reflected in His commands. Lewis, is that it is deductively valid to argue that the existence of an objective morality implies the existence of God and vice versa. Natural law. In this, it is similar to the laws of physics: in the same way as the Third of Newton's laws of Motion requires that for every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction, justice requires according individuals or groups what they actually deserve, merit, or are entitled to. This claim can be understood in a number of ways, with the fundamental division being between those who argue that justice is the creation of some humans, and those who argue that it is the creation of all humans. Despotism and skepticism. October 12th, 1995 Three Brentwood, Pennsylvania, Police Officers Kill Unarmed Black Motorist During Traffic Stop. Jonny Gammage, cousin and business partner of Pittsburgh Steelers football player Ray Seals, was detained. Vote NO on the retention of Kansas Supreme Court Justices Lawton Nuss, Marla Luckert, Carol Beier, and Dan Biles. Joker in Injustice For All. Batman owns Amazo - You don't need HERA (Greek Goddess) when you have Batman - Duration: 6:55. Brigitte Vache subit une injustice qui la rend presque incoh. Son mari, Didier et elle n’en peuvent plus. This account is considered further below, under 'Justice as fairness'. The absence of bias refers to an equal ground for all people concerned in a disagreement (or trial in some cases). Subordinate value. Rather, it is derived from the more basic standard of rightness, consequentialism: what is right is what has the best consequences (usually measured by the total or average welfare caused). So, the proper principles of justice are those that tend to have the best consequences. These rules may turn out to be familiar ones such as keeping contracts; but equally, they may not, depending on the facts about real consequences. Either way, what is important is those consequences, and justice is important, if at all, only as derived from that fundamental standard. VIOLENCE IS AN EVERYDAY THREAT. According to the United Nations, 4 billion people live outside the protection of the law. That means that their public justice systems – their police, courts, and laws – are so broken.Mill tries to explain our mistaken belief that justice is overwhelmingly important by arguing that it derives from two natural human tendencies: our desire to retaliate against those who hurt us, and our ability to put ourselves imaginatively in another's place. So, when we see someone harmed, we project ourselves into her situation and feel a desire to retaliate on her behalf. If this process is the source of our feelings about justice, that ought to undermine our confidence in them.? Is it to be wealth, power, respect, opportunities or some combination of these things? Between what entities are they to be distributed? Humans (dead, living, future), sentient beings, the members of a single society, nations? What is the proper distribution? Equal, meritocratic, according to social status, according to need, based on property rights and non- aggression? Distributive justice theorists generally do not answer questions of who has the right to enforce a particular favored distribution. On the other hand, property rights theorists argue that there is no . This basic view can be elaborated in many ways, according to what goods are to be distributed. Egalitarian theories are typically less concerned with discussing who exactly will do the distributing or what effects their recommended policies will have on the production of the goods, services, or resources they wish to distribute. Some variants of egalitarianism affirm that justice without equality is hollow and that equality itself is the highest justice, though such a formulation will have concrete meaning only once the main terms have been fleshed out. At a cultural level, egalitarian theories have developed in sophistication and acceptance during the past two hundred years. Among the notable broadly egalitarian philosophies are socialism, left- libertarianism, and progressivism, which propound economic, political, and legal egalitarianism, respectively . Rawls asks us to imagine ourselves behind a veil of ignorance that denies us all knowledge of our personalities, social statuses, moral characters, wealth, talents and life plans, and then asks what theory of justice we would choose to govern our society when the veil is lifted, if we wanted to do the best that we could for ourselves. We don't know who in particular we are, and therefore can't bias the decision in our own favour. So, the decision- in- ignorance models fairness, because it excludes selfish bias. Rawls argues that each of us would reject the utilitarian theory of justice that we should maximize welfare (see below) because of the risk that we might turn out to be someone whose own good is sacrificed for greater benefits for others. Instead, we would endorse Rawls's two principles of justice: Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both. Rawls's theory distinguishes two kinds of goods . Theories disagree on the meaning of what is . The main distinction is between theories that argue the basis of just deserts ought to be held equally by everyone, and therefore derive egalitarian accounts of distributive justice. According to needs- based theories, goods, especially such basic goods as food, shelter and medical care, should be distributed to meet individuals' basic needs for them. Marxism can be regarded as a needs- based theory on some readings of Marx's slogan . It is just that a person has some good (especially, some property right) if and only if they came to have it by a history made up entirely of events of two kinds: Just acquisition, especially by working on unowned things; and. Just transfer, that is free gift, sale or other agreement, but not theft (i. In particular, redistributive taxation is theft. Some property rights theorists (like Nozick) also take a consequentialist view of distributive justice and argue that property rights based justice also has the effect of maximizing the overall wealth of an economic system. They explain that voluntary (non- coerced) transactions always have a property called Pareto efficiency. The result is that the world is better off in an absolute sense and no one is worse off. Such consequentialist property rights theorists argue that respecting property rights maximizes the number of Pareto efficient transactions in the world and minimized the number of non- Pareto efficient transactions in the world (i. The result is that the world will have generated the greatest total benefit from the limited, scarce resources available in the world. Further, this will have been accomplished without taking anything away from anyone unlawfully. Welfare- maximization. This may require sacrifice of some for the good of others, so long as everyone's good is taken impartially into account. Utilitarianism, in general, argues that the standard of justification for actions, institutions, or the whole world, is impartial welfare consequentialism, and only indirectly, if at all, to do with rights, property, need, or any other non- utilitarian criterion. These other criteria might be indirectly important, to the extent that human welfare involves them. But even then, such demands as human rights would only be elements in the calculation of overall welfare, not uncrossable barriers to action. Theories of retributive justice.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
December 2016
Categories |