How Do You Understand Justice (original) (raw)
Related papers
THE CONCEPT OF LAW AND JUSTICE
Prizren Social Science Journal, 2020
From the views and changes that have followed the dynamism of our society, undoubtedly, law and justice have played a crucial role as a very abstract term that has been consumed almost from the first beginnings of human society to our modern days. Beyond the events and circumstances that societies in the past have had and organized by defining and choosing the way of life, and often times the right has been personalized by a certain group of people, or by a military division that has given rights and has created justice, in certain interests and for personal and charismatic purposes it has been denied a certain part of society, and has often been deformed in scandalous ways by reflecting, on the fact that the giver of this right has often been pointed out to be the man, but this convulsion in no case has lasted long, and often this theory has remained unrealized, reflecting that right is something natural and that the individual gains at the moment of birth and enjoys it to death, this divergence and complexity of the way of perceiving the law has often resulted in wars and the acquisition of this vital right. Through this paper we will draw philosophical and legal paradigms, analyzing from a retrospective way of the application of law and the applicability of justice, as an important mechanism of regulation of social relations. Law and justice have a common path of development, one by regulating the way of life of the people, that is, by issuing norms and the other by giving justice to the relative complexity and cohesion of interpersonal relations.
Overview of the moral theories of Justice: part one
South African Dental Journal, 2019
Justice is regarded as the greatest and most fundamental moral virtue, overarching and taking precedence over all others. Equally, however, Justice remains the most contentious moral, ethical, political and social issue of our time. Hence any attempts to define and describe Justice accurately, scientifically and exhaustively, will have limitations, which supports the multidimensionality of the nature and meaning of the concept. Justice is derived from a Latin word "jus" meaning right or law. It therefore follows that a just person obeys the law (lawful) and does what is right (morally, ethically). Synonymously, Justice means fairness, that is giving to persons what is due to them. 1 Philosophical enquiries on the concept of Justice as described below interrogate the nature and or character of Justice, and its application specifically in a political society. This elucidation of Justice will provide the basis for application of this complex concept to health care and oral health in particular. To capture this concept fully, this paper, which is a prelude (part one), will explore and define the construct of Justice. The second paper will provide application of the concept to oral health care. Plato and Aristotle are undoubtedly the most celebrated and influential early philosophers, credited for shaping much of the Western moral thought. These scholars conceptualised Justice and brought to the fore its essential form. They jointly defined Justice in terms of its characteristics or quality that makes all things that are just, just. Plato and Aristotle defined Justice as a component of general virtue, that is the particular excellence of a thing, or something possessed by a thing or some quality of a thing that enable the thing to do what it does very well. 2,3 Following this discourse, these scholars were able to construct and understand Justice and its implication in achieving its inherent purpose. The exploration of Plato and Aristotle's philosophy will assist us to understand the general and specific nature of Justice. That is, understanding fully the quality of Justice that allows the individual and society to do what they are meant to do very well: to live in harmony. In his celebrated work, The Republic, 4,5 Plato defines Justice as a critical virtue necessary to establish societal order. At a personal level Justice embodies personal order that is individual goodness and obedience of laws. According to Plato an individual is just insofar that he can achieve: i). wisdom or Justice of the mind ii). temperance or Justice of the senses iii). courage or Justice of the heart These individual dispositions are characteristics that enable Justice to be achieved. At a societal level Justice is synonymous with piety, which symbolises a relationships with god(s) and the laws governing the Republic or State.
Encyclopedia of Business Ethics and Society
Justice, Theories of The question "What is justice" is the first problem addressed by Plato's Republic. It has remained a central question in all moral, legal and political thought. There are narrow and broad uses of the terms 'just' and 'justice.' In its narrowest sense, justice is close to lawfulness, and a just act is a legal one, meaning primarily that it is not illegal. Another narrow use is procedural, with the sense that certain decision-making procedures deliver a product that a state calls justice. In its broader senses, which are of the greatest interest to philosophers and other theorists, justice is thought of as an attribute either of acts, including transactions and decisions; of conditions, including rules and laws; or of entities, including persons, gods, societies and states. Aristotle held that the creation and maintenance of justice was the most important task of the state. A just state was ruled in the interests of the whole population, while an unjust state was ruled in the interests of its ruling class. Aristotle distinguished between distributive and commutative justice. The first deals with the distribution of rights, benefits, costs and responsibilities within a class, for example, among citizens of a state, among family members or among stakeholders in a corporation. The second, now widely known as retributive justice, deals with the treatment of individual persons or interests, for example, in a transaction or in meting out punishment. This second way of thinking about justice involves consideration of what people deserve according to some standard, such as law or precedence. Poetic justice, in which one unexpectedly gets what he or she deserves, is a notion of retributive justice. The distributive notion of justice involves, as Aristotle has it, treating equals equally and unequals according to their relevant inequality so that, for example, juveniles and adults are accorded differing rights and responsibilities with regard to alcohol, marriage, driving and voting. Injustice would clearly arise from treating a member of one class according to the rules laid down for the other class. Today theorists are unlikely to assert that there are two distinct conceptions involved in our thinking about justice, though most will agree that we have notions about justice that can be at odds with one another. Each of several employees might deserve all of the bonus dollars available in a given year, but it might still seem more just to divide the money among them. In that case, the desire for a kind of distribution is apparently at odds with the desire to give what is deserved. Some contemporary theorists emphasize the notion of distributive justice while others emphasize individual rights, and thus the retributive notion of justice. The concept of social justice takes justice as the attribute of a society in which a certain pattern of distribution is roughly realized throughout its most important institutions. In order to discover the right distributions, John Rawls attempts to produce a hypothetical social contract. His basic idea is that a contract made under certain constraints will guarantee justice. Discovering these constraints involves assuming a "veil of ignorance"we choose social arrangements from behind this veil by supposing that we must enter the world our policy choices create, though we are ignorant about how we will enter it, meaning that we might enter it in any condition of wealth or poverty,
I will discuss Thrasymachu's new on present justice in the first and Second Republic of Plato's. I will first demonstrate Plato's project plan within its historical and cultural context. Now in order to show the function idea of Thrasymachus as representing common cultural conceptions extant at the time Plato wrote the Republic I shall refer to " Solon and Thucydides " , Thucydides is of particular value and a fellow member of the relate aristocracy at a time very close to Plato. In his description of Athenian attitudes to justice, then therefore offers a close source to compare with Plato. I shall then examine the key steps undertaken by Thrasymachus and then Glaucon in the Republic. Many of these steps are in response to objections by Socrates. Finally, I shall extract the logical propositions within these passages. By making explicit implied propositions and intermediate conclusions, I shall show that Thrasymachu's position offers a compatible view of justice. Moreover, I shall show that this view is not one which attempts to provide a single definition. I shall further indicate that it is the false assumption that Thrasymachus is attempting a definition of justice, rather than merely describing various aspects of it, which generates the perception of incompatible. " It is said that It has always been a rule that the weak should be subject to the strong; " These Plato's Republic is a political work which examines, among other things, the nature of justice. In Athens, if not all of classical Greece, justice is both a personal view as valor and virtue and a civic necessity. The presence of justice was considered essential both for the orderly interaction between citizens and for the overall survival of the polis. These were considered interdependent , as we see in
The Variations of the Concept of Justice: An Analysis
2018
The idea of the concept of justice varies from man to man, family to family, locality to locality, state to state, country to country and even continent to continent. The inquiry about justice goes from the crudest to the most refined interpretation of it. The basis of justice can be traced to conscience and morals. Philosophers have different theories of justice. This contributes to the assertion that a definite meaning of justice is hard to come by. Some see it as a shield to the weaker people in the society; others envision a society of equal citizens with equal rights. The ‘rights of citizens’ is one of the basic features of justice. In claiming these rights by citizens, arguments build up as to unjust actions. An example is the nature of secularism in Turkey, the ban placed on the hijab and the violation of the right to freedom of religion of women. Also, an intimate look at current issues in the world brings one to the conclusion that it is not possible for everyone to be just...
JUSTICE AS THE END VALUE OF LAW
There has always been a great debate on what role law should fulfill in every society –while believers of the Natural Law on the one hand, insist that every law must appeal to good conscience in order to be recognizable, the Marxists are of the view that law is nothing but an instrument of oppression in the hands of the sovereign. The bottom-line of these arguments is that of a deep-seated yearn for justice. For instance, believers of the Marxist School of thought would have been more at peace if they have seen law as going to the greater extent of achieving and guaranteeing certain freedoms. While this is important, it is acutely imperative to draw out a benchmark –justice. Therefore using justice as the index of every law, has law served any purpose, at all, for every Tom, Dick and Harry of every society? This research sets out on a particular mission: that of first, understanding what law actually is, then attaching to it the value of justice in order to create out a phenomenon, and then proceeding to critically examine, compare and analyze the laws of some select societies (both indigenous and modern) using the index of justice as a guide. In the end, it is the hope of this researcher that, notwithstanding the variety in the laws that have existed and still exist during the different evolutionary stages of human societies, the common, universal language which they all reflect –that of justice – has been deduced.
Syllabus - Theories of Justice
In this course, we will inves,gate contemporary theories of jus,ce, beginning with a review of the major schools of thought before turning to various topics related to jus,ce. Debates over jus,ce relate to ques,ons about rights, en,tlement, desert, and obliga,on-namely, what do we owe each other? How we answer these ques,ons have enormous effects on the nature of our poli,cal society, for good or ill. This is a survey course, meant to familiarize students with the most influen,al contemporary theories of jus,ce so that they can become well-versed in modern academic discourse about the topic and can apply those insights to wider poli,cal debates. It is meant to introduce students to a wide array of views, allowing them to develop their own concep,ons of jus,ce and be beYer situated when evalua,ng others. If, as John Rawls observed, jus,ce is "the first virtue of social ins,tu,ons," then grappling with this topic is the first duty of the ci,zen.
This Research Paper is an attempt to answer the following questions of jurisprudence in a manner- thoughtful and lucid. What is Justice? What are the various forms of justice? What is the difference between 'Corrective Justice' and 'Distributive Justice'? How is "law in accordance with justice" different from "justice in accordance with law"? What is the difference between 'A Law' and 'The Law'? How is 'Conventional Morality' different from 'Critical Morality'? Is 'law' in breach of 'morals' - an unjust law? How are 'Natural Rights', 'Civil Rights' and 'Legal Rights' inter-connected? What is the difference between 'Natural Justice' and 'Legal Justice'?
Concept of Justice, Utilitarianism and other Modern Approaches
(A) Introduction Since the dawn of human civilization, in the whole range of our legal, political and moral theory, the notion of justice has always occupied a central place. Although any attempt to define the term precisely, scientifically and exhaustively has presented a baffling problem to scholars of all hues. Consequently on account of its multidimensionality, its nature and meaning has always been a dynamic affair. Besides, the problem of definition of justice is beset with the problem of its normative as well as empirical connotations. While in the normative sense it implies the idea of joining or fitting the idea of a bond or tie1 , in an empirical context, it has its relation with the concept of positive law with the result that law and justice becomes sister concepts.