Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Critical note on the concept of justice
Critical note on the concept of justice
Concepts of justice
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Critical note on the concept of justice
The Classical Theory of Justice is definitely a complex issue to ponder. Although its definitive words seem simple, such as, “one good deed deserves another,” or “justice consists in rendering to each his due,” the interpretation of such justices is not clear. Because there is no such thing as a black and white system or world, I cannot simply say that all people will receive what is due to them. In fact, life appears to be much more of a gamble than a certainty. Example, ten people who reside in ten different locations could all perform a noble act. However, what if only one of the ten receives recognition for their noble acts, and is it unjust that the other nine do not receive equal recognition. Surely all ten were excellent in their actions. However, I do agree that it is natural to most that we should desire to reward a noble act and punish an evil one. Yet, it is important to remember that society does not give equal rewards to all people all of the time. There is no possible way to keep track diligently of every good or bad act and consistently reward or punish equivalently.
Therefore, as I do agree that it seems universal to most individuals that good begets good and bad does earn punishment. The natural reaction of most people will fall in that order. However, I would like to point attention to that fact that historically it is obvious that people focus on wrong doings. For instance, the Ten Commandments and the bible focus on wrong actions. The major message being that man is inherently evil. A great deal of effort and focus is directed at convincing man to behave. Then as individuals fulfill this requirement, they are rewarded. It makes you wonder if the expectations and the realm of scrutiny inspire good acts, and ...
... middle of paper ...
...I believe that regardless of what you inherit that you are in charge of yourself. With the exception of the cognitively challenged, it is fair to expect individuals to make life choices. With or without recognizing social or environmental contributions, it is a choice that each person makes each day as to how they will behave. Because modern society has chosen to reward “good” acts and punish “bad” acts, the majority of the population follows suit. I think that it is feasible that people are conditioned to a belief system, but this does not make the system correct. Much of the laws today are based on social norms, which fluctuate over time. Things or actions that were once legal are now deemed illegal and vice versa. The theories continue to fluctuate with cultural changes. I do not believe there is one theory of justice nor there ever one. Justice is subjective.
Before discussing justice in the epic, it is important to establish the meaning of the term. For our present purpose, justice will specifically apply to the social system of moral checks and balances. Acts that are valued in society are rewarded materially or emotionally. Acts that are devalued lead to punishment. Also, recipients of unmerited punishment receive compensation for their injuries.
Arthur Miller’s 1954 play, The Crucible, toys with the emotions and morality struggles of the 1690 Salem Witch Trails involving the repercussions of government corruption and the desire for personal liberty and integrity. Miller’s artistry as a playwright, positions the audience to believe that women are largely suppressed by men in the community which ultimately leads to an uprising of power from the “powerlessness” members of the community. The Crucible challenges preconceived audience perceptions that change can only be accomplished with power, by presenting an opportunity for the powerlessness gender of Salem to congregate and upturn the pillars of society that Salem thought were most strong such as theocratic justice.
If there was a way for mankind to be unjust without any consequences, then he would be unjust. For instance, The Ring of Gyges is a fictional tale about a shepherd who took a ring from a corpse that he found after a storm. The ring gave the shepherd the ability to disappear when he turned the facet inward, but he would reappear when he turned the facet outward. When the shepherd became aware of the power of the ring he stole the kingdom by seducing the queen, and killing the king. Afterward, Glaucon made a comparison to justify what would have happened if two of the ring exist. He stated, that if one ring was giving to the just man, and the other ring giving the unjust man, they would both pursue their own self-interest. The essence of Glaucon’s story is that, if a just man had the opportunity to obtain his desires by been unjust, then he would be. Glaucon point is justice is involuntary, it is used to sustain order in society (if you do not break the law, you are more likely not to get punished).
Encyclopedia Britannica Defines Justice as the concept of a proper proportion between a person’s deserts (what is merited) and the good and bad things that befall or are allotted to him or her. There is a duality to the idea of justice because it acts as a reward and a deterrent. It makes sure the people who abide by rules get treated “justly” but also insures an example out of the people who break laws so that the amount of law-breakers dissipates. Judgment’s importance stems from its dual-concept base. Britannica defines it in terms of law and thought. Judgment in all legal systems is a decision of a court adjudicating the rights of the parties to a legal action before it. The Encyclopedia explains judgment in thought using multiple components:
Plato's Book I of The Republics presents three fundamental views on justice which are exemplified in Thucydides' On Justice, Power and Human Nature. Justice is illustrated as speaking the paying one's debts, helping one's friends and harming one's enemies, and the advantage of the stronger.
This essay will also approach the weaknesses of these theories. It will look at the nature/nurture debate and how most of the theories fail to take into account social and environmental factors that contribute to an individuals behaviour. It will also look at the idea of 'determinism' (Lombroso, 1876), the idea that people have absolutely no control over there actions so shouldn't be punished, but rather, treated.
Also, that justice is a certain type of specialization, meaning that performing a particular task that is a person’s own, not of someone else’s. Plato (2007), Polemarchus argues with Socrates in book I that, “Justice was to do good to a friend and harm to an enemy” (335b p.13). Plato (2007) he then responds, “It is not the function of the just man to harm either his friends or anyone else, but of his opposite the unjust man” (335d p.14). His views of justice are related to contemporary culture, because when someone does something that they are supposed to do, they receive credit or a reward for it, but if the opposite of that is performed, by not doing the particular task that is asked, they are then rewarded but with punishments. Also, that justice is doing the right thing in a society. Justice of contemporary culture does not diverge from the views offered in The Republic and Socrates views are adequate, because if a task is not performed the way it needs to be, and is supposed to be a person should not be rewarded for it. Additionally, that an individual should be just not
There are three types of Justice discussed in Book 1 of Plato’s Republic which are Retributive, Procedural, and Social Justice. Retributive justice is the type of justice that requires someone to pay back their debts if they took something. According to Cephalus, justice requires ‘repayment’ from those who have taken something. For example, The death penalty can be considered retributive justice because someone may have took a life and now their life will be taken from them in return. Procedural justice is doing good for someone that you are close with but doing harm to someone you do not get along with. Polemarchus believes that justice is doing good to good people and doing bad to bad people. For example, Giving your friend a ride to
Utilitarianism was long thought to violate the Principle of Retributive Justice, the concept of being punished for crimes committed. Under closer examination, it is revealed that Utilitarianism and Retributive Justice do not clash. According to Mill, the concept of justice is actually derived from utility. When an individual's moral rights are violated, it is a natural tendency to want to retaliate against the violator. The retaliation ensures that such an act would not happen again. By protecting individuals from the violation of rights, punishment contributes to an overall increase of utility in society. In Utilitarianism, Mill writes that "a person may possibly not need the benefits of others, but he always needs that they should not do him hurt" (Mill 89). This protection allows individuals to follow their own pursuits more effectively, without fear, and ultimately with more utility. At the same time, Mill also argues that certain cases exist where an individual has a moral duty to do an action that would be considered unjust under normal circumstances; however, due to the action drastically increasing utility, the action is allowed to be done and does not violate the Principle of Retributive Justice. An act that would be considered "wrong" in a normal situation can be "right" in other situations. One such example is the case of Robin Hood. Robin Hood is a fictional character who steals material goods and money from very rich individuals and redistributes those items to the very poor. He is not punished for his crimes, and is hailed as a hero for his deeds. While the case of Robin Hood might seem to violate the Principle of Retributive Justice because he receives no retribution for his actions, under closer consideration, this...
Have you ever thought about if the person next to you is a killer or a rapist? If so, what would you want from the government if the person had killed someone you know? Should they receive the death penalty? Murderers and rapists should be punished for the crimes they commit and should pay the price for their wrongdoing. Having the death penalty in our society is humane; it helps the overcrowding problem and gives relief to the families of the victims who had to go through an event such as murder.
The ideal society we would all be considered equal, but reality often defies this idealism. When we think of police officers, we think of people working hard to keep us all safe, but this may not always be the case in today 's society. This is demonstrated in an opinion piece published in the Miami Herald, entitled “Need a ‘big, bad dude’? White criminals need not apply” by Leonard Pitts Jr. The article opens by discussing the shooting of African-American man Terence Crutcher, where the police officer who shot him stated it was due to him not obeying her orders and reaching inside his SUV for a weapon. However, the video of the shooting shows that this did not happen. The article also goes on to discuss other African-Americans shot in recent
Last but not least, injustice does not provide the most good for the most number of people. Just acts spawn other just acts just like unjust acts spawn other unjust acts. If everyone behaved unjustly, mankind would return to a state of nature (everyone is for themselves) which would be very unprofitable for the unjust individual due to a decreased likelihood of survival. An action is clearly unprofitable for the unjust individual if it would eventually create a hostile environment for him. Hence, one should set an example for others by living a just life which would create a better environment for him as well as for others.
If human nature and decisions are based on a majority of free will than what would be the point of living out an everyday life if the script and final scene are determined by who your parents are and the genes you receive from them. Furthermore, it would likely cause more division within our own race than ethnicity, sex, gender, or culture will. I would be more inclined to believe in the circumstance of social environment to be a factor of criminal behavior. There are ultimately two kinds of purposeful crimes, crimes one feels they have to commit in order to avoid or attain a particular outcome and crimes that one wants to commit out of their own volition. Those who commit crimes because they feel they have to be of a majority pertain to environmental or personal circumstances. On the minority of purposeful crimes are they reason to lack of free will from a genetic stand point.
“Justice removed, then, what are kingdoms but great bands of robbers?” (Augustine, The City of God against the Pagans, p. 147[1]). Augustine makes quite a claim here. The presence or absence of “justice,” he implies, can make or break a great kingdom. What is this justice that Augustine speaks of? Is it the philosopher kings that define Plato’s “just city[2],” or perhaps Aristotle’s “good life[3]”? Augustine approaches the challenge of defining justice in a different, but not necessarily contradictory way, than his predecessors. In The City of God against the Pagans, man’s relationship with justice is only secondary; for Augustine, justice is about God.
Of course I looked “justice” up in the dictionary before I started to write this paper and I didn’t find anything of interest except of course a common word in every definition, that being “fair”. This implies that justice would have something to do with being fair. I thought that if one of the things the law and legal system are about is maintaining and promoting justice and a sense of “fairness”, they might not be doing such a spiffy job. An eye for an eye is fair? No, that would be too easy, too black and white. I could cite several examples where I thought a judge’s or jury’s ruling was not fair, but I won’t because frankly, we’ve all seen those.