Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay on justice political theory
Justice essays introduction
Justice essays introduction
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essay on justice political theory
David Hume is considered a reputable and influential philosopher whose empirical approach provided a basis for a number of moral principles. Although the complexity of Hume’s expressive nature and intellectual thought is somewhat mindboggling to most readers, the importance of the account of justice can be seen as significant and of relevance to many values and morals in even today’s society. Hume’s discussion of moral virtues in his book An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals addresses the importance of justice in terms that relate to its sole foundation and further exemplification of moral distinctions.
Hume’s account of justice can be perceived as initially complex but when evaluated in a contextual manner, the ideas appear to be less dynamic. The idea of right or wrong merits is originally introduced in Book III of his A Treatise of Human Nature, where he questions why certain actions in a general society produce a satisfaction or a given uneasiness. [1] This idea provides the reader with an initial thought onto the dynamics of the later sections to come. From this, Hume accounts for the first stage in his argument where he states in Section III, Part I of An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals that the sole foundation of justice is public utility. In the same section, Hume states that “reflections on the beneficial consequences of this virtue are the sole foundation of its merit.” [2] He continues to provide a clear example, where society is provided fully with any amount of “external conveniences” or possessions they envision. In a society where all that inhabit it have any essentials they could possibly desire, there would be no need for justice primarily because humans would not have a need to share their...
... middle of paper ...
...ues, ed. Steven M. Cahn and Peter Markie, vol. 5 of Oxford University Pres (New York: Oxford University Pres, 2012), 280.
[2] Hume, David, An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, 293
[3] Westphal, Kenneth. 2010. "From ‘Convention’ to ‘Ethical Life’”: Hume’s Theory of Justice in Post-Kantian Perspective." Journal Of Ancient Philosophy 7, no. 1: 105-132. Philosopher's Index, EBSCOhost (accessed March 28, 2012), 111.
[4] Hume, David, An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, 295
[5] Hume, David, An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, 295
[6] Hume, David, An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, 307
[7] Hume, David, An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, 306
[8] Krause, Sharon. 2004. “Hume and the (False) Luster of Justice”: Political Theory 32, no. 5: 628-655. Philosopher's Index, EBSCOhost (accessed March 29, 2012), 641.
The book “No Matter How Loud I Shout” written by Edward Humes, looks at numerous major conflicts within the juvenile court system. There is a need for the juvenile system to rehabilitate the children away from their lives of crime, but it also needs to protect the public from the most violent and dangerous of its juveniles, causing one primary conflict. Further conflict arises with how the court is able to administer proper treatment or punishment and the rights of the child too due process. The final key issue is between those that call for a complete overhaul of the system, and the others who think it should just be taken apart. On both sides there is strong reasoning that supports each of their views, causing a lot of debate about the juvenile court system. Edward Humes follows the cases of seven teenagers in juvenile court, and those surrounding them.
Ross, William D.. "What Makes Right Acts Right?" The Right and the Good. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1930. 753-760. Obtained from PHIL 250 B1, Winter Term 2014 Readings – Ethics. University of Alberta eClass.
David Humes had a similar philosophical idea about the origin of justice. He demonstrates that justice was based on its utility to the public. According to Hume, it is not required for justice to be involved when interacting with animals, because animals are inferior compared to the human species, they do not have the ability to envy or own
Approximately three hundred years separate the earliest of these works, The Prince, from the most recent, Utilitarianism, and a progression is discernible in the concept of morality over this span. Machiavelli does not mention the word "morality," but his description of the trends and ideals of human political interaction allow for a reasonable deduction of the concept. Locke, too, does not use the word, but he does write of "the standard of right and wrong." In contrast, Mill writes explicitly and extensively of morality in its forms, sources, and obligations. A logical starting point in this examination is a look at their relative views of human nature.
Jones, W. T. Masters of Political Thought. Ed. Edward, McChesner, and Sait. Vol. 2. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1947.
(7) H. L., Hart, The Concept of Law, ch. VIII, and D., Lyons, Ethics and the rule of law, Cambridge University Press, 1989, p. 78 ff,
Furthermore, Locke's passion for morality is also seen in his interpretation of the social contract. We see that Locke's ideas in freedom of life, liberty, and property have formed the basic morals of past and current governments. One of Edwards's morals that have been seen throughout American history is the infinite sovereignty of G...
Kant’s moral philosophy is very direct in its justification of human rights, especially the ideals of moral autonomy and equality as applied to rational human beings. John Stuart Mills’ theory of utilitarianism also forms a solid basis for human rights, especially his belief that utility is the supreme criterion for judging morality, with justice being subordinate to it. The paper looks at how the two philosophers qualify their teachings as the origins of human rights, and comes to the conclusion that the moral philosophy of Kant is better than that of Mills. Emmanuel Kant Kant’s moral philosophy is built around the formal principles of ethics rather than substantive human goods. He begins by outlining the principles of reasoning that can be equally expected of all rational persons, regardless of their individual desires or partial interests.
Why is incest deplorable amongst humans, but not for dogs? What makes it acceptable for a man to kill a deer, but wrong if he kills another man? Why do these lines get drawn between humans and animals? David Hume has an answer to these questions. Though many philosophers, like Saint Augustine, argue that humans are morally different from animals because of their capability to reason, Hume states that it is passion and sentiment that determines morality. In his book, Treatise with Human Nature, Hume claims that vice and virtue stems from the pleasure or pain we, mankind, feel in response to an action not from the facts that we observe (Hume, 218). Hume uses logic to separate morality into a dichotomy of fact and value, making it clear that the only reasonable way to think of the ethics of morality is to understand that it is driven by passion, as opposed to reason (Angeles, 95). In this essay I will layout Hume's position on morality and defining ambiguous terms on the way. After Hume's argument is well established, I will then precede to illustrate why it is convincing and defend his thesis against some common objections.
Something must be desirable on its own account, and because of its immediate accord or agreement with human sentiment and affection” (87). In conclusion, I believe that Hume thinks that reason, while not completely useless, is not the driving force of moral motivation. Reasons are a means to sentiments, which in turn are a means to morality, but without reasons there can still be sentiments. There can still be beauty. Reasons can not lie as the foundation of morality, because they can only be true or false.
The concept of justice has been a crucial factor in determining governments and the structure of society. In this essay I will argue two thinkers, Thrasymachus and Hobbes, as represented in the writings of The Republic, by Plato and Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbes divergent ideas on justice.
The cases that Hume presents are not reliable support for his argument. For example, it is nearly impossible to have an infinite or extreme amount of abundance. These rare and unrealistic situations dramatically seek to prove his argument and lack any actuality or practicality. If Hume’s purpose is to tell his readers about how justice works in the real world he needs to provide realistic examples that can be applicable to real world situations. His argument is not illustrated realistically if he uses imaginary or erratic scenarios to get his point across. To make his argument stronger, Hume’s should have considered examples that can be applicable to real life situations. Using these dramatic cases like extreme abundance, altruism, or scarcity as an argument is not realistic and should not be used as his
Within two classical works of philosophical literature, notions of justice are presented plainly. Plato’s The Republic and Sophocles’ Antigone both address elements of death, tyranny and immorality, morality, and societal roles. These topics are important elements when addressing justice, whether in the societal representation or personal representation.
... Hume proposes attributes a sense of moral responsibility lost in Hume’s interpretation for the doctrine of liberty and necessities, for humans are responsible only for their choices.
In this essay Hume creates the true judges who are required to have: delicacy of taste, practice in a specific art of taste, be free from prejudice in their determinations, and good sense to guide their judgments. In Hume’s view the judges allow for reasonable critiques of objects. Hume also pointed out that taste is not merely an opinion but has some physical quality which can be proved. So taste is not a sentiment but a determination. What was inconsistent in the triad of commonly held belief was that all taste is equal and so Hume replaced the faulty assumption with the true judges who can guide society’s sentiments.