The Possibility of Justice for All
Works Cited Not Included
Can there be justice for all? To answer this question I must first define what justice is. Justice is ?the quality of being just, impartial or fair? in your dealings with others according to Merriam Webster?s Collegiate Dictionary. Keeping that definition in mind, I now must turn to the Voices of Wisdom in order to find an example of a situation in which all parties feel that they are being treated justly. After examining examples such as: Euthanasia, discrimination based on sexual orientation, and equal opportunity offered within the book, it becomes clear to me that there is in fact no possible way for there to be justice for all because everyone?s judgement is in some way or another clouded by their own self interests.
Euthanasia, people can decide exactly how they want to live but should we as a society allow them the right to decide exactly how they want to die? On the one hand you have the question ?is it just to kill someone or allow them to die when help is available?? The obvious answer is no of course not. This is a prime example of why there can be no justice for all, because on the other hand you have the question ?is it fair to force someone to live through unbearable pain in anticipation of an agonizing death?? The obvious answer to that question is also no. This is where our self-interests come into play. It is in the patient?s own self interests to die because it will ease her pain, but is not in mine to alleviate her of her life ?because death is final and irreversible?, and because ?euthanasia contains within it the possibility that [I] will work against [my] own interest if [I] practice it or allow it to be practiced on [others].? (J. G...
... middle of paper ...
...o that principle affirmative action should be considered just in relationship to minorities. As a result, because equal opportunity legislation is not in accordance with the best self-interests of most white males but it is in accordance with those of most minorities, this is another example of a situation in which injustice is inevitable.
After closely examining these three specific situations in which injustice?because of our natural tendency to look after our own best self-interests?is certain, it can be concluded that it is hopeless to try to attain such an idea as a society that is just for all. Because these perpetually unjust situations such as euthanasia, discrimination based on sexual preference, ideas like affirmative action or situations similar to these will most likely permanently exist, a society in which there is justice for all is unreachable.
After long years of suffering, degradation, and different sorts of discrimination which the disadvantaged group of people had experienced, the “Affirmative Action Law” was finally passed and enforced for the very first time on September 24, 1965. The central purpose of the Affirmative Action Law is to combat racial inequality and to give equal civil rights for each citizen of the United States, most especially for the minorities. However, what does true equality mean? Is opportunity for everyone? In an article entitled, “None of this is fair”, the author, Mr. Richard Rodriguez explains how his ethnicity did not become a hindrance but instead, the law became beneficial. However, Mr. Richard Rodriguez realized the unfairness of the “Affirmative Action” to people who are more deserving of all the opportunities that were being offered to him. Through Mr. Rodriguez’s article, it will demonstrates to the reader both favorable, and adverse reaction of the people to the Affirmative Action, that even though the program was created with the intention to provide equality for each and every citizen, not everyone will be pleased, contented, and benefit from the law.
There are several important ethical issues related to euthanasia. One is allowing people who are terminally ill and suffering the right to choose death. Should these people continue to suffer even though they really are ba...
To sum everything up, we as a human race are not perfect, nor will we ever make solutions that will satisfy both side of arguments. One lesson we can learn from this research paper, however, is that everyone should have the ability to fully enjoy their Equal Protection Clause under the Fourteenth Amendments. Nonetheless, the development of reverse discrimination, the creation of stigma against women and minorities, the buildup of racial tension, and the fact of attempting to solve a racial problem that no longer exist all contributed to the danger of affirmative action. It may be created with good intentions, but certainly not applicable to our society now if all of us wish to be treated equal.
There is no justice when humans are living in the state of mere nature in “this war of every man against every man...nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong or just and unjust have there no place.”(188) These are the conditions that constitute mere nature. Justice has to battle all of human desire just to begin to establish a foothold in an arena where force and fraud are the supreme virtues.(188) Anything and everything is allowed in mere nature and absolute liberty “without impediment”(189) is used accordingly, as ones own reason dictates. When Human desires and aversions are pursued for only self preservation this puts us in a state of perpetual war with one another on an individual level, each of us doing whatever is necessary to survive. Therefore to establish justice is to first institute laws and government, but before this can be done you have to decide who or what entity has the right to do so? How is this power transferred to them? And at what
The issues in the euthanasia debate usually revolve around patients who are terminally ill and/or suffering intractable pain. The patient must fully think about every aspect of what euthanasia would involve. I think that once a patient is seeking to end his or her life due to illness; they must have a will in place and also note the reason why they want to end their life. Euthanasia does raises lots of worrying ethical dilemmas like in what condition euthanasia can be justify, is there any ethical difference among killing someone and letting them die, is there any right to end the life of an individual who is suffering from serious
If an individual wants to end their life, due to age, illness, or any other reason, they should be allowed to decide for themselves what they want. As a culture, we generally look down on suicide, and even disapprove the thought of someone wanting to die. It is often delineated as being selfish, and often leads to preventative course of action to prevent suicide. However, if someone believes that he or she has a moral right to die, and someone else agrees or disagrees, then begins an ethical dilemma. In my personal opinion, if someone wants to die, he or she should be allowed to commit suicide, or be assisted in death. There are implementations, such as not allowing anyone not of a set legal age to commit suicide or seek out an assisted death. If someone has a utilitarian approach to his or her death, believing that they have no further purpose in life, who
In this essay, I argue that it is better to lead a life of justice than a life of injustice. In The Republic of Plato, Socrates sets out to determine what justice is. He and a group of his peers discuss justice, its core tenants, and what it means to lead a just life. Socrates is then accosted by three of his peers. Their argument is that the man who leads a life of injustice will be happier, make more profits, and succeed in life more than the man who is just. Socrates argues each of these claims until his peers admit that they have been bested by his logic.
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.
... greater pain and anguish for longer periods of time than my father did, I believe euthanasia is the only compassionate form of relief we can provide. I believe it is morally important to allow an individual to die with respect for his or her dignity, while respecting his or her autonomy. Because of these reasons, euthanasia is morally justified when administered under strict controls.
Euthanasia is the deliberate killing of an ill person’s life in order to soothe them from the suffering the illness is causing. This act is usually conducted by people with terminal illness; however there are other incidents which lead to euthanasia. In the UK euthanasia is illegal similarly Islamic countries forbid any form of suicide as they believe in the sanctity of life whereas in other countries such as Belgium and Luxembourg this is not the case .Should a person in a lot of pain be allowed to commit suicide to relieve their suffering? And who has the right to deny a person a peaceful ending to their life and stop the suffering permanently? Euthanasia is a very controversial topic and those in favour argue that it’s the patients choice what they do with their life in cases of terminal illnesses the death is inevitable so what is the point in prolonging the process? Others argue that Voluntary euthanasia will eventually lead to involuntary euthanasia and the termination of people deemed as undesirable.
According to Pojman (2006), justice is the constant and perpetual will to give every man his due. This would seem to imply that for justice to be carried out, people must get what they deserve. But there is some debate over what being just entails; to be just is to be fair, but is being fair truly to give people what they deserve? In this essay, I will detail why justice requires that people are given what they deserve through the scope of punishment, reward, and need.
Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide has been a hot topic of debate for quite some time now. Some believe it to be immoral, while others see nothing wrong with it what so ever. Regardless what anyone believes, euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should become legal for physicians and patients. Death is a personal situation in life. By government not allowing euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide they are interfering and violating patient’s personal freedom and human rights! Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide have the power to save the lives of family members and other ill patients. Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should become legal however, there should be strict rules and guidelines to follow and carry out by both the patient and physician. If suicide isn’t a crime why should euthanasia and assisted suicide? Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should be legal and the government should not be permitted to interfere with death.
Secondly, to numerous people, quality of life is more important than the length of the life. The patients who request euthanasia are going through unbearable pain that others who had never gone through it won’t understand. The bystanders think it is better to live, but the patients themselves see death as a way to end their intolerable pain and to give them peace. I believe that it is just a matter of time before those patients die of sickness, and it is pointless to force those patients to live longer. I think it is best to end the lives of those in pain, rather than trying to make their lives full of suffering and torture longer.
In evaluating any moral decision, we must ask whether our actions treat all persons equally. If not, we must determine whether the difference in treatment is justified: are the criteria we are using relevant to the situation at hand? But justice is not the only principle to consider in making ethical decisions. Sometimes principles of justice may need to be overridden in favor of other kinds of moral claims such as rights or society's welfare. Nevertheless, justice is an expression of our mutual recognition of each other's basic dignity, and an acknowledgement that if we are to live together in an interdependent community we must treat each other as equals.
The Importance of Justice in Society One component of the definition of justice is the final outcome of the process of the law, whereby justice is distributed by the State. According to this definition, justice is the mechanical process of the structure of law – set in place and agreed to by the people of the State. Another definition is concerned with the value inherent in ‘just’ behavior. One distinction between these two definitions is the difference between an individual viewpoint and the larger view of the society. Either view incorporates the concept of moral judgment; ‘good’ as opposed to ‘bad’.