Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Justice in society
Just law and unjust law. essay
Just law and unjust law. essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Justice is controlled differently all throughout the world. Similarly, justice means a different thing to different people. Though not always enforced, my definition of what is just most likely differs from the person next to me. However, there are some actions that are generally accepted as being unjust. To give one example from the reading it is controversial whether “laws” are capable of determining what is just & what is unjust. It can be agreed by most that there are some laws are unjust but it is controversial among people whether these unjust laws can justly be disobeyed. Is disobeying a law always unjust regardless of the absurdity of the particular law? The Principle of Utility in simple terms states that actions are right so long as they promote …show more content…
The first component is the desire to reprimand a person who has done wrong upon them. Humans, like animals, have self-defense mechanism. However, unlike animals, humans are capable of sympathy. Humans have a wider range of emotions. Therefore the need they feel for punishment onto the person who did them wrong depends on the severity of the act according to the “victim.” This brings us to the second point that talks about how certain rights are protected by law therefore punishable by law enforcement. Society must defend itself against those who disobey their laws in the interest of general utility among its people. The conservation of justice and of just laws preserves harmony and well being among human beings. As a result there is a very big utility interest in preserving and enforcing justice 's commands. Each person’s happiness must be held to the same standard of importance in order for this system to work. A rich man’s rights in the justice system must be no more important than the rights of the poorest man. Justice is meant to provide the overall greatest happiness to human beings. It is looking at the greater picture rather than individual
For example of a law that is not-just is “If a surgeon has operated with a bronze lancet on a free man for a serious injury, and has caused his death,..... his hands should be cut off. (Doc E). This law is unjust because nobody in this world if perfect and they shall not have their hands cut off for making a mistake. An example of a just law is “If a son struck a father, his hands shall be cut off.” This law is fair because it is teaching people to not strike their father. However three examples presented above of the laws are: Family laws, Property laws, and Personal-Injury law. Hammurabi’s code was just in so many
Nineteenth century British philosophers, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill sum up their theory of Utilitarianism, or the “principle of utility,” which is defined as, “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Munson, 2012, p. 863). This theory’s main focus is to observe the consequences of an action(s), rather than the action itself. The utility, or usef...
“Utility” or the “greatest happiness principle holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure." (Mill 7)
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...
Morality ivolves distinguishing which human behaviors are right or wrong and good or bad. Morality covers topics such as harm, rights and justice, and therefore it is mainly concerned with protecting every idividual. There has been a culture of war between liberals and conservatives all based upon human morality aspects (Haidt & Graham, 2007, p. 1). Cultural war can be termed as the division in personal opinions and thoughts between open-minded people or liberals and the conventional or traditionalists, also known as conservatives.
Ethical principles of justice, utilitarianism, fidelity, and beneficence all play a role when dealing with the ethics of HIV. Beneficence imposes a duty for health employers to act in the best interest for patients, take positive action to help and to do well. Justice portrays equality and it requires that people should be treated fairly. It explains that a healthcare employer will treat all patients equally and use good judgement. Fidelity involves with loyalty, fairness, and being truthful. This principle applies to the patient and being honest with their partners about their status. Lastly, utilitarianism theory supports the greater good and what is best for people. It is important that HIV positive test results are reported, so third parties
The principle of utility is based on the greatest amount of happiness an action results in to the largest quantity of people who are affected by the consequences (Mill 89). Mill believes people should sacrifice as much as they can from their own possible happiness so that more people may obtain equal happiness that is sufficient. In doing so, those who are aiding others are creating a society of ultimate happiness where everyone is content. Thus, Mill argues for quantity over quality to the extent where everyone has just enough contentment that they do not feel pain or deprivation. For example, according to the principle, if in the future there is an unbiased computerized system for selecting organ donors, those who are selected to donate their organs to two or more people are obligated to do so. In doing so, the single individual is saving the lives of a greater number of people, and thus creates more happiness than if he alone lived and the two or more people died.
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.
According to Aristotle, justice is the only virtue that pertains to both oneself and to others. Most men can put justice into practice when it affects themselves but only the truly just are able to apply this principle to others as well. For this reason, justice is considered the most important virtue. After having defined justice in his Ethics, Aristotle adds that whether a man has acted justly or unjustly depends on whether or not his actions were voluntary. Can a person be blamed for an action done in ignorance or without malice?
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.
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.
Crimes results from the inability to achieve monetary success of others positively valued goals through legitimate channels (Agnew and Collen, 2003,p.208). The process one that is difficult to identify and define, but it is also one that allows easily for the insertion of concepts of justice to make us clear on what street justice actually is, conflict and adaptation theory. Conflict and adaptation theory extends our understandings of the relationship between strain and street relationship. Locke argues that state of nature enforce each individual possesses the right to enforce the law of nature, that is the right to pursue punishment of those who harm his or her own life, liberty, or property. Also Hobbes, on the other hand,portrays a less ordered vision of retribution in the natural state, suggestions that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in owe, they are in that condition which is called war. Both social strain and conflict theory relates to social control, which in turn relates directly to notion of justice both in dominant culture and street culture. It is very important to view street justice from social control and social solidarity
Laws serve several purposes in the criminal justice system. The main purpose of criminal law is to protect, serve, and limit human actions and to help guide human conduct. Also, laws provide penalties and punishment against those who are guilty of committing crimes against property or persons. In the modern world, there are three choices in dealing with criminals’ namely criminal punishment, private action and executive control. Although both private action and executive control are advantageous in terms of costs and speed, they present big dangers that discourage their use unless in exceptional situations. The second purpose of criminal law is to punish the offender. Punishing the offender is the most important purpose of criminal law since by doing so; it discourages him from committing crime again while making him or her pay for their crimes. Retribution does not mean inflicting physical punishment by incarceration only, but it also may include things like rehabilitation and financial retribution among other things. The last purpose of criminal law is to protect the community from criminals. Criminal law acts as the means through which the society protects itself from those who are harmful or dangerous to it. This is achieved through sentences meant to act as a way of deterring the offender from repeating the same crime in the future.
So if justice in considered to be fair, that would make something unjust, unfair, right? What if an innocent person was proven guilty in a court of law and spent time in jail or money to pay a fine? That would be considered just, because in the court of law he was in fact proven guilty, however it would also be unfair because the person is innocent. This is the same result in another case, the most current issue and most relative in my belief would be Affirmative Action. If justice is in fact fair, therefore not treating persons of different races or gender any different then Affirmative Action is unjust, and although I do not oppose such a policy, I still see it as unjust.