Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Equality and justice definition
Significance of justice
Arguments against Distributive Justice
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Equality and justice definition
Essentially, “justice is the quality of being impartial, fair, and just” (Pollsky, 2012, p.53). Furthermore, the act of being just is derived from the latin word “jus” which translates to matters involving laws or rules (Pollsky, 2012, p.53). There are three types of justice and they each differ in matters of circumstance: firstly, distributive justice attempts to provide equality for each individual; corrective justice attempts to reverse an unfair advantage, provide a remedy to the problem, and show equality within the population; lastly, reciprocal justice provides the notion of equality amongst freely exchanged goods amongst individuals. According to Aristotle, distributive justice incorporates the allocation of resources amongst society(Aristotle, trans W.d Ross, 1994). These resources can include education, profession, honor, status, money, or property (Pollsky, 2012, p. 54). There are a variety of theories that describe various methods of carrying out distributive justice including ideas of need, merit, and entitlement. These ideas work in order to bring the goal of justice which is equality and fairness within society. However, the reason that this is not the most important form of justice is that it is too narrow in scope. A quick look in history can provide many examples of unfair and unjust treatment with distributive ideals. Even today, in our own country, we can see many perceived flaws with this type of justice. Occupy Wall Street started as a protest movement that sought to provide equality in pay for all citizens not just those fortunate enough to be born or rose to the one-percent. The common adage that is used very frequently is “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer”. This very well could be perceived as... ... middle of paper ... ... time is worth the payment he can up and leave without fear of any punishment. In conclusion, if the most important function of the three types of justice is to uphold justice then corrective justice is the most important. It seeks to right the wrongs and to end unfair advantages. In regards to the distributive form of justice, it does not seek to spread equality; equality is derived from it. Corrective Justice provides fairness and impartiality even to those who are unfair, bias, and unjust. It seeks to find the fairest solution. In comparison with Reciprocal justice, it is not dependent on vis-à-vis contractual agreements in which equality is perceived by the individual in a trade based system; its basis of equality is inherent and rooted in its foundation. Thus, amongst the three forms of justice, I believe, that corrective justice stands to be the most important.
Arguments about fairness and justice have been up for debate for centuries. "What do we deserve?", a question that has many individuals raising their brows to their efforts in their pursuit to achieve their goals. If it is said that we are all placed on an equal standard why are there individuals struggling to stay afloat? In Arora’s essay, he examines three forms of economic modals of social justices that question that idea of why the prosperous or the impecunious "deserve" their position or stature in life. Out of all of Arora's economic modals that he presents the Meritocratic System is the fairest because it gives everyone a fighting chance.
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.
“Convincing the non-elite that inequality is morally right. Those most advantaged are justified in giving orders and receiving a greater proportion of valued goods and services, or at least, creating doubts about alternatives. All, individuals strive for cognitive consistency and will develop principles of fairness, such as Distributive Justice. Lastly, there is some evidence for distribution based on need as a result of ability to understand the needs of others. This is called the process of legitimation […]” (2011:461).
By definition justice means the quality of being just or fair. The issue then stands, is justice fair for everyone? Justice is the administration of law, the act of determining rights and assigning rewards or punishments, "justice deferred is justice denied.” The terms of Justice is brought up in Henry David Thoreau’s writing, “Civil Disobedience.”
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:
Justice is described as “a moral concept that is difficult to define, but in essence it means to treat people in ways consistent with
Moral rightness and fairness are two alternate ways of saying justice. Justice is defined in a legal dictionary on law.com as “a scheme or system of law in which every person receives his/ her/its due from the system, including all rights, both natural and legal.” There are many different opinions on the law and justice systems in America, many of which are not particularly positive. Law.com also states, one problem can be found in the attorneys, judges, and legislators, as they tend to get caught up more in the procedure than actually achieving justice for the people. While others say that our law system is not interested in finding out the truth, but more criticisms can also be seen in Herman Melville’s story, “Bartleby, the Scrivener.” Melville
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
In utilitarianism priority of justice is possible in view of the priority of its bases. Justice is more than just one of the values, because its principles are derived independently of the other values. Unlike other practical principles, the moral law is not intended to advance any random interests and goals. Justice in utilitarianism does not include any ideas about welfare. Since the idea of justice precedes all purely empirical purposes, justice has a position in relation to the welfare and sets its limits.
The purpose of this paper is to examine the processes of both Restorative and Retributive justice through the case of Sara Kruzan vs. The State of California. First we will establish the principle philosophers associated with each type of justice and those system's theoretical applications in our criminal justice system. Then we will apply both systems to Sara Kruzan's trail and determine the publishable outcomes. Finally we will review Sara's Life after her trial and speculate on what system would have produced a more just outcome.
The term justice is often associated with the word “fairness”. It is the protection of rights and the punishment of wrongs. However, justice is not always plainly presented in black and white. To think in such a way would divide the idea into good versus evil and right versus wrong, eliminating the space that is the “in between”. A person who stumbles upon this space would be Oedipus from the play “Oedipus Rex” by the Greek playwright; Sophocles.
This idea allows for justice to be measured by an equation, each person’s share of something must be justified by some relevant difference, making the equation equal. Each person should receive exactly what is proportional to what they put in. If you work an hour longer than someone then you should receive pay for one more hour. This is equal because you are being compensated exactly for the work you put in and the other person is not shorted in any way because they did not work that extra hour therefore should not receive the extra pay. This theory allows for impartiality when making a decision, it is not based on justice because of your moral character or consequence of your action it is based on equal justice for all based
There are four main theories of justice retributive, utilitarian, restorative, and parallel justice. All four theories have different ways of interpreting both procedural and distributive justice. Procedure justice according to Newmark, L. (2017) is the “the process used to determine society’s response to a crime; the steps taken to arrive at an outcome; how society decides what it should do about a crime”. Distributive justice on the other hand has to do with the consequences that one receives from the justice system. The definition of distributive justice is society’s response to the crime; the consequences that society provides for the crime; what society does about a crime; the outcomes resulting from the process” (Newmark, L. 2017). Each theory has a different opinion of how procedural and distributive justice work in the system, but they both apply procedural and distributive justice within the theories. Another similarity can be found between retributive and utilitarian justice, both of these theories of justice are only offender-focused theories. Restorative and parallel justices also have a commonality in the fact that they include victim focused and offender focused justice.
Justice is fairness and equality, where all are equal before the law. Precedence allows for all to have access to justice because that way a committed crime
Fairness, equity, honesty, and righteousness are all synonyms for the term justice. Whether justice and righteousness will be based on reconciliation or retribution, should thoroughly be based on the severity of the crime, although, everyone should be treated fairly, equal, honestly, and with righteousness; no matter the crime. Reconciliation is “an act of reconciling, as when former enemies agree to an amicable truce”. All justice should be fair and have some reconciliation to a certain point, but whether that point later leads to retribution, should be entirely based on the crime and past crimes. It should not be based on appearance or stereotypes.