Justice: What It Is And How We Get It

Justice is a complex and multifaceted concept that has been contemplated and debated by philosophers, legal scholars, and societies throughout history. In its simplest form, justice can be understood as the idea of fairness and equality, where individuals receive what they deserve based on their actions and contributions to society. However, the interpretation of what constitutes deserve is deeply rooted in various fields and philosophical branches, including ethics, rationality, law, religion, and fairness. The concept of justice is often associated with the impartial resolution of conflicting claims and the assignment of merited rewards or punishments. It is a fundamental principle in both legal and ethical contexts, shaping societal norms and governmental policies. The pursuit of justice is a continuous endeavour, as societies strive to establish fair and equitable systems that uphold the rights and well-being of all individuals.

Explore related products

A Theory of Justice

$40 $40

A Theory of Justice: Original Edition

$29.19 $40

Eight Theories of Justice: Perspectives from Philosophical and Theological Ethics

$4.97 $30

Study Guide: A Theory of Justice by John Rawls (SuperSummary)

$11.95 $11.95

Six Theories of Justice: Perspectives from Philosophical and Theological Ethics

$14.81 $19

Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?

$13.96 $20

Justice as a moral virtue of character

Justice is a complex concept that has been contemplated by philosophers and legal scholars for centuries. It is rooted in the idea of fairness and equality, with the fundamental principle that "equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally". This notion of justice as a moral virtue of character can be explored through the following paragraphs:

Justice as Fairness and Equality:

Justice is often associated with fairness and equality, implying that individuals should be treated impartially and without discrimination. This means that all persons in similar situations should be afforded equal rights, opportunities, and treatment under the law and in society. For instance, it would be unjust to provide special treatment or privileges based on age, sex, race, or religious beliefs in the context of employment. Justice, in this sense, upholds the dignity and worth of every person, ensuring that they are not unfairly advantaged or disadvantaged relative to others.

The Social Contract and Mutual Agreements:

Philosophers such as Hobbes and Rawls have contributed to the idea of a social contract, which suggests that justice arises from voluntary agreements between individuals in a society. This contract establishes the rules and norms that govern our interactions and ensures peace and order. By agreeing to respect each other's rights and freedoms, we create a framework for just behaviour and mutual cooperation. This contractual understanding of justice emphasizes the importance of consent and reciprocity in shaping our societal relationships.

Justice as a Moral Virtue:

Beyond legal and societal norms, justice can also be understood as a moral virtue of character. This perspective views justice as an intrinsic quality of an individual, reflecting their commitment to fairness, honesty, and respect for others. It entails acting with integrity, treating others equitably, and promoting equality of opportunity. This moral dimension of justice aligns with ethical theories such as utilitarianism, which emphasizes maximizing overall welfare and reducing suffering. Thus, justice as a moral virtue encourages individuals to act in ways that benefit society and promote the well-being of others.

The Role of Institutions and Corrective Action:

Achieving justice often involves the role of institutions, particularly the legal system. Courts and judicial processes are designed to impartially resolve conflicts, enforce contracts, and assign merited rewards or punishments. This corrective aspect of justice, also known as retributive or corrective justice, focuses on the fairness and proportionality of punishments. It considers factors such as the seriousness of the crime and the intent of the criminal, ensuring that justice is served and victims obtain redress.

Justice and the Distribution of Benefits and Burdens:

Another dimension of justice relates to the distribution of benefits and burdens within a society. This concept, known as distributive justice, examines whether societal institutions allocate resources, opportunities, and responsibilities in a fair and equitable manner. For example, historical injustices such as slavery were condemned for unjustly treating people differently based on race. Distributive justice emphasizes the need to address systemic inequalities and ensure that all members of society have access to basic rights and opportunities, regardless of their background or identity.

In conclusion, justice as a moral virtue of character encompasses fairness, equality, mutual respect, and the equitable distribution of benefits and burdens. It guides our interpersonal relationships, shapes our societal institutions, and informs our ethical decision-making. By striving for justice, we aim to create a society where individuals are treated with dignity, receive what they deserve, and have the opportunity to flourish according to their unique abilities and contributions.

Distributive justice

Theoretical approaches to distributive justice vary in what they consider relevant. For example, they may focus on the distribution of income, wealth, opportunities, jobs, welfare, or utility. They may also differ in the nature of the recipients, considering distribution to individuals, groups, or reference classes. Finally, they may vary in the basis for distribution, such as equality, maximization, individual characteristics, or free transactions.

One theory of distributive justice is Strict Egalitarianism, which calls for the allocation of equal material goods to all members of society. John Rawls offers an alternative, the Difference Principle, which permits deviation from strict equality as long as it benefits the least advantaged. Rawls' theory is based on the idea that justice is rooted in the basic structure of society, including fundamental rules and social and economic institutions that shape life opportunities. He argues for a "fair procedure" that prioritises the benefit of the least advantaged and ensures that offices and positions are open to all.

Another approach to distributive justice is Luck Egalitarianism, which attempts to design principles that consider responsibility and luck. For example, individuals may feel that distributive justice has not occurred when some workers work more hours but receive the same pay. In such cases, individuals often refer to the behavioural expectations of their group, and distributive justice is achieved when rewards and costs are allocated according to designated distributive norms.

Retributive or corrective justice

Justice is the idea that individuals should be treated fairly and receive what they "deserve". This interpretation of "deserve" draws on various fields, including ethics, rationality, law, religion, and fairness.

Retributive justice is a legal concept that asserts that a criminal offender ought to receive punishment proportional or similar to their crime. It is backward-looking, justified by the crime that has already been committed, and thus, punishment is carried out to atone for the damage already done. Retributive justice is committed to three principles:

• Those who commit wrongful acts, especially serious crimes, morally deserve to suffer a proportionate punishment.
• It is intrinsically morally good if some legitimate punisher gives the wrongdoer the punishment they deserve.
• It is morally impermissible to intentionally punish the innocent or to inflict disproportionately large punishments on wrongdoers.

Retributive justice is concerned with giving the wrongdoer the punishment they deserve. It is not concerned with the victim, unlike vengeance. A retributive system must punish severe crimes more harshly than minor crimes. However, retributivists differ in their opinions on how harsh or soft the system should be. The severity of a crime can be determined by the amount of harm, unfair advantage, or moral imbalance it caused.

Corrective, or restorative, justice focuses on violations as crimes against individuals. It is concerned with healing victims' wounds, restoring offenders to law-abiding lives, and repairing harm done to interpersonal relationships and the community. Victims take an active role in directing the exchange that takes place, as well as defining the responsibilities and obligations of offenders. Offenders are encouraged to understand the harm they have caused and take responsibility for their actions. Restorative justice aims to strengthen the community and prevent similar harms from happening in the future.

Explore related products

An Analysis of John Rawls's A Theory of Justice (The Macat Library)

$6.8 $8.95

John Rawls: His Life and Theory of Justice

$44.12 $51

Justice by Means of Democracy

$27.5 $27.99

Theories of Distributive Justice

$34.31 $52

The Idea of Justice

$23 $30

Social Justice: Theories, Issues, and Movements (Revised and Expanded Edition) (Critical Issues in Crime and Society)

$41.95

Social contract theory

The roots of social contract theory can be traced back to ancient philosophers like Socrates, Plato, and Epicurus, but it gained prominence with modern philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Hobbes, for instance, viewed the social contract as a way to escape the "state of nature," which he described as a state of war where human life was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." In contrast, Locke saw the state of nature as a condition where humans were free, equal, and independent, yet bound by natural laws to respect each other's rights.

Locke's conception of the social contract was based on the idea that individuals agreed to form a commonwealth to institute an impartial power for arbitration and redressal. He also asserted that the obligation to obey civil government was conditional on the protection of natural rights, including the right to property, and that sovereigns who violated these terms could be overthrown.

Rousseau's social contract theory, on the other hand, was based on popular sovereignty rather than individual sovereignty. He envisioned the social contract as an agreement among individuals to refrain from governing or coercing each other, with each person maintaining complete sovereignty over themselves.

In more recent times, John Rawls has contributed significantly to social contract theory. Rawls proposed a veil of ignorance approach, suggesting that rational people in a hypothetical "original position" would set aside their individual preferences and capacities to agree on general principles of justice and legal organization. This perspective highlights the importance of fairness and the need to constrain the social contract by fundamental principles of justice.

Divine command theory

A strong version of the theory claims that moral statements, such as "x is obligatory", are defined in terms of theological statements, such as "x is commanded by God". This perspective asserts that God's commands are the sole reason why certain actions are considered moral, and obedience to these commands is seen as a moral obligation. For instance, murder is considered wrong because God forbids it, and adhering to this commandment is believed to bring about happiness and justice.

However, divine command theory has faced criticism, particularly regarding its compatibility with the omnibenevolence of God, moral autonomy, and religious pluralism. The philosopher William Wainwright argued that the concepts of being "commanded by God" and "being morally obligatory" do not share identical meanings, which could make defining moral obligations challenging. Additionally, the theory implies that atheists and agnostics cannot be moral because they lack belief in God, an assumption that is seen as a weakness in the theory.

Another critique arises from the Euthyphro dilemma, first proposed by Plato in the context of polytheistic Greek religion. The dilemma poses the question: "Is what is morally good commanded by the gods because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by the gods?" If the latter is true, then justice is beyond human understanding, and if the former is true, then morality exists independently of the gods and is subject to human judgment.

Despite these criticisms, divine command theory continues to hold significance for many religious believers and is featured in the ethics of contemporary religions, including Judaism, Islam, the Bahá'í Faith, and Christianity.

Frequently asked questions