Analysis Of The Range Of Justice By Gerald Gaus

In her article “The Arc of Justice and the Long Run” Rebecca Solnit refers to hope as, “a sense of the grand mystery of it all, the knowledge that we don’t know how it will turn out, that anything is possible.” (Solnit, P.9). Solnit’s definition reflects her attitude towards politics and social justice in that she realizes that not everything is in our control. Adding to the previous statement, we can only try our best to change things for the better because you can never know just how things will turn out. In the political arena, us as Americans can cast our vote to elect the person we see fit to take care of running our country and providing a safe place for our families. However, it was not always this way even in our country and worse so

Access to justice: What do those three words mean to you? Access to justice is a very special thing to a lot of people, especially for alleged criminals, who instead of being punished and/or executed without a trial, hopefully will have a chance in court, when they can plead their case before a judge and jury. The preamble to the United States Constitution says this: These words show that access to justice has been in place since the US was established by our founding fathers. What does access to justice mean? Access to justice means that nothing, including your gender, race, ethnicity, language will cause you to have an unfair trial or no trial at all. You are guaranteed a fair trial and a lawyer if you cannot afford one of your own.

The book, Religion in the Public Square: The Place of Religious Convictions Political Debate (1997), is a presentation of a debate between two foremost thinkers who argue about the place that religion should have in the public forum, more specifically in politics.

In this paper I will discuss the matter of the two-party system and the issue of polarization of thought in America. With the system under which we live, political and moral thought is limited by political identity in that individual’s ideas must conform entirely to their thought of their political party otherwise they would be discredited. Non-conformist thought is seen as immoral because to lean too far onto the side of the opposing political party is extremely frowned upon as the other side is seen as immoral. Additionally, each political party is polarized in that the ideals of the party that are presente a the governmental level are extreme, whereas the political ideas of individuals may not be. Because of this, we are only shown the polarized

In his essay “The Myth of Justice,“ anthropologist and author Michael Dorris disputes the idea that life is fair and believes that true justice is an unattainable fallacy. Dorris avows that anyone who has ever lived through life’s circumstances would agree that life is not fair and there is no correct balance. He declares that justice is a fallacy people believe to make life endurable. Dorris refers to his youth when he was taught of a Golden Ledger in which salvation can be found through good works. He affirms it is the idea of justice and not religion that soothes people.

In “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited (1997)” Rawles’ focuses on the concept of public reason, exploring in this particular text how it can fit in the context of our political society full of different overlapping religions, as well as its place in influencing the family when the family is considered as a part of society as a whole. Contentious issues like same-sex marriage and abortion help demonstrate clearly the idea of public reason and how it is hard to walk the fine line between being a member of a faith and a citizen of a society.

In Alan Wolfe’s text, The Future of Liberalism, the entirety of the term itself is intently examined under a fine-tuned microscope. Its past, present and obviously, the future of this pronounced way of life is dissected throughout the book. Wolfe makes many claims and arguments, more intently, statements on why liberalism is the single greatest ideology, but also why it can’t work. Finally, he draws connections and argues liberalism and its relationship with religion and Christianity. Therefore, in this essay, some of Wolfe’s most central arguments as well as the connections he draws with religion will be examined.

The Constitution of the United States of America defines justice as equality of all. Justice has been interpreted by philosophers and politicians for centuries, but each definition centers on the concepts of fairness, consequences for wrongdoing, and upholding a precedent; all of which drive me to to follow a career in law enforcement.

A conversation about justice can strike up many questions. Including, can there be justice for all? Is social justice fair, or just what is appropriate for a particular situation? Does the majority have more say than the minority? Is the law always just? Can there be equality for the minority without taking privileges from the majority? There are many problems with the society determining the definition of just. One is, if the majority is allowed to create the terms of justice the ethics of minorities will usually be treated as less important, or completely ignored. Also, to determine if something is just or unjust one has to evaluate if it encourages or prevents fairness of every individuals’ civil freedoms, not just beneficial to the more

The United States of America is a powerful nation built upon laws and justice; however, without these laws, the nation would fall apart and chaos would result. For example, it is crucial for citizens to respect the court’s decisions in public trials. Unfortunately, no system is flawless and some guilty people are sent free; however, the guilt those people feel is justice itself. Although some people may argue immoral people do not feel guilt, society’s reception of these immoral people serves as justice. Therefore, citizens of the United States of America should not have the right to take justice into their own hands.

The ability to think, or reason, of our surrounding is the gift that separates us from our ancestors. Furthermore, human qualities such as strong emotions come from what we think is important to us. Actions, whether they are good or bad, also derive from our most inner thoughts. The question now is what type of reasoning is natural to us all? This "human nature" is a topic explored by thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan, Niccollò Machiavelli in The Prince, Thomas Hobbes and James Madison in The Essential Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers. Human nature is the force that pushes an individual to his or her actions. Political theory, as a result, is shaped around this nature for the sake of survival.

Today’s justice system is broken and flawed, with a history of falsely convicting innocent people due to a variety of things, including eyewitness misidentification, invalid or improper forensic testing, and even racial bias on the jury. Many wrongful convictions happen as a result of a combination of these things, and other causes can contribute in each individual case (“causes”). Countless people throughout history have been punished for crimes they did not commit, and with recent advancements in DNA testing bringing about hundreds of exonerations of the wrongfully convicted, one has to wonder how many innocents have languished in prisons throughout history. With all the flaws and potential for error

The constituents of a just society varies among the minds of humans. Throughout humanity, people have fought for what they believe is an ideal just world. Their perceptions of justice is dependent upon their upbringing, experiences, and surroundings. One can loosely define a just society in which the basic rights of humans are fulfilled. Nonetheless, as people’s views of justice are put in place, the meaning of a just society based on their outlooks becomes more intricate. Based on my own personal perspectives, a just society is an environment where people have access to all the necessities that a human must have to survive and where wealth is although not equally, but fairly distributed among everyone. Anke Graness’ Concepts of Justice in

In our world today it may be rational to be irrational. The article “Is Reason Losing Out to Instinct and Emotion?” discusses the topic of political

Empiricism is the theory that experience, rather than reason, is the source of knowledge, and in this sense it is opposed to rationalism. This general thesis can receive different emphases and refinements; therefore, philosophers who have been labeled empiricists are united generally and may differ in various ways. The Empiricist Revolution helped facilitate discussion on real world, political problems. Since this revolution, philosophers and political theorists have developed two different ideas on what politics should be about and how a government should be ran: politics should be about making citizens more virtuous vs politics should be about the “basics” like security and property rights. Throughout this paper, I will be analyzing these two different outlooks on politics and presenting a case for both.