Justice: A Critical Analysis: The Concept Of Justice

When discussing the history of equity, it is imperative to go back to the 12th century where the King and his courtiers would travel around the country to settle disputes and collect the citizen’s taxes. During this time, the King’s Chancellor would advise the King and his Council on these matters. Due to this, he became known as the King’s conscience. Where the use of the common law to settle a dispute proved to be unjustified, the Chancellor would provide a just remedy. In this way, the King’s common law became well founded, and the concept of equity was formed.

The concept of justice is simultaneously recognized and misunderstood around the world. The Oxford English Dictionary defines justice as “The quality of being (morally) just or righteous.” For such a brief definition it would not be unlikely to assume that the term justice is a superficial one. On the contrary, this age-old term might have started with a single simple meaning but has developed many more over its existence. The ways civilizations have evolved have in turn forced the word to evolve. Due to this evolution of civilizations, the current state of justice has been lost and it is important to recollect it traits. Many branches of justice now exist and it is possible one may become overwhelmed when searching for its true

When I first read this assignment, I wasn’t sure how to start. What is justice seems like a straightforward question but I found trying to answer it wasn’t. Justice might be better thought of as a general statement in this case “a theory about how best to allocate the benefits and burdens of society among its individuals” (Hinman, pg. 362). This definition has a lot of words but really doesn’t put it in terms what we can identify with today. When someone thinks of justice, they look at how they are treated. Justice can also be thought of as “fairness that refers to the treatment of a person regardless of race, gender, age, or social or economic differences” (Nugent & Jones, pg. 17).

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

John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice discusses the varying components needed to choose a fair principle of justice for a democratic society. In the third chapter, Rawls explains the few principles of distributive justice that exist and the one he is in favour of. The principle that he promotes is called the difference principle, which he believes would be chosen by the people within the original position. While Rawls gives some good reasons, I find the egalitarian principle would be chosen by the parties. In this paper, I will first define the original position and the conditions in which the members are under. Next, I will briefly define the difference principle and the other two principles of distributive justice. Finally, I will conclude that the egalitarian principle would be the most likely choice of the individuals in the original position.

He says that justice is a political arrangement in which each person minds their own business and plays the role that best suits their nature. This definition, in some ways, resembles early definitions that other people have suggested. For example, Cephalus said that justice is living up to your legal obligations and being honest. His definition is like Socrates because it suggests that people should do what they are told to do and in Socrates’ definition he says that people should stick to the tasks that they are assigned. The main difference between Socrates’ definition and Cephalus’ definition is that Socrates’ is more of a structure of a society (or a structure of a soul on the individual level) while the other one is simply actions for people to take.

The definition of the word “justice” according to Merriam-Webster is, “the quality of being just, impartial, or fair” (“Definition of Justice”). Almost automatically associated with “justice” to many minds is the “criminal ‘justice’ system”—and criminals. Canada’s criminal justice system and the penalties for crimes committed in Canada have been recent topics of discussion preceding this year’s general election. The Conservative Party of Canada promised mandatory minimum sentences for a variety of “serious” crimes, including drug trafficking and violent crimes. This was criticized by the Liberal Party of Canada as well as the New Democratic Party of Canada. Both parties were concerned with an influx of stress on the already crowded system. If “justice” means “fair”, what does that mean for Canada? What does fair look like for the criminal, the victim, and society as a whole? Here lay the debate: what is better for the greater good, a “tough on crime” attitude with harsher sentences for criminals, or rehabilitation of the offender in question with hopes of rejoining society? Perhaps there are also other unexplored and new ideas for dealing with criminal behavior that need to be analyzed in order to objectively make an informed decision. In the coming months and years, the new Canadian government will revisit, revise, and perhaps make significant changes to the way we deal with criminals, and these modifications will

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.

Justice is separated into two different categories: individual justice in relation to other humans and the government, and governmental justice in relation to its populace. It is crucial to note that fairness is treating each individual consistently and equally as the next; whereas, justice is

“Good night! Behave yourself, boy!” she said, looking out into the street as he went down the steps.

Plato’s interpretation of justice as seen in ‘The Republic’ is a vastly different one when compared to what we and even the philosophers of his own time are accustomed to. Plato would say justice is the act of carrying out one’s duties as he is fitted with. Moreover, if one’s duties require one to lie or commit something else that is not traditionally viewed along with justice; that too is considered just by Plato’s accounts in ‘The Republic.’ I believe Plato’s account of justice, and his likely defense against objections are both clear and logical, thus I will endeavor to argue his views as best as I can.

The word “justice” is often used in a large number of the United States’ most important documents, such as the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence. Simply put, justice is a fair and lawful balancing of conflict. Justice is also frequently associated with the word “fairness”. The guarantee of justice is usually a prerequisite for a sound society, as explained by Stuart Hampshire in Justice is Conflict: The Soul and the City. However, since there are many different perceptions of what fairness actually means, the precise definition of justice is still widely debated.

It follows that Plato's ideal of justice be exemplified in the philosopher-king, since it is only the philosopher that would have the requisite justice in his soul that would make him a just ruler of a just society.

What is justice? What qualities does a just person have, that an unjust person lacks? More importantly, who decides which behaviors or actions constitute as just or not? And how does a society utilize this information to construct a just community for all? These questions are essential to the construction of a just society, but prove to be incredibly difficult to agree on. Defining justice in a way that every person can agree is not only unrealistic, but it also has not been achieved since the beginning of time. Perhaps the issue of establishing a just society does not lie in a concrete “definition” of justice, but rather lies in the complexity of society, and of each individual opinion of what is justice.

Throughout the world’s history there has been a hierarchy in regards to how justice works in a town, community, province, cities, and countries. Justice to this day still varies depending on where you are. This is even seen in the many states within America. Many of our great ancestors have attempted to figure out the best way to run a country going over several different forms of laws and procedures to make America what it represents, equal equality, a melting pot for all people, age, race, color, and background. Even today’s society that were all living in now battle to find justice and equality and that is what philosopher John Rawls was looking to do when he came up with his theory on law and justice. On a basic platform, Rawls is