Justice Is A Key Element Of Justice

What is justice? Justice Is a concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, or equity. It is also the act of being just and/or fair. (Crime) It means to me punishment, fairness, and power by that I mean fairness as in equality for others like families, friends, and/or community. You have to have power in order to have fairness for the punishment that has been committed for example: murder, justice will prevail it always does.

The Republic by Plato examines many aspects of the human condition. In this piece of writing Plato reveals the sentiments of Socrates as they define how humans function and interact with one another. He even more closely Socrates looks at morality and the values individuals hold most important. One value looked at by Socrates and his colleagues is the principle of justice. Multiple definitions of justice are given and Socrates analyzes the merit of each. As the group defines justice they show how self-interest shapes the progression of their arguments and contributes to the definition of justice.

In human history, several oppressed human groups have campaigned for equality, demanding for an expansion on the moral view of life, and to be treated fairly and have consideration. This means that when an issue concerns this group, their voices are heard, and treated with value. This equality should not be determined by that group’s collective intelligence level, the colour of their skin, or the physical stren¬¬gth of their bodies. Peter Singer brings up a similar idea in his essay: “All Animals Are Equal”, that non-human animals should have equal consideration with humans when an issue concerns them (Singer, quoted in Williston, p. 29-36). Going into a specific set of non-human animals known as primates, I argue that primates should have

Miscarriages of justice illuminate the serious systematic problems that can plague the criminal justice part of the legal system. Such miscarriages show not only the fundamental weakness of an adversarial system, with its focus on ends rather than means, but also the reluctance of the system to consider its own mistakes.

The relationship between justice and the good is and has been debated for thousands of years between many intelligent philosophers. Many theorists have attempted to to explain the exact characteristics and outline a moral distribution of possessions. From just after the First World War to present day, liberal perspectives emerged and flourished across a variety of ideological theories and continue to influence political thinking in regards to rights, equality and freedom. With this emergence came two very influential theorists in libertarian political philosophy, Robert Nozick and John Rawls, who take very different approaches to how justice relates to the good. Both Nozick and Rawls argue for liberty above equality, and that there is some

This class is the first in my major of Criminal Justice, and throughout this class there will be a great deal of valuable information obtained. Justice can have several meanings to it because all of us are different in our own way, and we all will have different outlook on situations. Throughout this research paper you will learn about what justice means to me, and how I think I will impact society once I achieve my bachelor’s degree in Criminal Justice. Secondly, you will be able to compare with the remaining of the class mates to see exactly how many of our views are the same or different. Last but not least, there will be at least two

For nearly all of history, there has been some degree on inequality in the world. Consequently, there have been many movements to grant equality and the rights necessary to fulfill the needs and interests of formerly oppressed groups, like women or racial minorities. That said, a notable pattern in each of these movements is that they are only relevant to the equality of humans. In his article “All Animals Are Equal,” Peter Singer points out that, in general, people tend to think that there because all groups of oppressed humans are now liberated, there is no more inequality in the world. However, it often goes without notice that there are groups of nonhuman animals that continue to face unequal treatment, such as those that are consumed or

The courtroom is not the only place where justice is served by the criminal justice system. Law enforcement officers patrol the streets day and night to protect and serve citizens. However, their decisions and actions are not always met with open arms. In a recent event, police officer Darren Wilson, shot and killed Michael Brown after Brown and Dorian Johnson robbed a convenience store. Wilson, the police officer assigned to a different case, encountered Brown and Johnson walking down a street. As Wilson blocked them with his vehicle, Brown and Johnson tried to attack him but then fled. Wilson fatally shot Brown when Brown turned and moved toward him. Wilson felt justified in shooting Brown in order to protect his own life. Because the law

In Stanley Benn’s “Egalitarianism and Equal Consideration of Interests”, it is explained that animals and human imbeciles are distinguished not because of fundamental inequality, but solely on the basis that the two subjects are of different species. In regard to animals’ moral rights and the infringement of those rights due to the practice of speciesism, Singer employs a utilitarian style of argument to defend animals’ moral rights; in short, the interests of each being which is involved should be taken into consideration and said interests should be given the same weight as that of another being. Speciesism is morally wrong because it attempts to assign undeserved weight to the interests of beings of separate species, solely based off the difference of species. Naturally, or rather unnaturally, human beings have always awarded themselves the utmost importance due to the idea of human dignity, as in humans occupy the central spot within any earthly ranking. Logically, Singer argues that the practice of speciesism is wrong because the conditions in which it exists are synonymous to the conditions which facilitate racism and sexism, before they had been recognized as

In his article “All Animals Are Equal,” Peter Singer discusses the widely-held belief that, generally speaking, there is no more inequality in the world, because all groups of formerly oppressed humans are now liberated. However, it often goes without notice that there are groups of nonhuman animals that continue to face unequal treatment, such as those that are consumed or used as scientific test subjects. Singer’s article criticizes the belief that because humans are generally more intelligent than nonhuman animals, then all humans are superior to all nonhuman animals. Singer argues that intelligence is an arbitrary trait to base the separation of humans and nonhumans, and declares that the only trait that one can logically base moral value is the capacity to have interests, which is determined by a creature’s ability to suffer. Singer explains that in order to stay consistent with the basic principle of equality, anything that has the capacity to suffer ought to have its needs and interests recognized, just as humans’ needs and interests are currently recognized through what he calls “equal consideration.” In this paper, I will explain Singer’s notion of equal consideration as the only relevant sense of equality and why it applies to the rights of both human and nonhuman species that are

The terrors of human conflict are always depicted through pictures of torn cities, starving children, helpless adults, the gravely wounded or severely mutilated, and most of all masses of dead corpses. There is always some sympathy for the civilians that live under the rule of “enemy entities”, but they are viewed as collateral damage. The damage done to their lives is a necessary evil for the “greater good”. Even more unfortunate is the impact human conflict has on wildlife, which is rarely ever the subject of discussion. Throughout history, wildlife has always been an afterthought to humanity and when reflecting on the subject of human conflict, it is no different. From the views raised by the 8 notions of Justice, we can speculate if wildlife would be granted justice under these perspectives.

With the demise of the apartheid in 1994 and the implementation of the Constitution in 1996, it brought with it the concept of access to justice for all citizens of South Africa. The notion itself has developed and evolved beyond the preconceived idea of access to courts but encompasses one’s access to legal and state services, social, economic and environmental justice as well.

Over the decades, the concept of justice has been continually evolving. This is occurring based upon different moral or legal interpretations. Evidence of this can be seen with observations from Burke (2011) who said, "Few things are of more importance to a society than its concept of justice. This is because it is justice that provides criterion for the legitimate use of force. In the name of justice people are detained, arrested, handcuffed, put on trial and punished. This concept is used to provide every society with some kind of social order. Over the last 200 years, a revolution has taken place with these principles. Our idea of it is what we employ, when dealing with ordinary individuals in daily life including: making agreements, paying bills, resolving disputes and putting criminals in jail. This is a concept that is as old as recorded history and it is familiar to people everywhere. What makes it so unique is that these ideas are constantly changing which focuses on society as a whole and how people are interacting with each other. " (Burke)

Can contractarianism recognise animal rights? There has often been discussion about the nature of justice concerning nonhuman animals, which I will now refer to as animals. The discussion often considers whether humans owe animals justice rather than mere morality, or if humans only owe animals compassion and humanity. This discussion from the contractarian position can be examined through John Rawls’ ‘Justice as Fairness’, his theory of justice to establish the principles by which primary goods should be distributed. In this essay, I will consider the question of whether contractarianism can recognise animal rights by considering the following: Rawls’ theory of justice; the attempted extension to incorporate animal rights by Mark Rowlands in his article “Contractarianism and Animal Rights”; and Martha Nussbaum’s “Frontiers of Justice”. I will then consider whether contractarianism can recognise animal rights.

Fairness is a fundamental aspect that our law system in based upon. Courts hear numerous amounts of cases and determine the outcome of the situation in a fair manner. To achieve this gaol many procedures are put in place. In administrative law there is an interest in the decision making process and if it is fair or not. The term fairness is a broad concept as one can question to whom is it being fair too. Ultimately, one might assume the individual who won the case is more inclined to believe the procedure and the ruling is fair (Module 4). However, administrative law is more concerned if the procedure is fair versus if the decision itself is. There is no definite definition of procedural fairness as it is complex on many levels and is subject to interpretation depending on the context and elements of each case. Although, it can be seen as being open and clear, providing an opportunity for those inflicted by the outcome to address one’s arguments while producing evidence that supports it; which are then determined by the decision-maker (Module 4). Back in 2007 the Ontario government released a statement stating that it would raise the minimum wage. Following that in March 2009, Premier McGuinty met in private, behind closed doors with business leaders about cancelling the remaining increase of minimum wage due to economic conditions. After learning about this, citizens of Ontario were furious with the lack of transparency of the meeting. This lead Premier McGuinty to state