On The Genealogy Of Justice Analysis

In every culture, there are the strong and there are the weak, the oppressor and the oppressed. Sometimes they are of the same race and sometimes not, but they all rely on a difference in power. Socrates, Frederick Douglass, and WEB Du Bois each experience this power differential through the course of their lives. Socrates experiences this through his experience with the jury of Athens and his trial; Douglass through his life as a slave and his eventual escape. Du Bois experiences it through being a black man in the time of Reconstruction and being well of in comparison to other African-Americans at the time. Each man’s unique perspective on equality can illuminate why authority is so instrumental in the development of equality.

Many of the most important aspects of and decisions about social organization hinge on an individual or society’s conception of justice. Because this conception of justice has tremendous influence over the way societies are structured, political theorists interested in understanding and improving society place great importance on understanding and articulating the nature of justice. While most of the political theorists we have read in class have proposed definitions of justice, none of them sufficiently incorporate the many dimensions of justice while remaining specific enough to allow for relatively consistent distinctions between the just and unjust. To balance these competing demands, I propose that justice is the impartial ordering of

ABSTRACT. Adapting the traditional social contract approach of earlier years to a more contemporary use, John Rawls initiated an unparaleled revitalization of social philosophy. Instead of arguing for the justification of civil authority or the form that it should take, Professor Rawls is more interested in the principles that actuate basic social institutions —he presupposes authority and instead focuses on its animation. In short, Rawls argues that “justice as fairness” should be that basic animating principle.

In Thomas Paine’s Rights of Man, he portrays America in the 1790’s by saying there were no restrictions toward immigrants, there were no oppresions towards the poor, there were no riots, and there were no acts of racism. Although these American ideals may have been true during the foundation of America as a nation, most of his nationalist ideas have changed throughout history. In the 21st century,there have been many riots, acts of racism, harsh policies toward immigrants, and oppression towards the poor. Thomas Paine and his views on the positive aspects of America expressed in Rights of Man, are not still expressed in today’s time. However, racism is positively evaporating from America, but disagreeing with Paine, it is still present.

Arc of Justice is a story of the hardships of segregation fueled by ignorance in the 1920’s. The beginning introduces the reader into the setting of Detroit reaching its industrial peak. It then chronicles Ossian Sweet, an African American physician. Him and his wife, Gladys, purchased a house in a white neighborhood in hopes of a better future and a successful family. Instead, they quickly received many threats and felt unsteady, the neighbors rejected all African American’s in their society. Raised in the South, Ossian Sweet had seen what prejudice can do to a society. Although he attempted to escape from it, he finds himself staring racism right in the face. For a book published 80 years after the fact, Kevin Boyle does a very impressive

"Freedom and equality are inherent rights in the United States: therefore, I encourage young people to take on the task by standing up and speaking out on behalf of people denied those rights. We have not yet finished the job of making our country whole”

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

While writing his book, Rights of Man, Thomas Paine sheds an optimistic light on the “perfection” that is the American society. He describes the country as one “made up… of people from different nations,” with varied languages, and religions, which continues to hold true today. Although, Paine wrote in a time when “constructing government on the principles of society and the rights of man” was the central focus of the country, from this point on any connection between Paine’s book and modern society is merely false claims, issued with the intention of illustrating a lawless country. In particular, the income gap has been steadily increasing since Bush, racial discrimination and stereotypes, and the the fight against disagreeable legislature or tax raises.

In his Article, “The Range of Justice”, Gerald Gaus Explains that there will likely never be one vision of a “just society” Due to this, Gaus concludes that instead individuals have the responsibility to learn tolerance towards others whose views may be different than their own. This “moral maturity” is essential to understanding that we live in a diverse society that will likely never come to share a single conception of what is best for society as a whole, and to understand that they may be forced to live under policies and/or practices with which they may not agree.

John Rawls wrote several highly influential articles in the 19950`s and 1960`s, his first book, A Theory of Justice (1971), revitalized the social-contract tradition, using it to articulate and defend a detailed vision of egalitarian liberalism. In Political Liberalism [PL] (1993), he recast the role of political philosophy, accommodating it to the effectively permanent “reasonable pluralism” of religious, philosophical, and other comprehensive doctrines or worldviews that characterize modern societies. He explains how philosophers can characterize public justification and the legitimate, democratic use of collective coercive power while accepting that pluralism. (Richardson)

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

Political philosophy is the use of philosophical analysis skills when applied to politics. (Abate, “Political Philosophy”) There are various subtopics discussed among philosophers including the state, justice, and its necessity in the state. In order to discuss such topics, we must first know what justice is. To be just or unjust can be defined in a variety of ways by different people whose outlooks come from completely contrasting perspectives. In this essay I will look at defining justice from different standpoints including that of philosophy dealing with race, feminism, and Marxism. I will consider the views of Mills, Okin, and Marx in explaining these positions. Justice is fair treatment for persons of all backgrounds despite the circumstances, a common idea shared among many groups of people.

“Justice for all,” shouted repeatedly by thousands of protester who rallied around downtown San Francisco, fighting for justice for Peter Liang. Liang, an Asian American who previously worked for NYPD, was sentenced to prison for 15 years by the grand jury for a terrible accident which caused the death of another victim. Consequently, the Asian American communities across United States opposed to the jury’s decision by protesting. “Stop injustice for minority officers,” written on many of the posters of Peter Liang, suggests that American justice system is unfair to minority communities.

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)

John Rawls discusses the original position in his book A Theory of Justice. “The Original Position and Justification” is a chapter where Rawls persuades his readers into taking the original position seriously. The original position is a position where people are equal and are rational in order to make principles that they live by fair. However, there is a problem with rational decisions being biased, where people will choose principles to benefit themselves. Therefore, the veil of ignorance will restrict a person’s knowledge about social status, intelligence, gender, race, ethnicity, and temperament. This will then define principles of justice that will not be advantage or a disadvantage to anyone in a society. Keeping this in mind, the purpose of this essay is to explain the reasons Rawls gives to favor the original position. I will then oppose to Rawls argument with two of my own reasons about the veil of ignorance not being realistic and the equal of human beings not being plausible.