Essay on Should Justice be the Supreme Virtue of Societies

John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice holds that a rational, mutually disinterested individual in the Original Position and given the task of establishing societal rules to maximise their own happiness throughout life, is liable to choose as their principles of justice a) guaranteed fundamental liberties and b) the nullification of social and economic disparities by universal equality of opportunities, which are to be of greatest benefit to the least advantaged members of society , . Rawls’ system of societal creation has both strengths and weaknesses, but is ultimately sound.

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.

"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." Martin Luther King's words, which just correspond with the above assertion, perfectly tell us what to do in face of laws, either just or unjust.

John Rawls was dissatisfied with the traditional philosophical approach to justifying social and political actions therefore he attempted to provide a reasonable theory of social justice through a contract theory approach. In his work, A Theory of Justice, Rawls bases almost the entirety of his piece on the question, what kind of organization of society would rational persons choose if they were in an initial position of independence and equality and setting up a system of cooperation (A Theory of Justice-enotes)? From this seemingly simple question, Rawls goes into further detail describing what he believes society would and should do when setting up a fair and just organizational structure. Throughout his

John Rawls just society was considered wrong to most. He says that if I can be pretty sure that I won't get caught and punished that it is rational for me to break the contract. He was a very selfish person and only cared about what was in the best interest for him. He states that we are rationally self-interested, argued that we need a society and social contract that applies to everyone and anyone. He also stated that for all of this "just society" to happen we need everything to end and just wipe the slate clean for a "new" beginning. For this beginning, Rawls wanted to enforce the two principles of justice. 1. Equality Principle; this principle states that everyone has maximum liberty consistent with the same liberty of all others. 2. Difference Principle; all inequalities are allowed if two conditions are met: positions of inequality are open to everyone, and the inequality benefits everyone.

The concept of a society that respects elements of justice is called social justice. Social justice is usually applied to the

These are the people not being heard by the higher powers. Rawls identifies two principles for the topic of justice. The first being that each individual should have the same rights to the liberties consistent with other people experiencing the same liberties. The second being that inequalities should be arranged so that they would be to everyone’s advantage. With these two principles, Rawls's concept of justice would be to give more attention to those born with fewer resources to achieve success socioeconomically. This type of justice is valuable because it gives the less fortunate a chance to be at the same level as a privileged person. The term justice can mean enabling any person to realize their full potential inside of their society despite certain attributes, disabilities, sexual orientation, gender, races, religions, and any other belief or culture. Everyone should be allowed equal opportunities so that they can have the chance to find their place in their community—whether they decide to be proactive or not. Giving

Assumptions about human nature in order to create social justice. According to Mill, social justice is “the idea that we can put in place a set of political institutions that will ensure the just distribution of benefits and costs throughout society.” In other words, social justice is in the hands of the government to create certain institutions that will greatly benefit everyone, and equally so. In order to do that, one must have an idea of the way human nature works so as to institute programs and such appropriately and properly.

The idea then of a just society I contend, comes down to people living under a fair and common law, order, political system, social organization, as well as everyone having personal and political freedom.

The term justice is used in some of America's most treasured and valued documents, from the Pledge of Allegiance, to the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence. Everyone wants to be treated justly whether it's in the courtroom or the local bar. Most people would feel confident giving a definition for justice, but would it be a definition we could universally agree to? Given that justice is a very common term, and something we all want, it's important to have a precise definition. For hundreds of years philosophers have argued, debated, and fought over this topic. Justice can clearly be defined as the intention to conform to truth and fairness. This is true justice.

The statement "It is better that 10 guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" summarises and highlights the mistakes and injustices in the criminal justice system. In a just society, the innocent would never be charged, nor convicted, and the guilty would always be caught and punished. Unfortunately, it seems this would be impossible to achieve due to the society in which we live. Therefore, miscarriages of justice occur in the criminal justice system more frequently than is publicised or known to the public at large. They are routine and would have to be considered as a serious problem in our society. The law is what most people respect and abide by, if society cannot trust the law that governs them, then there will

Is there structural inequality in the criminal justice system? When we watch the news or read our newspapers, we can see that most of the criminals portrayed are of African American or Hispanic descent. Being a fan of true crime novels, they even depict more Black male criminals than White males. Are African American males committing more crimes than White males? What factors are involved for Blacks to be more involved in crime? How do African American stereotypes play a role with possible racial profiling from the policing force? Are Blacks treated fairly in the criminal justice system? After much research, I hope to answer these questions and determine if African Americans

In the Introduction of Plato's Republic, a very important theme is depicted. It is the argument of whether it is beneficial for a person to lead a good and just existence. The greatly argued position that justice does not pay, is argued by three men Thrasymachus, Glaucon, and Adeimantus. By incorporating all three men into a collective effort I believe I can give a more flattering depiction of injustice.

John Rawls' "A Theory of Justice" has long been revered as a marvel of modern political philosophy. It's most well-known for the two principles of justice outlined by Rawls: (1) that all persons have an equal right to liberty; and (2) that (a) all inequalities in society should be arranged to benefit the least advantages, and (b) that all positions and offices should be open and accessible as outlined by fair equality of opportunity. Rawls' conception of society, as a "co-operative venture for mutual gain", forms the basis for both principles, and he is at all times concerned with creating a stable concept of fair and just society. Rawls' second principle, dealing with distributive justice and equality

Thus, we return to the first order intellectual tool: principles of justice. There are many possible principles of justice; however Rawls tests the following two principles of justice in hopes which are theoretically capable of achieving institutional reform. The first principle of justice is that “each person has an equal claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic rights and liberties” (5). Moreover, this is the translating of rights into real possibilities to guarantee that one really does have freedom. And this is a fair and concrete value which society does, in theory, guarantees. The second principle of justice is that “social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: first they are to be attached to positions and offices open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; and second, they are to be the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society,” (6). Thus, there is no exclusion of any group.