EPISTEMOLOGICAL EXPLORATION OF JUSTICE
Justice is defined (Merriam-Webster) in following ways –
• “The maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments”.
• The quality of being just, impartial, or fair
• Right action
• Righteousness
• Correctness
The paper attempts to explore the episteme of justice under following heads –
• Historical backdrop of justice
• Comparative analysis of justice (Rawls and Amartya Sen) -
• Explore if justice is universal or relative - adversarial or contextual
• Conclusion
Proceed with the exploration in the above mentioned sequence –
Historical backdrop of justice Plato in his Republic dealt with dikaiosune
…show more content…
Plato’s idea of the city has three classes based on labour division i.e. the guardian class, auxiliary class and the merchant class, with wisdom, courage and moderation as their prime essential attributes. Similarly, the psyche of individual has three categories, i.e., reasoning (to rule), spirit (to enable the rule by reason) and appertite. Justice for polis implies following the class structure based on essence of true nature of the class, whereas, justice for individuals is about following one’s own psyche to pursue one’s task. Can Plato’s notion of justice in his republic be seen as a bridge between soul and the polis, as oftenly stated – statecraft as soulcraft.
In his Crito, Plato equates just life with good life. Justice in Crito, also implies not inflicting injury to others even if they inflict harm on you, fulfilling one’s promises and abiding by the laws of polis (unless one can manage to change those laws). However, an obvious question which emerges is can justice require to follow laws that demand one to act unjustly.
Aristotle in contrast , sees justice as a virtue of character (Nichomeachean Ethics). He emphasises on the role of reason both in perceiving just and act justly rather than being impulsive. Aristotle sees justice via virtue of constitutionally framed institutions (in his Politics). Aristotle argues so to establish a formal structure of justice.
Most of the
…show more content…
Sen argues, that social justice shouldn’t be evaluated in binary terms, as either achieved or not. However, justice is a matter of degree and should be seen as a continuum. Sen further argues that, abstract ideal of justice needn’t be fully established to evaluate fairness of different institutions. Comparison of level of justice in two institutions without posing an ideal ie., transcendental idea of justice. Sen proposes to move away from transcendtal institutionalism. Argues to support comparative rather perfectionist theory of justice. Sen argues that liberty cannot be forsaken in the hope of better re-distributution of socio-economic equality. Right way, as per Sen, about asking questions on justice is to ask how justice can be advanced rather than defining perfectly just institutions. Sen mentions that, Rawls does not suggest as to how to set-up institutions. This debate also leads to institutions (deontology) versus outcome (consequentialism). He argues in favour of capability approach rather than need based approach as suggested by
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.
The Oxford Learner’s Dictionary defines fairness to be ‘the quality of treating people equally or in a way that is reasonable’ and justice as ‘the quality of being fair or reasonable’ (Oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com, 2014). Investigation of the characteristics of the Australian Legal System (ALS) including its adoption, structure and operational rules, reveal that for the most part the system is based on these two attributes. This inference is further evidenced by the legally binding operational framework assigned to the financial services industry and reflected in the codes of practice that also guide it.
When Black people tell other Black people that they are talking white, it has nothing to do with the education level of the person being accused of talking white. This myth get constantly perpetuated. They are simply talking about that person phonology and lack of respect for AAVE.
Ralph Waldo Emerson once wrote “One man’s justice is another’s injustice.” This statement quite adequately describes the relation between definitions of justice presented by Polemarchus and Thrasymachus in Book I of the Republic. Polemarchus initially asserts that justice is “to give to each what is owed” (Republic 331d), a definition he picked up from Simonides. Then, through the unrelenting questioning of Socrates, Polemarchus’ definition evolves into “doing good to friends and harm to enemies” (Republic 332d), but this definition proves insufficient to Socrates also. Eventually, the two agree “that it is never just to harm anyone” (Republic 335d). This definition is fundamental to the idea of a
The conventional accounts of Justice normally begin by stating a fundamental rule of Aristotle – Justice is to treat equals equally and unequals unequally, and that unequal treatment should be in proportion to the inequality. In everyday life though, justice is seen as an attribute of law, while all laws are not necessarily just. Many great socio- political movements of the world have focused from time to time on unjust laws eg Apartheid laws in South Africa and Caste laws in India. Impartiality and fairness are understood to be the two aspects of justice. But it would be misleading to suggest that Justice refers solely to the fair application of a rule.
Plato aims to give an account of the ethical life. Themes for example knowledge, the well-ordered life, and wisdom are connected into the discussion of ethical life, however, the principle of justice and the organization of the good life is the central topic of Plato's theories. Today we associate justice with the successful implementation and execution of political law. To the Ancient Greek's justice was used to describe the proper and correct method of living. Justice is harmony and was believed it could be achieved through learning. Plato first established that justice is good, and part of the good life in Book I. Plato listens to other philosophers theories and argues that justice is an excellence of character. The role that justice plays is to improve human nature. In addition to other things, justice is a form of goodness that cannot contribute in any activity that attempts to harm one's character.
Justice and discussion as to what it actually is presents as one of the major themes in Plato’s Republic. Plato defines justice as the highest virtue in a state, built on principles of good. Just society is the one, in which everyone fully realizes abilities given to them by nature and rightly practices those abilities and nothing else. Justice is closely related to the person and the ideal state, tying them together. “Justice is a virtue of a soul” (R. 353e) and just like how there are three
Using his argument of a macrocosm reflecting a microcosm Plato was able to define the form of justice. Plato’s definition of justice can be put in a different manner. He believes that justice is a policy of non-interference. Each element of the whole, whether it is in the city or the individual, functions in its own aspect to benefit the whole, fulfilling its own purpose. Justice occurs when the elements of the whole are acting in accord with one another.
This contradiction can perhaps be resolved within Aristotle’s analysis of justice in Book V. Here he makes evident that justice as a virtue is inherently intertwined with law-abidingness, so much so that he calls lawfulness “complete virtue” (1129b28). Yet, Aristotle also provides an extensive critique of laws. Giorgi Areshidze examines this critique in his essay, “Aristotles Critique of Justice, the Rule of Law and the Common Good in Book V of the Nicomachean Ethics.” According to Areshidze, “laws are deficient because they are expressed as universals and therefore are likely to fail to secure justice in particular cases (1137b13), and above all because at the core of laws rest deeply flawed assumptions about human beings: laws require penalties because they assume that the lawbreaker gets away with too much good, and must therefore be subjected to punishment through which “the judge tries to take away his gain and restore the equilibrium” (1132a8).” As a result of this assumption, Areshidze states, “all
The preliminary point into an inquiry of distributive justice is to disconnect the conjunction of “distributive,” and “justice”. For the purpose of this essay, I will inherit and accept John Rawls explanation of justice from A Theory of Justice. “Justice,” according to Rawls, “is the first virtue of social institutions.” Therefore, from a societal perspective, justice as the first virtue negates the utilitarian maxim that a loss of freedom for one would be acceptable if there was a greater good to be shared by others. In a truly just society, all people are treated fair. The questions of individual liberties are taken as settled. In the just society, liberty, rights, and fairness are not subject to a utilitarian calculation nor are they susceptible to political bargaining.
Our justice system regularly makes decisions that would be universally considered just and in the very same day makes decisions that are universally considered unjust. Based on this, justice must be more about the intention. For the sake of argument imagine a judge who intends with every fiber of his being to be just, makes a decision that in the end turns out to be unjust. I would say this man could still be considered just. Regardless of the outcome, the intention should determine the question of just or unjust. If that same judge admits his mistake and does his best to rectify the situation, he would certainly be considered just. On the other hand if he realizes the mistake and does nothing then he is most unjust. Human beings are incapable of unfailing justice, but when you intend to be just, you should then be considered a just person. So justice must be the intention of the person or entity to pursue truth and fairness.
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 notion of justice is existence of proper balance of rights and its access under the laws of land. It refers to not depriving any person from availing privileges, opportunities etc. John Rawls writes, "Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override"It means that the interaction in a society must be free from any sort of discrimination such as religion, race, color, caste or sex. It ensures fair distribution of assets and equal opportunity. José P. Laurel defines Social Justice as “Social justice is neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy, but the humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces by the state so that justice in its rational and objectively secular conception may at least be approximated.”
Sen mentions that there are two basic views to justice - one is the ‘arrangement-focused’ approach to justice and the other is ‘realization-focused’ approach to justice. In order to contrast both the approaches, Sen uses two Sanskrit words – niti and nyaya- both these words mean justice. Although the definition of the words is similar, they represent different perceptions of justice. Niti, on one hand focuses on organized institutions and appropriate behaviors in society. Basically, we think about proper procedures and rules when it comes to niti, which is very much the ‘arrangement-focused’ approach to justice. Nyaya, on the other hand is more comprehensive and involves the emerging of a more profound perspective based on the roles of organizations and rules. Nyaya is the ‘realization-focused’ approach to justice, which means that one has to see beyond niti and look at the bigger picture of an issue or scenario. This makes niti more superficial relative to nyaya and one may even imagine niti as a subset of nyaya. Despite niti and nyaya representing different views of justice, it is undeniable that both views equally important.
Justice in philosophy is one of the most important political and moral concepts. The word justice comes from the Latin word jus, which means right or law. English Dictionaries defines it as one who typically does what is morally right as well as offering the word “fair” as a synonym. But philosophers get beyond etymology and what the dictionary definitions are and look deeper into it. For example, the nature of justice is both a moral virtue of character and a quality needed for political society, as well as knowing how it applies to social and ethical decision making. The question to answer is how Plato and Rawls theories were used for philosophical conceptions of justice. These are known to be the greatest theories of ancient Greece. Not only their theories of justice will be explained, but also how Plato and Rawls apply their own theories to controversial social issues like civil disobedience, punishment, equal opportunity for women, property rights, and international relations.