Theory Of Justice Analysis

Rawls was not happy whit the original arguments about what makes a social institution just. The utilitariam argument says that societies should pursue the greatest good for the greatest number. This argument has many problems, excpecially that it seems to be consistant with the belief of majorities over minorities. The institution argument holds that human intuit what is wright or wrong by some innate moral sense. Rawls attempts to provide a good account of social justice through the social contract approach.

The Criminal Justice system is one of the most important vessels within society due to its role in ensuring that society is abiding by its laws and holding those who transgress these laws to account. Despite its crucial role in society, it has also been under some scrutiny in regards to how effective it actually is, which results in arguments that it doesn’t properly fulfil its job as a carrier of justice. A focus on the criminal justice system is a subject of interest because it helps us understand the tension within society between individual rights and freedoms. (Schmalleger, F. and Koppel, T, 1999) Thus, this essay will be arguing that the criminal justice system is indeed broken.

In our society, people are either born rich and powerful, having the rights and opportunities that those who are born into lower-class would not have. So why should we live in a government system where we allow these inequities to happen? In Justice, Michael J. Sandel discusses John Rawls’ arguments over defining a just society. Rawls believes that “we should reject the contention that the ordering of institution is always defective because the distribution of natural talents and the contingencies of social circumstance are unjust, and this injustice must inevitably carry over to human arrangements. Occasionally this reflection is offered as an excuse for ignoring injustice, as if refusal to acquiesce in injustice is on par with being unable to accept death.

The theory, from which stems his conception of justice, is a narrow one that is grounded in the non-violation of property rights. The theory is bases on three sets of principles. First is the principles of acquisition, which determine the circumstance under which persons are able to acquire ownership of previously unowned resources. That is, a possession is justly held if it was acquired in a just fashion, without the violation of another’s self-ownership. Second is the principle of transfer.

Just as truth is the central virtue in science, justice is the principal value of society, Rawls begins his theory, a phrase with which he

3.3. Robert Nozick on John Rawls. In his A Theory of Justice is widely recognized as an essential contribution to the nature of justice. However, his work raises many questions.

In his Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Robert Nozick describes an interesting and unique theory of justice which focuses not on the person and his rights, but instead considers each person to be a piece of property owned by him or herself. He then describes the rights of this property. In his entitlement theory of justice, Nozick described three principles which outline how one may come to hold property, how property can be justly transferred from one person to another, and how to rectify injustices. According to Nozick, these principles form the basis for identifying injustices. This serves to minimize the power of the state.

According to John Rawls, his ‘A Theory of Justice’ is an attempt to offer a system of justice, which is a viable substitute to the prevalent practice of choosing a deviation of the principle of utilitarianism which is limited by the intuitionism of people (Rawls, viii). This, Rawls reasons, is because despite the sophistication of the various theories of Utilitarianism presented by philosophers like Bentham and Mill, it failed to work out a “systematic moral conception” leaving a difference between the principles of Utility and the moral sentiments of the people (ibid). The alternative system of justice provided by Rawls is an attempt to address this difference with rationality. The function of rationality here is to produce a theory that can consistently provide an explanation for human behaviour and motivation. This alternative system of justice is described as ‘justice as fairness’.

When addressing the difference between just and unjust laws for the clergymen Martin Luther King Jr. stated, A just law is man-made code that squares with the mora law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of Saint Thomas Aquinas, an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law.

8) The cause of this loss of independence is the different biases we all have. We tend to make decisions that would benefit people like us rather than help others that are different from us. Rawls is more concerned with the well-being and happiness of an individual but the different social powers prevents us from achieving equality of

Everyone believes that they know the right way to deal with economic justice, however the issue of how to make a society economically just has been a problem debated between many different viewpoints of distributive justice for hundreds of years. These differing viewpoints all bring with them the ability to interpret information provided about the economic conditions in a society and tell if that society is just or not. The five major principles of distributive justice are as follows: libertarian, utilitarian, egalitarian, sufficiency, and priority. Given graphs of the American distribution of wealth and income, I will apply these principles and try to interpret if these graphs reveal and injustice in the distribution of wealth and income in

John Rawls believed that if certain individuals had natural talents, they did not always deserve the benefits that came with having these abilities. Instead, Rawls proposed, these inherent advantages should be used to benefit others. Although Rawls makes an excellent argument on why this should be the case, not all philosophers agreed with his reasoning, especially Robert Nozick. Nozick believed in distributing benefits in a fair manner in accordance with the Entitlement Theory, which has three subsections: Just Acquisition, Just Transfer and Just Rectification.

and his followers are uncomfortable in addressing. This accusation further evidenced by the fact that in his mammoth book a theory of Justice, not one mention of race is present. Mills states that if one asks the “classic question of cui bono? Then it is obvious that ideal theory can only serve the interests of the privileged.” The marginalization of race by the Rawlsian model, has led some to see that ideal theory is unhelpful in understanding one of the most noteworthy forms of injustice.

Paintings in black and white When you see a painting, you are not just looking at the painting. You are looking at life captured at an infinitesimal amount of time. Paintings and photos do not just wholly display an image or a series of images; they are displaying the life and emotions of the painters. While visually you can view a painting just as that, one dimensional. There is an alternate way of perceiving and digesting images.

Safety of our citizens is of utmost importance in creating a robust society. Building sustainable communities that are inclusive, secure and sensitive to needs of the citizens will continue to be of national priority. However, over the years, crime has stymied this endeavour. There must be a commitment to ensuring safety, security and justice for all citizens, which are seen as moral rights and intrinsic to development. Good policing, targeted social interventions and an efficient judicial system are needed to help our nation thrive.