Justice

What is Justice?

Justice, in its broadest sense, is the concept that individuals are to be treated in a manner that is equitable and fair. Imagine a world where everyone gets what they deserve – isn’t that what we all strive for? But what exactly does ‘deserve’ mean? It’s a question that has puzzled philosophers, theologians, and lawmakers for centuries. From ancient Greek thinkers like Plato and Aristotle to modern-day scholars, the interpretation of justice draws on various fields including ethics, rationality, law, religion, equity, and fairness.

Philosophical Theories of Justice

Early theories were set out by Ancient Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle. Plato believed that justice is about balance and harmony, representing the right relationship between conflicting aspects within an individual or a community. He defines justice as everyone having and doing what they are responsible for or what belongs to them – this applies both at the individual level and at the organizational and societal levels.

Advocates of divine command theory say that justice, and indeed morality, is the authoritative command of God. Some versions of the theory assert that God must be obeyed because of the nature of God’s relationship with humanity, while others assert that doing God’s command would be best for everyone.

Justice represents the right relationship between conflicting aspects within an individual or a community. It can be achieved in different ways, such as through distributive justice, egalitarianism, retributive justice, and restorative justice. The concept of justice draws on various fields and philosophical branches, including ethics, rationality, law, religion, equity, and fairness.

Modern Frameworks for Understanding Justice

Modern frameworks include concepts such as distributive justice, egalitarianism, retributive justice, and restorative justice. Distributive justice considers what is fair based on what goods are to be distributed, between whom they are to be distributed, and what is the proper distribution. Egalitarians suggest that justice can only exist within the coordinates of equality.

Plato believed that justice is about balance and harmony. According to Plato’s Euthyphro dialogue, murder is wrong because God says so. The theory asserts that doing God’s command would be best for everyone.

Egalitarianism and Distributive Justice

Justice can only exist within the coordinates of equality according to egalitarianism. Distributive justice considers what is fair based on what goods are to be distributed, between whom they are to be distributed, and what is the proper distribution.

The Dilemma of Justice

In Plato’s philosophy, justice represents balance and harmony. According to Plato, a just person contributes to society according to their unique abilities and receives what is proportionate to their contribution. Is what is morally good commanded by the gods because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by the gods? This dilemma raises questions about the nature of morality and its relationship with the gods or divine authority.

The Euthyphro dilemma suggests two opposing views: if morality exists independently from divine command, then justice is beyond mortal understanding; if morality is derived solely from divine command, then it is subject to mortal judgment. This issue has been debated by philosophers such as Immanuel Kant and C. S. Lewis, who argued that the existence of objective morality implies the existence of God and vice versa.

Justice in Religion

Jews, Christians, and Muslims traditionally believe that justice is a present, real, and governing concept held by God. The Hebrew Bible describes God as saying that Abraham was chosen to charge his children with doing righteousness and justice. The theory of natural law holds that justice is part of human nature. In contrast, Plato’s Republic argues that justice is the interest of the strong imposed on the people.

Justice in Social Contract Theory

Advocates of social contract theory say that justice is derived from the mutual agreement of everyone. Utilitarians, including John Stuart Mill, argue that justice is not fundamental but rather a derived concept from the standard of rightness and consequentialism. Mill argues our belief in justice stems from two natural human tendencies: retaliation and sympathy.

Theories of Distributive Justice

Distributive justice theorists generally favor based on property rights and non-aggression, rather than enforcing a specific distribution method. Robert Nozick argued that individual entitlement is justified by a history made up of just acquisition and transfer events. He believed all redistribution without consent is theft, including redistributive taxation.

Nozick also held that respecting property rights maximizes overall wealth by promoting Pareto efficiency, resulting in the greatest total benefit from scarce resources. Further, this will have been accomplished without taking anything away from anyone unlawfully. Classical liberalism calls for equality before the law, not for equality of outcome, and opposes pursuing group rights at the expense of individual rights.

Justice in Law

The concept of justice is central to Western philosophy, beginning with Plato’s Republic, and is often seen as a dualistic concept opposing injustice. Contemporary theories of justice emphasize fairness, equal rights, and the distribution of goods and wealth. John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice uses a social contract argument to show that justice is a form of fairness, excluding selfish bias.

Rights-based theories of distributive justice vary on what ‘deserved’ means, with some emphasizing egalitarianism and others unequal distribution based on hard work. This is consistent with the notion that being treated fairly satisfies a basic need.

Justice in Practice

Research conducted in 2003 at Emory University involving capuchin monkeys demonstrated that other cooperative animals also possess such a sense and that ‘inequity aversion may not be uniquely human’. Instrumental theories of justice look at the consequences of punishment for wrongdoing, including utilitarian theories which prioritize the maximization of total or average welfare across all individuals. Utilitarianism fights crime in three ways: deterrence, rehabilitation, and security/incapacitation.

According to the utilitarian, justice requires the maximization of the total or average welfare across all relevant individuals. This may require sacrifice of some for the good of others, so long as everyone’s good is taken impartially into account.

Retributive and Restorative Justice

Retributive justice argues that consequentialism is wrong, and punishment should be proportional to the crime, regardless of consequences. Retribution focuses on punishing offenders for past crimes, often with an impartial scale of appropriateness. Revenge, however, is personal and potentially unlimited in scale.

Restorative justice seeks to repair harm done to victims by encouraging active participation, victim-offender dialogue, and offender accountability, resulting in high victim satisfaction rates. Utilitarian and retributive theories are not mutually exclusive, according to some modern philosophers. Distributive justice theories address questions of what goods should be distributed, between whom, and how to distribute them fairly.

The Role of Institutions

Institutions instantiate ideals of justice but may be unjust compared to ideal standards. Justice is an ideal the world fails to live up to sometimes due to deliberate opposition despite understanding. The question of institutive justice raises issues of legitimacy, procedure, codification, and interpretation.

The United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 16 emphasizes the need for strong institutions to uphold justice. Speedy justice refers to the problem of slow justice, where the right to a speedy trial is enshrined in some jurisdictions. Higher quality justice tends to be faster.

Conclusion

The concept of justice is complex and multifaceted, involving ethical, legal, and social dimensions. No matter how we define it, the pursuit of justice remains a fundamental human endeavor. As we continue to grapple with these questions, let us strive for a world where everyone receives what they deserve – not just in theory but in practice.