Theories of Justice

Theories of Justice

Introduction

The purpose of this study is to expand the boundaries of our knowledge by exploring some relevant facts and figures related to theory of justice. Justice, on the classical view, is a virtue; specifically, it is a disposition to give each person his or her due. Naturally, there has always been some difference of opinion as to what, exactly, is due to whom under which conditions. The most influential account has probably been that offered by Aristotle in his Nicomachean Ethics. Distinguishing justice in distribution from justice in rectification, he argues that in the former case, goods are justly distributed according to the proportionate merit of the recipients, and that in the latter case, just punishments and compensations are proportionate to injuries caused. The virtue of justice can thus be understood as a state of character that disposes people to act justly and wish for what is just, so defined (Troyer, 2003). In the next section, the author will discuss and explain the theory of justice and its related concepts.

Discussion & Analysis

Principles of Justice Theories

The principle or principles of justice form the core of any theory of social justice—its conception of what it means for a society to be described as just. There are, of course, many different and competing conceptions of social justice. It follows that a complete theory should offer both a conception of what it means for a society to be described as just and some line of argument purporting to show that, in some relevant sense, this is the best or right conception. We might think of this aspect of a theory of social justice as a selection mechanism or decision procedure for choosing among the possible competing conceptions (Rawls, 2001).

To be fully effective, this decision procedure must provide some sort of argument for each of the various modules used in constructing the relevant conception. Theories of social justice are not always (indeed, rarely are) worked out so thoroughly (Barry, 1995). To give one notorious example, John Stuart Mill's argument for utilitarianism turns out to offer an argument only for the welfarism module and not the others: even if he is right that happiness is what counts, it must still be shown that happiness should be maximized and that everyone's happiness should count the same. The model case of a thoroughly worked-out decision procedure is, of course, Rawls's original position argument. His conception of justice as fairness, as is well known, has two principles (Troyer, 2003):

Each person has the same indefeasible claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme of liberties for all.

Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: first, they are to be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; and second, they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society (the difference principle).

Principle of Justice and Utilitarianism

Compared with utilitarianism's bracing simplicity, justice as ...