Flow of reporting

Arjay: Good day! Everyone! Before we start with our report about theories of

justice let us first put ourselves to the holy spirit of God.

Michael: In the name of the father and of the son and of the holy shit….

After sa prayer start naka Michael..

This is Michael pepito speaking, before I begin, I would like to ask someone about

what do you mean by justice? In your own words…

After sa naay mo answer

Yes, thank you for that wonderful beautiful shubarashiful answer

In Utilitarianism, Utilitarian justice means that the action that leads to the greatest

good. A just government should set rules that maintain the greatest good.

So, the question is, what is the greatest good?

According to Jeremy Bentham, the greatest good: reduce pain and maximize

pleasure.

It is determined through a cost/benefits analysis; like an equation.

In addition, John Stuart Mill, define the greatest good as whether the consequences

of the action produce more pleasure than pain.

To John Stuart mill, there is one thing, and one thing only, that is desirable in its

self; pleasure.

To conclude, in utilitarianism justice there are multiple factors in play wherein

welfare, well-being and utility is focused. With the guiding principle of as the

greatest good for the greatest number. In other words, whatever distribution that

maximizes aggregate welfare. With Jeremy bentham and john stuart mill as the key

authors. The best example that resonates with utilitarian justice is sarok festival,

since sa sarok festival nakagastu man gyud tag daku even nga naa pay mas

importanti nga gastusan, ma apply ang utilitarian justice ani kay some would argue

nga kalas-kalas man lang ug kwarta while some argues nga justice rapd or just

rapud siya since makapahalipay man siya sa mga tao. Thus, sarok festival relates

to utilitarian justice because it maximizes happiness or pleasure. That will be the

end of my report.
This is Valerie Otara speaking, aside from Utilitarian justice, we have the social

contract justice.

In social contract justice, it is based on the social contract established between

citizens and their government.

A just society is based on laws that most rational people would choose to adopt.

So how do we know which laws to adopt when there is disagreement?

According to John Rawls, people ought to abide by two rules when making laws:

First, people should not consider their own selfish interests but rather common

goods.

Second, people are placed behind a ‘veil of ignorance’ that deprives them of any

knowledge of personal characteristics, such as their gender, their place in society,

or the talents and skills they possess.

All will choose to live under impartial laws that work to no – one’s advantage in

particular.
Moreover, according to David Gauthier if the individual will gain more by

cooperating with others, then that individual would choose the outcome that leaves

them better off than they were.

Laws and institutions that come about from this general consensus are just.

In conclusion, the shortcomings of utilitarianism have prompted several recent

philosophers to revive the old idea of the social contract as a better way of bringing

coherence to our thinking about justice. The idea here is not that people actually

have entered a contract to establish justice, or that they should proceed to do so,

but that we can understand justice better by asking the question: what principles to

govern their institutions, practices and personal behavior would people choose to

adopt if they all had to agree on them in advance? The contract, in other words, is

hypothetical; but the search for agreement is meant to ensure that the principles

chosen would, when implemented, not lead to outcomes that people could not

accept. Thus, whereas a utilitarian might, under some circumstances, be prepared

to support slavery – if the misery of the slaves were outweighed by the heightened

pleasures of the slave-owners – contractarians claims that no-one could accept a

principle permitting slavery, lest they themselves were destined to be slaves when

the principle was applied.

An example of social contract justice in play is pareho anang manag uyab mo

ideally unconditional and unspoken man jud ang rules sa relationship however sa

uban mas maayu nga ma storyaan ug naay klaro nga rules or in other word social
contract. Firstly, Majority of relationship find it “just” if their partner remains faithful

regardless of all the temptation. Secondly, Majority of relationship find it “just” if

their partner continues to show love and respect to them and the people they love.

Lastly, majority of relationship wants honesty and openness. That will be the end of

my report.
This is arjay pepito live, In Egalitarian justice, justice is treating everyone equally.

Government should rule impartially and consistently. People must be treated

equally.

But, what is equality? It could be the case that the same rule applied to people

leads to an unequal outcome. Is this still justice?

EQUALITY OF OPPURTUNITY

In egalitarian justice Equality is defined as political and economic status should rest

on individual merit.

Justice requires that no-one should be disadvantaged compared to others on

account of uncontrollable factors – e.g. ‘brute; bad luck, physical ability, social

class, etc…

Inequalities that arise through the exercise of personal responsibility are justified.

In addition, EQUALITY OF CONDITION, equality of democratic citizenship and

civil liberties.

Equal rights to life, liberty, property, etc…

An example of egalitarian justice is the free education from the government. It used

to be that education are only limited to those who can afford it. Now with the free

education program from the government, it allowed equal opportunity for everyone

regardless of race, gender, social status, etc.…

To conclude, many philosophers have sought to establish a close connection

between justice and equality: they ask the question ‘what kind of equality does

justice require?’, and to that several competing answers have been given. But we

should not be too hasty to assume that what justice demands is always equality,

whether of treatment or of outcome. Perhaps it does so only in a formal sense.

justice requires the impartial and consistent application of rules, from which it

follows that when two people are alike in all relevant respects, they must be treated

equally. But, as Aristotle among others saw, justice also involves the idea of

proportional treatment, which implies recipients getting unequal amounts of

whatever good is at issue (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book V, ch. 3). If A is

twice as deserving or twice as needy as B, justice may require that she receives

more than B does. So here formal equality of treatment – the same rule applied to

both – leads to an unequal outcome. Again, when justice takes the conservative

form of respect for existing entitlements or legitimate expectations (see para 2.1)

there is no reason to anticipate that what is due to different people will be

substantively the same. That will be the end of my report.