justce

is one of these things that people talk about all the time, withut really being
specific about what they mean

activist- economic justice

police/lawyers-criminal justice

When there’s a fight on the playground, or you get a grade you think you don’t
deserve, we find ourselves talking about what’s fair.

And that is talking about justice.

Is justice about equality? Fairness? Getting what we deserve? Or getting what we

need?

This goes back to an ancient Greek understanding of

justice as harmony.

In this view, a just society is one in which everyone fulfills their roles, so that
society runs smoothly.

In that case, violating your place in the social order – even if it’s a place you
don’t want to hold – is considered unjust.

The reason people talk about justice all the time is that it’s one of the most
fundamental social, ethical, and moral principles we deal
with every day.

hen people talk about justice, a lot of the time, they’re really talking about
stuff.Like,
who has more stuff – whether that’s money, food, or access to services like
healthcare and sanitation.

Who gets to decide who gets what? And on what basis?

justice as equality.

-The area of moral philosophy that considers these questions is known as

distributive justice,
and there are many different schools of thought here.

-For example, some people believe that everyone should get

the same kind and amount of stuff, no matter what.

It sounds totally fair.

But, is everyone getting the same stuff really justice?
Because I need – or want – different kinds and amounts of stuff than you do.

need-based justice.

-everyone shouldn’t get the same, because our needs aren’t the same.
-By this logic, justice is getting based on what we need.So those who need more,
get more.

And some say that this makes sense, while others argue that it amounts
to favoring some people over others,
putting those who happen to not be in need, at a disadvantage.
And if that’s how you look at things, then you probably espouse some kind of merit-
based justice,
which says that justice actually means giving unequally, based on what each person
deserves.

Once again, there are some who argue that justice-is-fairness is actually unfair to
those who have gotten the most – either through hard work,
or because they happened to win life’s natural lottery.

People who believe there are essential human rights, for example,
argue that we’re simply entitled to have our most basic needs fulfilled –

things like having enough to eat, and being able to go to the doctors when we’re
sick.

But not everyone believes it’s the government’s job to provide us with those
things,
if we’re not able to get them ourselves.

So, if you can’t afford a doctor, you have a right to get assistance in affording
one.

But notice that in this view, a right implies an obligation.

Your rights – in this case, your right to see a doctor, even if you can’t afford
one
– might make obligatory demands on me, because I might end up helping to pay for
it.

How could I incur an obligation to help you, just because I’m better off than you
are?

Sure, it might be nice if I helped, but it’s certainly not a duty, and no one
should compel me to do it.

But that’s exactly what the government does when it takes taxes from those who have
more in order to assist those who have less.

So you see what I mean: when people talk about taxes, and healthcare, and income
inequality, they’re really talking about justice.

But of course, a lot of the time, justice isn’t at all about stuff.

It’s also about punishment.

Like most subjects, philosophers disagree about the most appropriate way to respond
to wrongdoing.

retributive justice.

-This holds that the only way for justice to be satisfied is

for a wrongdoer to suffer in proportion to the way he’s made others suffer.
-And in this view, punishment is supposed to hurt; that’s the only way to “make
things right.”

welfare maximization.
-In this view, there’s no good to be found in vindictively causing pain to
wrongdoers.
rehabilitation.
-Here, the approach is to give wrongdoers help,
so they can learn how to get along in society and follow its rules.
-The focus is often on education and, if needed, therapy.
-This is sometimes criticized as being paternalistic, because it carries with it
the assumption that wrongdoers are in need of our help
, that they don’t know any better, and that they need to be “cured” of some social
disease
-For eons, people have assumed that punishment prevents a wrongdoer from committing
further crimes, while also discouraging others from breaking the rules.
So, rather than making a wrongdoer suffer for what they’ve done, supporters of
deterrence see punishment as being for the good of society as a whole.

restorative justice.
-Here, you must right your wrongs.The focus is on making amends, rather than making
the wrongdoer suffer.
So if you make a mess, you have to clean it up.And if you hurt someone, you need to
take steps to try and make it right.

This is the logic behind assigning community service to offenders.

The hope here is that the right approach to wrongdoing will lead to healing and
growth, both for the
wrongdoer and for the wronged.