Justice explained What is justice? According to Wikipedia.com, justice is defined as a concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, religion, equity and fairness. The views of justice differ from person to person. John Rawls was an American philosopher, and a leading figure in moral and political philosophy. His view on justice was similar to Karl Marx’s belief.
John Locke, one of the most influential philosophers during the Enlightenment, based his governance in social contract theory. He believed that humans are rational and should follow natural law. He believed that all men are born equally with the right of life, liberty, and property. His theory of natural right has influenced many political documents including the United States Declaration of
He was greatly influenced by Aristotle, David Hume, and Plato. His main interests were epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics. Kant made the basis for an ethical law from the concept of duty. Kant believed that people should obey the law no matter what their morals are. When we pay taxes, we can use the categorical imperative theory.
J RAWLS, The Laws of Peoples-with the Idea of Public Reason Revisited, Harvard University Press: USA, 1999. John Rawls was an influential political philosopher and his publications are widely read. One of which is the Law of Peoples published in 1993 which is the subject of my study. In the Law of Peoples Rawls concerns of the general principles whereby one can uphold and be accept by the liberal people as well as the non-liberal society. “This principle is a standard for which can be useful in regulating the behavior of the citizens towards one and other.” The liberal people have a just constitutional democracy government that serves their basic interests.
Immanuel Kant’s The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals is his first crucial attempt to provide moral philosophy, and his work has endures a standout among the most powerful philosophers. Kant’s analysis can be perceived as a foundation for imminent studies by clarifying the major ideas and rules of moral rationale and demonstrating that they are subordinated to rational factors. He seeks to prove that the discovery of the principle of morality is achievable. What is more, he grants a revolutionary assertion the rightness of a choice is controlled by the nature of the principle an individual decides to follow. Therefore, Kant’s moral sense theories often are depicted as strikingly unconventional.
THE DOMINANT PARADIGM: THE “RULE OF LAW” More than two thousand years ago Aristoteles wrote: “The rule of law is better than the rule of any other individual”. Today, there is an evident dominance of the law (or legalist) paradigm in the contemporary, described by Bourdieu as the “force of law”. Both McEvoy (2007) and Nouwen and Werner (2015) convey that this drive is the benchmark for their ultimate analysis. The law as magnetic and seductive force shapes our political relation, our way of thinking and our behaviour, ultimately articulating our social world (Geertz). Law nurtures the longing humans feel for a life driven by solid principles in a rational and orderly way.
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke square measure a number of the foremost potent thinkers of philosophical thought, and this essay can compare and conjointly distinction all the relevant aspects of Hobbes and Locke’s agreement theories. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were each nice thinkers of their time and noted for his or her influences on political thinking. every thinker includes a distinctive viewpoint on the character of man, man’s relationship with society, and man’s relationship with government. the weather of their viewpoints are compared and contrasted for similarities and variations. Firstly, i'll prefer to begin on their similarities that square measure that each confer with a “state of nature” within which man exists while not government,
In this small paper I am going to focus on the two crucial contributions of John Rawls to the field of political philosophy, namely, his theories of justice and political liberalism, as those were presented in Justice as Fairness (later restatement of his fundamental Theory of Justice) and Political Liberalism. I will start with several major assumptions that guide Rawls ' thinking and should, in my opinion, guide any scrutiny of his ideas. First of all, he attempts to develop a political conception, that is, a framework for dealing not with all of the issues concerning a given society, but with essentially political affairs. Although he does not provide a theory of the political as such (in a sense of Schmitt), it is possible to see to what essentials he reduces a political realm. Second, society at stake in Rawls ' theories is indeed 'given '.
“Retribution” or “Retributive justice” can be defined as “a theory of justice that considers punishment, if proportionate, to be the best response to crime.” (Wikipedia, 2016) Peter Koritansky, philosopher and author made a distinction between two views on retributive punishment in his work entitled “Two theories of retributive punishment: Immanuel Kant and Thomas Aquinas” in 2005 in which he believed that the Thomistic understanding of retribution is superior to that of Kant and this write-up is going to outline the reasons as to why he think this is the case. To illustrate this, it is vital therefore that we understand the Kantian retributivism and Aquinas’s understanding of punishment. Firstly the Kantian retributivism or the theory of retributive by Immanuel Kant suggests that punishment in the form of coercion of force is necessary to establish justice and to punish criminals, he emphasized that “Punishment by a court…can never be inflicted merely as a means to promote some other good for the criminal himself or for civil society, but that it must always be inflicted upon him for the fact that he has committed a crime” [Page 320].Kant describes this form of punishment as a “categorical imperative” meaning independent from any personal motives or desire. He insisted that “The will to punish, if moral, must be from nothing more than recognition of a criminal’s desert and must be motivated solely by the cold calculation of what justice requires.” [Page 322].By this
Jeremy Bentham was a Jurist, British philosopher as well as a social reformer. He is regarded as the father of modern utilitarianism. Bentham defined as the "fundamental axiom" of his philosophy the principle that "it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong". He was theorist in Anglo-American philosophy of law, and a political radical whose ideas influenced the development of welfarism. He advocated individual and economic freedom, the separation of church and state, freedom of expression, equal rights for women, the right to divorce, and the decriminalising of homosexual acts .