Through these formulas come the idea of imperfect and perfect duties. A perfect duty is moral truth that must be followed at all times, while an imperfect duty is one that should be followed some of the time depending on the circumstance. Kant expresses that we have perfect duties to respect other’s freedoms and we have a perfect duty to tell the truth. The AHA uses these two duties in their discussions on teaching and the shared values of historians. First off, the AHA states that presenting multiple perspectives on history are parts of the truths of history, therefore according to Kant we have a perfect duty to truth and presenting multiple perspectives.
Was his lie just? To evaluate this question I would rely on Immanuel Kant 's deontology that state we should treat humans as an end and never merely as means. After explaining it, I will argue that lying to the Vichy authorities was the right thing to do because the value of life is higher than the duty not to lie. I will defend this argument by discussing one of the critiques on deontology. The goal of deontology is to find a categorical, unconditional imperative that will enable the creation of universal laws of nature, legislated by rational and free beings.
Justice is the legal or philosophical theory by which fairness is administered. Concepts of justice may differ based on your society 's practices, beliefs, and feelings. According to Michael Sandel, in his book, Justice: What 's the Right Thing to Do, an important concept of implementing justice is giving all individuals what they deserve. The difficulty of this concept is settling who deserves what and why. Kreon left Polyneices unburied and sent Antigone away to die alone, merely because it is what the two deserved.
Rawls’ first principle of justice outlines that social institutions in a just society must aim for maximum equal liberty (Rawls, p. 82). His second principle, the difference principle, justifies inequality, but only when it maximally benefits those who are worse off (Rawls, pp. 65-66). Rawls ‘acknowledges that these principles are an oversimplification of distributive justice, but believes they should be applied to the basic structures of society (Rawls, p. 77). Rawls acknowledges that there needs to be regulations on when civil disobedience is justifiable.
Rawls affirms that “there are two basic principles that define a “just” society” (p. 117). These two concepts are the liberty principle and the difference principle. The liberty principle states that “we should all be willing to agree to a system of rules which guarantees each person the free exercise of basic liberties” (p. 117). On the other hand, the difference principle states that there should be a “fair equality of opportunity” (p. 117). Nonetheless, our criminal justice system should have both of these principles, instead it is inequitable.
King addresses the characteristics of unjust laws in 3 points. First point being that just laws are always harmonious with natural morale law. Second point being that a just law is one that uplifts human personality as opposed to degrading human personality. Lastly, a just law can only be created in the most democratic manner possible and if it is not, the minority automatically has the right to disobey the law because they had no say in the creation of the law. As for the first point, a natural morale law must be measured by our natural human sense.
The third argument King has in favour of nonviolent resistance is in how it creates a stage for oppressed groups to speak their truths. King views nonviolent resistance as the only morally sound method in addressing these issues. When reading this, I found it to be slightly unclear, however, I have concluded that it is because hate breeds hate, which is why a different approach is needed being nonviolent resistance. This would prove to be a powerful movement, but frustrating as one must expect to face various forms of violence but stay in a state of peace within oneself. In intentionally placing oneself in violent scenarios and not having to endure extreme mistreatment in attempt to address another.
the Republic, Socrates argues that justice ought to be valued both for its own sake and for the sake of its consequences (358a1–3). His interlocutors Glaucon and Adeimantus have reported a number of arguments to the effect that the value of justice lies purely in the rewards and reputation that are the usual consequence of being seen to be just, and have asked Socrates to say what justice is and to show that justice is always intrinsically better than is acting contrary to justice when doing so would win you more non-moral goods. Glaucon presents these arguments as renewing Thrasymachus’ Book 1 position that justice is “another’s good” (358b–c, cf. 343c), which Thrasymachus had associated with the claim that the rulers in any constitution frame
Definition and Description of Procedural Justice Procedural justice is the act involved in decision making. It incorporates the process of involving transparency and fairness in making decisions. The incorporation of justice in this process is equally essential it entails that all parties allowed to give their views before decision are made concerning a given matter. Some theories state that restorative and distributive justice might not be met but for as long as there is a fair and justice procedure, there is always the possibility of having outcomes that are equitable (Jason &Tyler, 2003). The police department in America is one unit that procedural justice needs to apply.
Rawls attempts to provide a good account of social justice through the social contract approach. This approach says that a society is in some sense is an agreement amount all those who make up the society. In the analogy Rawls shows his disagrements and gives solutions or what he things is a more just way of doing such things. Rawls starts off by saying “I believe that the contrast between the contract view and utilitarianism remains essentially the same in all these cases. There fore I shall compare justice as fairness with familiar variants of intuitionism, perfectionism, and utilitarianism in order to bring out the underlying difference in the simplest way.” Rawls strongly opposes utilitarianism.