Justice - Wikipedia Justice From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search Concept of moral fairness and administration of the law For other uses, see Justice (disambiguation). "Theory of Justice" redirects here. For the book, see A Theory of Justice. For the musical, see A Theory of Justice: The Musical! Justitia by Maarten van Heemskerk, 1556. Justitia carries symbolic items such as: a sword, scales and a blindfold[1] Justice, one of the four cardinal virtues, by Vitruvio Alberi, 1589–1590. Fresco, corner of the vault, studiolo of the Madonna of Mercy, Palazzo Altemps, Rome Justice, in its broadest sense, is the principle that people receive that which they deserve, with the interpretation of what then constitutes "deserving" being impacted upon by numerous fields, with many differing viewpoints and perspectives, including the concepts of moral correctness based on ethics, rationality, law, religion, equity and fairness. Consequently, the application of justice differs in every culture. Early theories of justice were set out by the Ancient Greek philosophers Plato in his work The Republic, and Aristotle in his Nicomachean Ethics. Throughout history various theories have been established. Advocates of divine command theory have said that justice issues from God. In the 1600s, philosophers such as John Locke said that justice derives from natural law. Social contract theory said that justice is derived from the mutual agreement of everyone. In the 1800s, utilitarian philosophers such as John Stuart Mill said that justice is based on the best outcomes for the greatest number of people. Theories of distributive justice study what is to be distributed, between whom they are to be distributed, and what is the proper distribution. Egalitarians have said that justice can only exist within the coordinates of equality. John Rawls used a social contract theory to say that justice, and especially distributive justice, is a form of fairness. Robert Nozick and others said that property rights, also within the realm of distributive justice and natural law, maximizes the overall wealth of an economic system. Theories of retributive justice say that wrongdoing should be punished to insure justice. The closely related restorative justice (also sometimes called "reparative justice") is an approach to justice that focuses on the needs of victims and offenders. Contents 1 Harmony 2 Divine command 3 Natural law 3.1 Despotism and skepticism 3.2 Mutual agreement 3.3 Subordinate value 4 Theories of distributive justice 4.1 Social justice 4.2 Fairness 4.3 Property rights 4.4 Welfare-maximization 5 Theories of retributive justice 5.1 Utilitarianism 5.2 Retributivism 5.3 Restorative justice 5.4 Mixed theories 6 Theories 6.1 Rawls' theory of justice 6.2 Equality 6.3 Equality before the law 6.4 Relational justice 6.5 Classical liberalism 6.6 Religion and spirituality 6.6.1 Abrahamic justice 6.7 Theories of sentencing 6.8 Evolutionary perspectives 6.9 Reactions to fairness 6.10 Institutions and justice 7 See also 7.1 Other pages 7.2 Types of justice 8 References 9 Further reading 10 External links Harmony[edit] Main article: The Republic (Plato) Justice by Luca Giordano In his dialogue Republic, Plato uses Socrates to argue for justice that covers both the just person and the just City State. Justice is a proper, harmonious relationship between the warring parts of the person or city. Hence, Plato's definition of justice is that justice is the having and doing of what is one's own. A just man is a man in just the right place, doing his best and giving the precise equivalent of what he has received. This applies both at the individual level and at the universal level. A person's soul has three parts – reason, spirit and desire. Similarly, a city has three parts – Socrates uses the parable of the chariot to illustrate his point: a chariot works as a whole because the two horses' power is directed by the charioteer. Lovers of wisdom – philosophers, in one sense of the term – should rule because only they understand what is good. If one is ill, one goes to a medic rather than a farmer, because the medic is expert in the subject of health. Similarly, one should trust one's city to an expert in the subject of the good, not to a mere politician who tries to gain power by giving people what they want, rather than what's good for them. Socrates uses the parable of the ship to illustrate this point: the unjust city is like a ship in open ocean, crewed by a powerful but drunken captain (the common people), a group of untrustworthy advisors who try to manipulate the captain into giving them power over the ship's course (the politicians), and a navigator (the philosopher) who is the only one who knows how to get the ship to port. For Socrates, the only way the ship will reach its destination – the good – is if the navigator takes charge.[2] Divine command[edit] Main article: Divine command theory See also: Divine command Allegorical fresco cycle (cardinal virtues) by Renaissance painter Domenico di Pace Beccafumi from the Palazzo Pubblico in Siena, scene: ’'Justitia'’ Advocates of divine command theory say that justice, and indeed the whole of morality, is the authoritative command of God. Murder is wrong and must be punished, for instance, because God says it so. Some versions of the theory assert that God must be obeyed because of the nature of his relationship with humanity, others assert that God must be obeyed because he is goodness itself, and thus doing what he says would be best for everyone. A meditation on the Divine command theory by Plato can be found in his dialogue, Euthyphro. Called the Euthyphro dilemma, it goes as follows: "Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?" The implication is that if the latter is true, then justice is beyond mortal understanding; if the former is true, then morality exists independently from God, and is therefore subject to the judgment of mortals. A response, popularized in two contexts by Immanuel Kant and C. S. Lewis, is that it is deductively valid to say that the existence of an objective morality implies the existence of God and vice versa. Natural law[edit] Main article: Natural law Lex, justitia, pax (Latin for "Law, justice, peace") on the pediment of the Supreme Court of Switzerland This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (October 2020) For advocates of the theory that justice is part of natural law (e.g., John Locke), justice involves the nature of man.[3] Despotism and skepticism[edit] In Republic by Plato, the character Thrasymachus argues that justice is the interest of the strong – merely a name for what the powerful or cunning ruler has imposed on the people. Further information: The Republic (Plato) Mutual agreement[edit] Main article: Social contract Advocates of the social contract say that justice is derived from the mutual agreement of everyone; or, in many versions, from what they would agree to under hypothetical conditions including equality and absence of bias. This account is considered further below, under 'Justice as Fairness'. The absence of bias refers to an equal ground for all people involved in a disagreement (or trial in some cases).[citation needed] Subordinate value[edit] According to utilitarian thinkers including John Stuart Mill, justice is not as fundamental as we often think. Rather, it is derived from the more basic standard of rightness, consequentialism: what is right is what has the best consequences (usually measured by the total or average welfare caused). So, the proper principles of justice are those that tend to have the best consequences. These rules may turn out to be familiar ones such as keeping contracts; but equally, they may not, depending on the facts about real consequences. Either way, what is important is those consequences, and justice is important, if at all, only as derived from that fundamental standard. Mill tries to explain our mistaken belief that justice is overwhelmingly important by arguing that it derives from two natural human tendencies: our desire to retaliate against those who hurt us, or the feeling of self-defense and our ability to put ourselves imaginatively in another's place, sympathy. So, when we see someone harmed, we project ourselves into their situation and feel a desire to retaliate on their behalf. If this process is the source of our feelings about justice, that ought to undermine our confidence in them.[4] Theories of distributive justice[edit] Main article: Distributive justice Theories of distributive justice need to answer three questions: What goods are to be distributed? Is it to be wealth, power, respect, opportunities or some combination of these things? Between what entities are they to be distributed? Humans (dead, living, future), sentient beings, the members of a single society, nations? What is the proper distribution? Equal, meritocratic, according to social status, according to need, based on property rights and non-aggression? Distributive justice theorists generally do not answer questions of who has the right to enforce a particular favored distribution, while property rights theorists say that there is no "favored distribution." Rather, distribution should be based simply on whatever distribution results from lawful interactions or transactions (that is, transactions which are not illicit). This section describes some widely held theories of distributive justice, and their attempts to answer these questions. Social justice[edit] Main article: Social justice Social justice encompasses the just relationship between individuals and their society, often considering how privileges, opportunities, and wealth ought to be distributed among individuals.[5] Social justice is also associated with social mobility, especially the ease with which individuals and families may move between social strata.[6] Social justice is distinct from cosmopolitanism, which is the idea that all people belong to a single global community with a shared morality.[7] Social justice is also distinct from egalitarianism, which is the idea that all people are equal in terms of status, value, or rights, as social justice theories do not all require equality.[8] For example, sociologist George C. Homans suggested that the root of the concept of justice is that each person should receive rewards that are proportional to their contributions.[9][10] Economist Friedrich Hayek said that the concept of social justice was meaningless, saying that justice is a result of individual behavior and unpredictable market forces.[11] Social justice is closely related to the concept of relational justice, which is about the just relationship with individuals who possess features in common such as nationality, or who are engaged in cooperation or negotiation.[12][13] Fairness[edit] This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Justice" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (February 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) J. L. Urban, statue of Lady Justice at court building in Olomouc, Czech Republic In his A Theory of Justice, John Rawls used a social contract argument to show that justice, and especially distributive justice, is a form of fairness: an impartial distribution of goods. Rawls asks us to imagine ourselves behind a veil of ignorance that denies us all knowledge of our personalities, social statuses, moral characters, wealth, talents and life plans, and then asks what theory of justice we would choose to govern our society when the veil is lifted, if we wanted to do the best that we could for ourselves. We don't know who in particular we are, and therefore can't bias the decision in our own favour. So, the decision-in-ignorance models fairness, because it excludes selfish bias. Rawls said that each of us would reject the utilitarian theory of justice that we should maximize welfare (see below) because of the risk that we might turn out to be someone whose own good is sacrificed for greater benefits for others. Instead, we would endorse Rawls's two principles of justice: Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just savings principle, and attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.[14] This imagined choice justifies these principles as the principles of justice for us, because we would agree to them in a fair decision procedure. Rawls's theory distinguishes two kinds of goods – (1) the good of liberty rights and (2) social and economic goods, i.e. wealth, income and power – and applies different distributions to them – equality between citizens for (1), equality unless inequality improves the position of the worst off for (2). In one sense, theories of distributive justice may assert that everyone should get what they deserve. Theories vary on the meaning of what is "deserved". The main distinction is between theories that say the basis of just deserts ought to be held equally by everyone, and therefore derive egalitarian accounts of distributive justice – and theories that say the basis of just deserts is unequally distributed on the basis of, for instance, hard work, and therefore derive accounts of distributive justice by which some should have more than others. According to meritocratic theories, goods, especially wealth and social status, should be distributed to match individual merit, which is usually understood as some combination of talent and hard work. According to needs-based theories, goods, especially such basic goods as food, shelter and medical care, should be distributed to meet individuals' basic needs for them. Marxism is a needs-based theory, expressed succinctly in Marx's slogan "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".[15] According to contribution-based theories, goods should be distributed to match an individual's contribution to the overall social good. Property rights[edit] Further information: Libertarianism, Entitlement theory, and Constitutional economics This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) In Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Robert Nozick said that distributive justice is not a matter of the whole distribution matching an ideal pattern, but of each individual entitlement having the right kind of history. It is just that a person has some good (especially, some property right) if and only if they came to have it by a history made up entirely of events of two kinds: Just acquisition, especially by working on unowned things; and Just transfer, that is free gift, sale or other agreement, but not theft (i.e. by force or fraud). If the chain of events leading up to the person having something meets this criterion, they are entitled to it: that they possess it is just, and what anyone else does or doesn't have or need is irrelevant. On the basis of this theory of distributive justice, Nozick said that all attempts to redistribute goods according to an ideal pattern, without the consent of their owners, are theft. In particular, redistributive taxation is theft. Some property rights theorists (such as Nozick) also take a consequentialist view of distributive justice and say that property rights based justice also has the effect of maximizing the overall wealth of an economic system. They explain that voluntary (non-coerced) transactions always have a property called Pareto efficiency. The result is that the world is better off in an absolute sense and no one is worse off. They say that respecting property rights maximizes the number of Pareto efficient transactions in the world and minimized the number of non-Pareto efficient transactions in the world (i.e. transactions where someone is made worse off). The result is that the world will have generated the greatest total benefit from the limited, scarce resources available in the world. Further, this will have been accomplished without taking anything away from anyone unlawfully. Welfare-maximization[edit] Main article: Utilitarianism According to the utilitarian, justice requires the maximization of the total or average welfare across all relevant individuals.[16] This may require sacrifice of some for the good of others, so long as everyone's good is taken impartially into account. Utilitarianism, in general, says that the standard of justification for actions, institutions, or the whole world, is impartial welfare consequentialism, and only indirectly, if at all, to do with rights, property, need, or any other non-utilitarian criterion. These other criteria might be indirectly important, to the extent that human welfare involves them. But even then, such demands as human rights would only be elements in the calculation of overall welfare, not uncrossable barriers to action. Theories of retributive justice[edit] Main article: Retributive justice Walter Seymour Allward's Justitia (Justice), outside Supreme Court of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario Canada Theories of retributive justice involve punishment for wrongdoing, and need to answer three questions: why punish? who should be punished? what punishment should they receive? This section considers the two major accounts of retributive justice, and their answers to these questions. Utilitarian theories look forward to the future consequences of punishment, while retributive theories look back to particular acts of wrongdoing, and attempt to balance them with deserved punishment. Utilitarianism[edit] According to the utilitarian, justice requires the maximization of the total or average welfare across all relevant individuals. Punishment fights crime in three ways: Deterrence. The credible threat of punishment might lead people to make different choices; well-designed threats might lead people to make choices that maximize welfare. This matches some strong intuitions about just punishment: that it should generally be proportional to the crime. Rehabilitation. Punishment might make "bad people" into "better" ones. For the utilitarian, all that "bad person" can mean is "person who's likely to cause unwanted things (like suffering)". So, utilitarianism could recommend punishment that changes someone such that they are less likely to cause bad things. Security/Incapacitation. Perhaps there are people who are irredeemable causers of bad things. If so, imprisoning them might maximize welfare by limiting their opportunities to cause harm and therefore the benefit lies within protecting society. So, the reason for punishment is the maximization of welfare, and punishment should be of whomever, and of whatever form and severity, are needed to meet that goal. This may sometimes justify punishing the innocent, or inflicting disproportionately severe punishments, when that will have the best consequences overall (perhaps executing a few suspected shoplifters live on television would be an effective deterrent to shoplifting, for instance). It also suggests that punishment might turn out never to be right, depending on the facts about what actual consequences it has.[17] Retributivism[edit] The retributivist will think consequentialism is mistaken. If someone does something wrong we must respond by punishing for the committed action itself, regardless of what outcomes punishment produces. Wrongdoing must be balanced or made good in some way, and so the criminal deserves to be punished. It says that all guilty people, and only guilty people, deserve appropriate punishment. This matches some strong intuitions about just punishment: that it should be proportional to the crime, and that it should be of only and all of the guilty.[18] However, it is sometimes said that retributivism is merely revenge in disguise.[19] However, there are differences between retribution and revenge: the former is impartial and has a scale of appropriateness, whereas the latter is personal and potentially unlimited in scale.[20] Restorative justice[edit] Main article: Restorative justice Restorative justice (also sometimes called "reparative justice") is an approach to justice that focuses on the needs of victims and offenders, instead of satisfying abstract legal principles or punishing the offender. Victims take an active role in the process, while offenders are encouraged to take responsibility for their actions, "to repair the harm they've done – by apologizing, returning stolen money, or community service". It is based on a theory of justice that considers crime and wrongdoing to be an offense against an individual or community rather than the state. Restorative justice that fosters dialogue between victim and offender shows the highest rates of victim satisfaction and offender accountability.[21] Mixed theories[edit] Some modern philosophers have said that Utilitarian and Retributive theories are not mutually exclusive. For example, Andrew von Hirsch, in his 1976 book Doing Justice, suggested that we have a moral obligation to punish greater crimes more than lesser ones.[22] However, so long as we adhere to that constraint then utilitarian ideals would play a significant secondary role. Theories[edit] Bonino da Campione, Justice, c. 1357, National Gallery of Art Rawls' theory of justice[edit] Further information: Justice (virtue) and Cardinal virtues It has been said[23] that 'systematic' or 'programmatic' political and moral philosophy in the West begins, in Plato's Republic, with the question, 'What is Justice?'[24] According to most contemporary theories of justice, justice is overwhelmingly important: John Rawls claims that "Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought."[25] In classical approaches, evident from Plato through to Rawls, the concept of 'justice' is always construed in logical or 'etymological' opposition to the concept of injustice. Such approaches cite various examples of injustice, as problems which a theory of justice must overcome. A number of post-World War II approaches do, however, challenge that seemingly obvious dualism between those two concepts.[26] Justice can be thought of as distinct from benevolence, charity, prudence, mercy, generosity, or compassion, although these dimensions are regularly understood to also be interlinked. Justice is the concept of cardinal virtues, of which it is one. Metaphysical justice has often been associated with concepts of fate, reincarnation or Divine Providence, i.e., with a life in accordance with a cosmic plan. The association of justice with fairness is thus historically and culturally inalienable.[27] Equality[edit] In political theory, liberalism includes two traditional elements: liberty and equality. Most contemporary theories of justice emphasize the concept of equality, including Rawls' theory of justice as fairness. For Ronald Dworkin, a complex notion of equality is the sovereign political virtue.[28] Dworkin raises the question of whether society is under a duty of justice to help those responsible for the fact that they need help. Complications arise in distinguishing matters of choice and matters of chance, as well as justice for future generations in the redistribution of resources that he advocates.[29] Equality before the law[edit] Law raises important and complex issues about equality, fairness, and justice. There is an old saying that 'All are equal before the law'. The belief in equality before the law is called legal egalitarianism. In criticism of this belief, the author Anatole France said in 1894, "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread."[30] With this saying, France illustrated the fundamental shortcoming of a theory of legal equality that remains blind to social inequality; the same law applied to all may have disproportionately harmful effects on the least powerful. Relational justice[edit] Relational justice seeks to examine the connections between individuals and focuses on their relations in societies, with respect to how these relationships are established and configured. In a normative view, this focus includes an understanding of what these relations should be. In a political view, this focus includes the method of organizing persons in society. Rawls’ theory of justice stakes out the task of justice as equalizing the distribution of primary social goods to benefit the worst-off in society. However, his distributive scheme, and other distributive accounts of justice do not directly consider power relations between and among individuals. Nor do they address such political considerations as various structures of decision-making, such as divisions of labor culture, or the construction of social meanings. Even Rawls’ own basic value of self-respect cannot be said to be amenable to distribution.[31] Iris Marion Young charges that distributive accounts of justice fail to provide an adequate way of conceptualizing political justice in that they fail to take into account many of the demands of ordinary life and that a relational view of justice grounded upon understanding the differences among social groups offers a better approach, one which acknowledges unjust power relations among individuals, groups, and institutional structures. [32] Young Kim also takes a relational approach to the question of justice, but departs from Iris Marion Young’s political advocacy of group rights and instead, he emphasizes the individual and moral aspects of justice. [33] As to its moral aspects, he said that justice includes responsible actions based on rational and autonomous moral agency, with the individual as the proper bearer of rights and responsibilities. Politically, he maintains that the proper context for justice is a form of liberalism with the traditional elements of liberty and equality, together with the concepts of diversity and tolerance. Classical liberalism[edit] Equality before the law is one of the basic principles of classical liberalism.[34][35] Classical liberalism calls for equality before the law, not for equality of outcome.[34] Classical liberalism opposes pursuing group rights at the expense of individual rights.[35] In addition to equality, individual liberty serves as a core notion of classical liberalism. As to the liberty component, Isaiah Berlin identifies positive and negative liberty in "Two Concepts of Liberty",[36] subscribing to a view of negative liberty, in the form of freedom from governmental interference. He further extends the concept of negative liberty in endorsing John Stuart Mills' harm principle: "the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually and collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection",[37] which represents a classical liberal view of liberty.[38] Religion and spirituality[edit] Abrahamic justice[edit] Moses with the Tablets of Law, by Rembrandt van Rijn Jews, Christians, and Muslims traditionally believe that justice is a present, real, right, and, specifically, governing concept along with mercy, and that justice is ultimately derived from and held by God. According to the Bible, such institutions as the Mosaic Law were created by God to require the Israelites to live by and apply His standards of justice. The Hebrew Bible describes God as saying about the Judeo-Christian patriarch Abraham: "No, for I have chosen him, that he may charge his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice;...." (Genesis 18:19, NRSV). The Psalmist describes God as having "Righteousness and justice [as] the foundation of [His] throne;...." (Psalms 89:14, NRSV). The New Testament also describes God and Jesus Christ as having and displaying justice, often in comparison with God displaying and supporting mercy (Matthew 5:7). Theories of sentencing[edit] In criminal law, a sentence forms the final explicit act of a judge-ruled process, and also the symbolic principal act connected to his function.[39] The sentence can generally involve a decree of imprisonment, a fine and/or other punishments against a defendant convicted of a crime. Laws may specify the range of penalties that can be imposed for various offenses, and sentencing guidelines sometimes regulate what punishment within those ranges can be imposed given a certain set of offense and offender characteristics.[40] The most common purposes of sentencing in legal theory are: Theory Aim of theory Suitable punishment Retribution Punishment imposed for no reason other than an offense being committed, on the basis that if proportionate, punishment is morally acceptable as a response that satisfies the aggrieved party, their intimates and society. Tariff sentences Sentence must be proportionate to the crime Deterrence To the individual – the individual is deterred through fear of further punishment. To the general public – Potential offenders warned as to likely punishment Prison Sentence Heavy Fine Long sentence as an example to others Rehabilitation To reform the offender's behavior Individualized sentences Community service orders moral education vocational education Incapacitation Offender is made incapable of committing further crime to protect society at large from crime Long prison sentence Electronic tagging Banning orders Reparation Repayment to victim(s) or to community Compensation Unpaid work Reparation Schemes Denunciation Society expressing its disapproval reinforcing moral boundaries Reflects blameworthiness of offense punishment in public punishment reported to public In civil cases the decision is usually known as a verdict, or judgment, rather than a sentence.[41] Civil cases are settled primarily by means of monetary compensation for harm done ("damages") and orders intended to prevent future harm (for example injunctions). Under some legal systems an award of damages involves some scope for retribution, denunciation and deterrence, by means of additional categories of damages beyond simple compensation, covering a punitive effect, social disapprobation, and potentially, deterrence, and occasionally disgorgement (forfeit of any gain, even if no loss was caused to the other party). Evolutionary perspectives[edit] "Justice as a naked woman with a sword and balance" by Lucas Cranach the Elder, 1537 Evolutionary ethics and evolution of morality suggest evolutionary bases for the concept of justice.[42] Biosocial criminology research says that human perceptions of what is appropriate criminal justice are based on how to respond to crimes in the ancestral small-group environment and that these responses may not always be appropriate for today's societies.[43] Reactions to fairness[edit] "Justitia", copper engraving by Jost Amman, made between 1539 and 1591 Studies at UCLA in 2008 have indicated that reactions to fairness are "wired" into the brain and that, "Fairness is activating the same part of the brain that responds to food in rats... This is consistent with the notion that being treated fairly satisfies a basic need".[44] Research conducted in 2003 at Emory University involving capuchin monkeys demonstrated that other cooperative animals also possess such a sense and that "inequity aversion may not be uniquely human".[45] Institutions and justice[edit] Main article: Law Painted Coat of Arms of Pope Paul V, ceiling of the room of the geographical maps, Vatican City Stained glass of the Saint-Paul church in Montluçon France Allegory of Justice. Ceiling of galleria del Poccetti in the Palazzo Pitti (Florence) In a world where people are interconnected but they disagree, institutions are required to instantiate ideals of justice. These institutions may be justified by their approximate instantiation of justice, or they may be deeply unjust when compared with ideal standards – consider the institution of slavery. Justice is an ideal the world fails to live up to, sometimes due to deliberate opposition to justice despite understanding, which could be disastrous. The question of institutive justice raises issues of legitimacy, procedure, codification and interpretation, which are considered by legal theorists and by philosophers of law.[46] The United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 16 emphasizes the need for strong institutions in order to uphold justice.[47] See also[edit] Other pages[edit] Education for Justice Adl (Arabic for Justice in Islam) Criminal justice Ethics Global justice International Court of Justice International Criminal Court Just war theory Just-world hypothesis Justice (economics) Morality Napoleonic Code Rationality Rule according to higher law Sociology of law A Theory of Justice by John Rawls Types of justice[edit] Distributive justice Environmental justice Injustice Occupational injustice Open justice Organizational justice Poetic justice Social justice Spatial justice References[edit] ^ Cuban Law's Blindfold, 23. ^ Plato, Republic trans. Robin Waterfield (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984). ^ See Two Treatises of Government: In The Former the False Principles and Foundation of Sir Robert Filmer and His Followers, are Detected and Overthrown. The Latter is An Essay Concerning the True Original Extent and End of Civil Government (3 ed.). London: Awnsham and John Churchill. 1698. Retrieved 20 November 2014. via Google Books ^ John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism in On Liberty and Other Essays ed. John Gray (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), Chapter 5. ^ "social justice | Definition of social justice in English by Oxford Dictionaries". Oxford Dictionaries | English. Retrieved 13 November 2018. ^ Ornstein, Allan C. (1 December 2017). "Social Justice: History, Purpose and Meaning". Society. 54 (6): 541–548. doi:10.1007/s12115-017-0188-8. ISSN 1936-4725. ^ Kleingeld, Pauline; Brown, Eric (2014), "Cosmopolitanism", in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2014 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 14 December 2018 ^ "egalitarianism | Definition of egalitarianism in English by Oxford Dictionaries". Oxford Dictionaries | English. Retrieved 13 November 2018. ^ Rubinstein, David (1988). "The Concept of Justice in Sociology". Theory and Society. 17 (4): 527–550. doi:10.1007/BF00158887. JSTOR 657654. S2CID 143622666. ^ Homans, George Caspar (1974). Social behavior; its elementary forms (Rev. ed.). New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich. pp. 246–249. ISBN 978-0-15-581417-2. OCLC 2668194. ^ 1899-1992., Hayek, F.A. (Friedrich August) (1976). Law, legislation and liberty : a new statement of the liberal principles of justice and political economy. Routledge & Kegan Paul. p. 78. ISBN 978-0-7100-8403-3. OCLC 769281087.CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) ^ Poblet, Marta; Casanovas, Pompeu (2008), "Concepts and Fields of Relational Justice", Computable Models of the Law, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 323–339, doi:10.1007/978-3-540-85569-9_21, ISBN 978-3-540-85568-2 ^ Nagel, Thomas (2005). "The Problem of Global Justice". Philosophy & Public Affairs. 33 (2): 113–147. doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.2005.00027.x. ISSN 1088-4963. ^ John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (revised edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 266. ^ Karl Marx, 'Critique of the Gotha Program' in Karl Marx: Selected writings ed. David McLellan (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977): 564–70 [569]. ^ "The Project Gutenberg eBook of on Liberty, by John Stuart Mill". gutenberg.org. Retrieved 3 May 2019. ^ C.L. Ten, 'Crime and Punishment' in Peter Singer ed., A Companion to Ethics (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 1993): 366–372. ^ "Punishment". California State University. ^ Ted Honderich, Punishment: The supposed justifications (London: Hutchinson & Co., 1969), Chapter 1. ^ "Retribution vs Revenge - What's the difference?". ^ Michael Braswell, and John Fuller, Corrections, Peacemaking and Restorative Justice: Transforming Individuals and Institutions (Routledge, 2014). ^ Andrew Von Hirsch, Doing Justice: The Choice of Punishments (Lebanon NH: Northeastern Univ. Press, 1976). ISBN 9780930350833 ^ See, e.g., Eric Heinze, The Concept of Injustice (Routledge, 2013), pp. 4–10, 50–60. ^ Plato, The Republic, Book I, 331b–c. ^ John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (revised edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 3 ^ See, e.g., Eric Heinze, The Concept of Injustice (Routledge, 2013). Clive Barnett The Priority of Injustice: Locating Democracy in Critical Theory ^ Daston, Lorraine (2008). "Life, Chance and Life Chances". Daedalus. 137: 5–14. doi:10.1162/daed.2008.137.1.5. S2CID 57563698. ^ (Ronald Dworkin, Sovereign Virtue (Harvard University Press, 2000) ^ Young Kim, Justice as Right Actions (Lexington Books, 2015), ch.7 ( ISBN 978-1498516518) ^ (France, The Red Lily, Chapter VII). ^ Young Kim, Justice as Right Actions (Lexington Books, 2015), ch.10 ( ISBN 978-1498516518) ^ Iris Marion Young, Justice and the Politics of Difference (Oxford University Press, 1990). ^ Young Kim, Justice as Right Actions (Lexington Books, 2015) ( ISBN 978-1498516518) ^ a b Chandran Kukathas, "Ethical Pluralism from a Classical Liberal Perspective," in The Many and the One: Religious and Secular Perspectives on Ethical Pluralism in the Modern World, ed. Richard Madsen and Tracy B. Strong, Ethikon Series in Comparative Ethics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003), 61 ( ISBN 0-691-09993-6). ^ a b Mark Evans, ed., Edinburgh Companion to Contemporary Liberalism: Evidence and Experience (London: Routledge, 2001), 55 ( ISBN 1-57958-339-3). ^ Isaiah Berlin, "Two Concepts of Liberty" in Four Essays on Liberty (Oxford University Press, 1969) ^ John Stuart Mill, "On Liberty" in John Stuart Mill on Liberty and Other Essays, ed. John Gray (Oxford University Press, 1998) ^ Young Kim, Justice as Right Actions (Lexington Books, 2015), p.79 ( ISBN 978-1498516518) ^ "laws rules justice". ^ "sentencing guidelines" (PDF). ^ "how court works". ^ "Morality and evolutionary biology". ^ Kruger, Daniel J.; Nedelec, Joseph L.; Reischl, Thomas M.; Zimmerman, Marc A. (2015). "Life History Predicts Perceptions of Procedural Justice and Crime Reporting Intentions". Evolutionary Psychological Science. 1 (3): 183–194. doi:10.1007/s40806-015-0021-9. S2CID 142324638. ^ "Brain reacts to fairness as it does to money and chocolate, study shows". UCLA Newsroom. UCLA. 21 April 2008. Archived from the original on 26 February 2010. Retrieved 15 January 2015. ^ Nature 425, 297–299 (18 September 2003) ^ David Miller (26 June 2017). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ^ Doss, Eric. "Sustainable Development Goal 16". United Nations and the Rule of Law. Retrieved 25 September 2020. Further reading[edit] Clive Barnett, The Priority of Injustice: Locating Democracy in Critical Theory (Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 2017), ISBN 978-0-8203-5152-0 Brian Barry, Theories of Justice (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989) Harry Brighouse, Justice (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2004) Anthony Duff & David Garland eds, A Reader on Punishment (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994) Colin Farrelly, An Introduction to Contemporary Political Theory (London: Sage, 2004) Barzilai Gad, Communities and Law: Politics and Cultures of Legal Identities (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2003) David Gauthier, Morals By Agreement (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986) Robert E. Goodin & Philip Pettit eds, Contemporary Political Philosophy: An anthology (2nd edition, Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell, 2006), Part III Serge Guinchard, La justice et ses institutions (Judicial institutions), Dalloz editor, 12 edition, 2013 Eric Heinze, The Concept of Injustice (Routledge, 2013) Ted Honderich, Punishment: The supposed justifications (London: Hutchinson & Co., 1969) James Konow (2003) "Which Is the Fairest One of All? A Positive Analysis of Justice Theories", Journal of Economic Literature, 41(4)pp. 1188–1239 Will Kymlicka, Contemporary Political Philosophy: An introduction (2nd edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) Nicola Lacey, State Punishment (London: Routledge, 1988) John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism in On Liberty and Other Essays ed. John Gray (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991) Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia (Oxford: Blackwell, 1974) Amartya Sen (2011). The Idea of Justice. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-06047-0. Marek Piechowiak, Plato's Conception of Justice and the Question of Human Dignity (Berlin: Peter Lang Academic Publishers, 2019), ISBN 978-3-631-65970-0 C.L. Ten, Crime, Guilt, and Punishment: A philosophical introduction (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987) Plato, Republic trans. Robin Waterfield (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994) John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (revised edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999) David Schmidtz, Elements of Justice (New York: Columbia University Press, 2006) Peter Singer ed., A Companion to Ethics (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993), Part IV Reinhold Zippelius, Rechtsphilosophie, §§ 11–22 (6th edition, Munich: C.H. Beck, 2011), ISBN 978-3-406-61191-9 External links[edit] Wikiquote has quotations related to: Justice Wikimedia Commons has media related to Justice. Wikivoyage has a travel guide for Justice history. Library resources about Justice Resources in your library Resources in other libraries Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy entries: Distributive Justice, by Michael Allingham Punishment, by Kevin Murtagh Western Theories of Justice, by Wayne P. Pomerleau Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entries: "Justice" by David Miller "Distributive Justice" by Julian Lamont "Justice as a Virtue" by Michael Slote "Punishment" by Hugo Adam Bedau and Erin Kelly United Nations Rule of Law: Informal Justice, on the relationship between informal/community justice, the rule of law and the United Nations Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do?, a series of 12 videos on the subject of justice by Harvard University's Michael Sandel, with reading materials and comments from participants. v t e Types of justice In philosophy Commutative Distributive Divine Interactional Global Natural Organizational Procedural Restorative Retributive Social Transformative Victor's Substantive areas Climate Criminal Environmental Gender Military Racial Resource Spatial Trade Other Frontier Poetic v t e Philosophy Branches Traditional Metaphysics Epistemology Logic Ethics Aesthetics Philosophy of... Action Color Culture Design Music Film Cosmology Education Environment Geography Happiness History Human nature Humor Feminism Language Law Life Literature Mathematics Medicine Healthcare Psychiatry Mind Pain Psychology Perception Philosophy Religion Science Physics Chemistry Biology Sexuality Social science Business Culture Economics Politics Society Space and time Sport Technology Artificial intelligence Computer science Engineering Information War Schools of thought By era Ancient Western Medieval Renaissance Early modern Modern Contemporary Ancient Chinese Agriculturalism Confucianism Legalism Logicians Mohism Chinese naturalism Neotaoism Taoism Yangism Chan Greco-Roman Aristotelianism Atomism Cynicism Cyrenaics Eleatics Eretrian school Epicureanism Hermeneutics Ionian Ephesian Milesian Megarian school Neoplatonism Peripatetic Platonism Pluralism Presocratic Pyrrhonism Pythagoreanism Neopythagoreanism Sophistic Stoicism Indian Hindu Samkhya Nyaya Vaisheshika Yoga Mīmāṃsā Ājīvika Ajñana Cārvāka Jain Anekantavada Syādvāda Buddhist Śūnyatā Madhyamaka Yogacara Sautrāntika Svatantrika Persian Mazdakism Mithraism Zoroastrianism Zurvanism Medieval European Christian Augustinianism Scholasticism Thomism Scotism Occamism Renaissance humanism East Asian Korean Confucianism Edo neo-Confucianism Neo-Confucianism Indian Vedanta Acintya bheda abheda Advaita Bhedabheda Dvaita Nimbarka Sampradaya Shuddhadvaita Vishishtadvaita Navya-Nyāya Islamic Averroism Avicennism Illuminationism ʿIlm al-Kalām Sufi Jewish Judeo-Islamic Modern People Cartesianism Kantianism Neo-Kantianism Hegelianism Marxism Spinozism 0 Anarchism Classical Realism Liberalism Collectivism Conservatism Determinism Dualism Empiricism Existentialism Foundationalism Historicism Holism Humanism Anti- Idealism Absolute British German Objective Subjective Transcendental Individualism Kokugaku Materialism Modernism Monism Naturalism Natural law Nihilism New Confucianism Neo-scholasticism Pragmatism Phenomenology Positivism Reductionism Rationalism Social contract Socialism Transcendentalism Utilitarianism Contemporary Analytic Applied ethics Analytic feminism Analytical Marxism Communitarianism Consequentialism Critical rationalism Experimental philosophy Falsificationism Foundationalism / Coherentism Internalism and externalism Logical positivism Legal positivism Normative ethics Meta-ethics Moral realism Quinean naturalism Ordinary language philosophy Postanalytic philosophy Quietism Rawlsian Reformed epistemology Systemics Scientism Scientific realism Scientific skepticism Transactionalism Contemporary utilitarianism Vienna Circle Wittgensteinian Continental Critical theory Deconstruction Existentialism Feminist Frankfurt School New Historicism Hermeneutics Neo-Marxism Phenomenology Posthumanism Postmodernism Post-structuralism Social constructionism Structuralism Western Marxism Other Kyoto School Objectivism Postcritique Russian cosmism more... Positions Aesthetics Formalism Institutionalism Aesthetic response Ethics Consequentialism Deontology Virtue Free will Compatibilism Determinism Hard Incompatibilism Hard Libertarianism Metaphysics Atomism Dualism Idealism Monism Naturalism Realism Epistemology Empiricism Fideism Naturalism Particularism Rationalism Skepticism Solipsism Mind Behaviorism Emergentism Eliminativism Epiphenomenalism Functionalism Objectivism Subjectivism Normativity Absolutism Particularism Relativism Nihilism Skepticism Universalism Ontology Action Event Process Reality Anti-realism Conceptualism Idealism Materialism Naturalism Nominalism Physicalism Realism By region Related lists Miscellaneous By region African Ethiopian Amerindian Aztec Eastern Chinese Egyptian Indian Indonesian Iranian Japanese Korean Taiwanese Pakistani Vietnamese Middle Eastern Western American Australian British Czech Danish French German Greek Italian Polish Romanian Russian Slovene Spanish Turkish Lists Outline Index Years Problems Schools Glossary Philosophers Movements Publications Miscellaneous Natural law Sage Theoretical philosophy / Practical philosophy Women in philosophy Portal Category Book v t e Social and political philosophy Ancient philosophers Aristotle Chanakya Cicero Confucius Han Fei Lactantius Laozi Mencius Mozi Origen Plato Polybius Shang Socrates Sun Tzu Tertullian Thucydides Valluvar Xenophon Xunzi Medieval philosophers Alpharabius Augustine Averroes Baldus Bartolus Bruni Dante Gelasius al-Ghazali Giles Hostiensis Ibn Khaldun John of Paris John of Salisbury Latini Maimonides Marsilius Nizam al-Mulk Photios Thomas Aquinas Wang William of Ockham Early modern philosophers Beza Bodin Bossuet Botero Buchanan Calvin Cumberland Duplessis-Mornay Erasmus Filmer Grotius Guicciardini Harrington Hayashi Hobbes Hotman Huang Leibniz Locke Luther Machiavelli Malebranche Mariana Milton Montaigne More Müntzer Naudé Pufendorf Rohan Sansovino Sidney Spinoza Suárez 18th–19th-century philosophers Bakunin Bentham Bonald Bosanquet Burke Comte Constant Emerson Engels Fichte Fourier Franklin Godwin Hamann Hegel Herder Hume Jefferson Justi Kant political philosophy Kierkegaard Le Bon Le Play Madison Maistre Marx Mazzini Mill Montesquieu Möser Nietzsche Novalis Paine Renan Rousseau Royce Sade Schiller Smith Spencer Stirner Taine Thoreau Tocqueville Vico Vivekananda Voltaire 20th–21st-century philosophers Adorno Ambedkar Arendt Aurobindo Aron Azurmendi Badiou Baudrillard Bauman Benoist Berlin Bernstein Butler Camus Chomsky De Beauvoir Debord Du Bois Durkheim Dworkin Foucault Gandhi Gauthier Gehlen Gentile Gramsci Habermas Hayek Heidegger Irigaray Kautsky Kirk Kropotkin Laclau Lenin Luxemburg Mao Mansfield Marcuse Maritain Michels Mises Mou Mouffe Negri Niebuhr Nozick Nursî Oakeshott Ortega Pareto Pettit Plamenatz Polanyi Popper Qutb Radhakrishnan Rand Rawls Rothbard Russell Santayana Sartre Scanlon Schmitt Searle Shariati Simmel Simonović Skinner Sombart Sorel Spann Spirito Strauss Sun Taylor Walzer Weber Žižek Social theories Anarchism Authoritarianism Collectivism Communism Communitarianism Conflict theories Confucianism Consensus theory Conservatism Contractualism Cosmopolitanism Culturalism Fascism Feminist political theory Gandhism Individualism Islam Islamism Legalism Liberalism Libertarianism Mohism National liberalism Republicanism Social constructionism Social constructivism Social Darwinism Social determinism Socialism Utilitarianism Concepts Civil disobedience Democracy Four occupations Justice Law Mandate of Heaven Peace Property Revolution Rights Social contract Society War more... Related articles Jurisprudence Philosophy and economics Philosophy of education Philosophy of history Philosophy of love Philosophy of sex Philosophy of social science Political ethics Social epistemology Category v t e Ethics Normative ethics Consequentialism Utilitarianism Deontology Kantian ethics Ethics of care Existentialist ethics Particularism Pragmatic ethics Role ethics Virtue ethics Eudaimonism Applied ethics Animal ethics Bioethics Business ethics Discourse ethics Engineering ethics Environmental ethics Legal ethics Machine ethics Media ethics Medical ethics Nursing ethics Professional ethics Sexual ethics Ethics of artificial intelligence Ethics of eating meat Ethics of technology Ethics of terraforming Ethics of uncertain sentience Meta-ethics Cognitivism Moral realism Ethical naturalism Ethical non-naturalism Ethical subjectivism Ideal observer theory Divine command theory Error theory Non-cognitivism Emotivism Expressivism Quasi-realism Universal prescriptivism Moral universalism Value monism – Value pluralism Moral relativism Moral nihilism Moral rationalism Ethical intuitionism Moral skepticism Concepts Autonomy Axiology Conscience Consent Equality Free will Good and evil Good Evil Happiness Ideal Immorality Justice Liberty Morality Norm Freedom Suffering or Pain Stewardship Sympathy Trust Value Virtue Wrong full index... Philosophers Laozi Socrates Plato Aristotle Diogenes Valluvar Cicero Confucius Augustine of Hippo Mencius Mozi Xunzi Thomas Aquinas Baruch Spinoza David Hume Immanuel Kant Georg W. F. Hegel Arthur Schopenhauer Jeremy Bentham John Stuart Mill Søren Kierkegaard Henry Sidgwick Friedrich Nietzsche G. E. Moore Karl Barth Paul Tillich Dietrich Bonhoeffer Philippa Foot John Rawls John Dewey Bernard Williams J. L. Mackie G. E. M. Anscombe William Frankena Alasdair MacIntyre R. M. Hare Peter Singer Derek Parfit Thomas Nagel Robert Merrihew Adams Charles Taylor Joxe Azurmendi Christine Korsgaard Martha Nussbaum more... Related articles Casuistry Christian ethics Descriptive ethics Ethics in religion Evolutionary ethics Feminist ethics History of ethics Ideology Islamic ethics Jewish ethics Moral psychology Philosophy of law Political philosophy Population ethics Social philosophy Category v t e Jurisprudence Legal theory Critical legal studies Comparative law Economic analysis Legal norms International legal theory Legal history Philosophy of law Sociology of law Philosophers Alexy Allan Aquinas Aristotle Austin Beccaria Bentham Betti Bickel Blackstone Bobbio Bork Brożek Cardozo Castanheira Neves Chafee Coleman Del Vecchio Durkheim Dworkin Ehrlich Feinberg Fineman Finnis Frank Fuller Gardner George Green Grisez Grotius Gurvitch Habermas Han Hart Hegel Hobbes Hohfeld Hägerström Jellinek Jhering Kant Kelsen Köchler Kramer Llewellyn Lombardía Luhmann Lundstedt Lyons MacCormick Marx Nussbaum Olivecrona Pashukanis Perelman Petrażycki Pontes de Miranda Posner Pound Puchta Pufendorf Radbruch Rawls Raz Reale Reinach Renner Ross Rumi Savigny Scaevola Schauer Schmitt Shang Simmonds Somló Suárez Tribe Unger Voegelin Waldron Walzer Weber Wronkowska Ziembiński Znamierowski Theories Analytical jurisprudence Deontological ethics Fundamental theory of canon law Interpretivism Legalism Legal moralism Legal positivism Legal realism Libertarian theories of law Natural law Paternalism Utilitarianism Virtue jurisprudence Concepts Dharma Fa Judicial interpretation Justice Legal system Li Rational-legal authority Usul al-Fiqh Related articles Law Political philosophy Index Category Law portal Philosophy portal WikiProject Law WikiProject Philosophy changes Law portal Philosophy portal Authority control GND: 4020310-4 NDL: 00570295 Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Justice&oldid=997662825" Categories: Justice Ethical principles Philosophy of law Virtue Hidden categories: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list Articles with short description Short description is different from Wikidata Use dmy dates from February 2020 Articles to be expanded from October 2020 All articles to be expanded Articles using small message boxes All articles with unsourced statements Articles with unsourced statements from February 2018 Articles needing additional references from February 2018 All articles needing additional references Commons category link from Wikidata Wikipedia articles with GND identifiers Wikipedia articles with NDL identifiers Navigation menu Personal tools Not logged in Talk Contributions Create account Log in Namespaces Article Talk Variants Views Read Edit View history More Search Navigation Main page Contents Current events Random article About Wikipedia Contact us Donate Contribute Help Learn to edit Community portal Recent changes Upload file Tools What links here Related changes Upload file Special pages Permanent link Page information Cite this page Wikidata item Print/export Download as PDF Printable version In other projects Wikimedia Commons Wikinews Wikiquote Wikivoyage Languages العربية Asturianu Azərbaycanca বাংলা Bân-lâm-gú Български བོད་ཡིག Bosanski Català Чӑвашла Cebuano Čeština Cymraeg Dansk Deutsch Eesti Ελληνικά Español Esperanto Euskara فارسی Français Galego 한국어 Հայերեն हिन्दी Hrvatski Bahasa Indonesia Interlingua Italiano עברית Kabɩyɛ ქართული Қазақша Kiswahili Kreyòl ayisyen Kriyòl gwiyannen Kurdî Кыргызча Latina Latviešu Lietuvių Ligure मैथिली Македонски മലയാളം मराठी მარგალური Bahasa Melayu မြန်မာဘာသာ Nederlands नेपाली 日本語 Norsk bokmål Norsk nynorsk Nouormand Occitan Oʻzbekcha/ўзбекча پنجابی پښتو Patois Polski Português Română Русский Sakizaya Scots Shqip Sicilianu Simple English سنڌي Slovenčina Slovenščina کوردی Српски / srpski Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски Suomi Svenska Tagalog Татарча/tatarça తెలుగు ไทย Тоҷикӣ Türkçe Українська اردو Tiếng Việt Winaray 吴语 ייִדיש 粵語 Zazaki 中文 Edit links This page was last edited on 1 January 2021, at 17:07 (UTC). Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers Contact Wikipedia Mobile view Developers Statistics Cookie statement