The question of the right ways of ensuring that the rules that govern the society accomplish justice is an intriguing one even to the most advanced civilizations all over the globe. Scholars adopt various ways in their interpretation of what constitutes justice. They have also come up with the necessary ingredients that form part of the characteristics of political systems to ensure that justice is availed to every member of the society irrespective of the existing social differences.
One of such an approach is to perceive justice as a way of ensuring maximization of welfare or rather utilities to facilitate happiness for the wider society. The paper examines the four principles about justice that Sandel defends in What Is the Right Thing to Do. Later, it presents a response about Sandels proposals. It also provides a clear explanation of what policy, law or moral principle that two authors in Justice: A Reader would defend on that topic alongside the writers opinion on the same.
Examination of Sandels proposal
Among the principles, which may lead to the achievement of justice, which Sandel immensely defends include the citizenship, sacrifice and services, the moral limits of the markets, inequality, solidarity and civic virtue, as well as politics of moral engagement. According to Sandel, the utilitarian approach faces two significant defects. Sandel argues that this approach makes justice and rights as a matter of calculation, not a principle (Sandel Justice: What is the right thing to do 260).
This argument is somehow crucial. This holds when one bears in mind that accomplishment of justice needs people to have priory established and laid out rules and regulations that he/she has to follow to arrive at what is right. The second defect of utilitarian perception of justice according to Sandel is that it tries to translate all human goods into single, uniform measure of value. This flattens them and takes no account of the qualitative differences among them (Sandel Justice: What is the right thing to do 260).
To resolve these defects, there is a need for a different interpretation of the right things that one ought to do to arrive at a just and fair society. One of such a different approach would require the interpretation of justice from the concepts of freedoms of choice.
Unfortunately, Sandel argues that this approach solves the first defect of the utilitarian approach of justice interpretation. It fails to solve the second problem since the theories based on freedoms of choice dont require one to question or challenge the preferences and desires he/she brings to public life (Sandel Justice: What is the right thing to do 261).
Citizenship, sacrifice and services encompass one of the principles that Sandel, immensely defends. He claims that it has the capacity to render the society more just. For people to engage in activities that promote and inculcate the highest sense of communalism, they need to inculcate some sense on citizenship.
A second attribute is placing moral limitation to the free markets. Marketing of social responsibilities, arguably, leads to degradation or rather corruption of the precise norms that guide the societys social practices. In this context, Sandel argues, people need to make inquiries about the constituents of nonmarket norms that need protection against market intrusions (Sandel Justice: A reader 89).
There is the need for adequate answers into this inquiry. This may help by far in arriving at the right way of seeking mechanisms of ensuring emergence of a better society in terms of justice. Failure to accomplish this perhaps makes the realization of justice exceedingly impaired.
Now, Sandel postulates that unless people want to let markets rewrite the norms that govern social institutions, they need a public debate about the moral limits of the markets (Sandel Justice: What is the right thing to do p. 265). Furthermore, in an endeavor to realize justice propelled by the concerns of collective reasoning, people need to address ardently the questions of inequalities and civic virtues.
In this context, the Sandels third principle: inequality, solidarity and civic virtue make some sense. This is perhaps a paramount endeavor since inequalities like the ones resulting to widening the gaps between the poor and the rich serve to escalate the existence of more and more injustices within the society.
Politics of moral engagements is another conspicuous principle that Sandel upholds in his book Justice: What is the right thing to do? (Sandel Justice: What is the right thing to do 268). Majority of people presumes that public involvements in interrogation about the concerns of the abundant life embrace civic transgressions.
This presumption is crucial, as Sandel voices it out politics and law should not become entangled in moral and religious disputes. However, people often think that such entanglement opens the way to coercion and intolerance (Sandel Justice: What is the right thing to do 268). It is, however, crucial to note that, one cannot conduct politics in an environment that is neutral.
Moral principles of authors from Justice: A Reader
Among the authors in Justice: A Reader include John Rawl. John Rawl upholds the moral principle that human beings are worth of respect. Arguably, John Rawl would enormously concur with Sandels proposal on the capacity of the moral engagement to contribute to the realization of justice.
To reinforce this point, Rawl posits that one way to think about justice is to imagine a social contract in which people come together to choose the basic principles that will govern their society (Rawl 203). Sandal, on the other hand, argues in the lines of how people need to construct politics on grounds based on mutual respect.
Such an endeavor, more often than not may have at most an effect on minimization of prejudices among certain classes of people in the society in terms of according justice. Basing politics on the foundations of mutual respect, however, requires more robust and engaged civic life than the one to which we have become accustomed (Sandel Justice: What is the right thing to do 268). To some people, respecting other peoples beliefs, among them religious inclination, infers ignoring them in their reasoning.
To this end, a question remains, does ignorance of other peoples beliefs and practices amount to upholding the rule of justice guided by the very principles that regulate the interactions of people in the society?. However, Rawls confirms this from a different dimension. According to him, coming together for people to think collectively on the right things to do, calls the group of people concerned to seek the guidance of certain norms that apply equally to the entire group.
One may see these binding principles as to constitute the forces of morality. This way, it is evident that Rawl perhaps concurs with Sandel. For instance, he argues that, rather than avoiding the moral and religious convictions that our fellow citizens bring to public life, we should attend to them more directly-sometimes challenging and contesting them, sometimes by listening to and learning from them (Sandel Justice: What is the right thing to do 268).
From this line of view, the basis for sound justice seems largely inseparable from moral engagements. In fact, this may form adequate foundations for just and fair society.
In accordance with the myriads of acceptance of justice, John Stuart, another author in Justice: A Reader believes that morality entangles personal rights. According to him, morality is a dream without the recognition of personal rights. In fact, he contends that morality entails a claim on the part of one or more individuals, like that which the law gives when it confers a proprietary or other legal right (Mill 39).
Arguably, Mill sees justices pegged of moral engagement as relative. To him, justice may entail the deprival or even conferment of rights unnecessarily. Mill would perhaps question Sandels proposal for the capacity of justice to ensure fairness.
Would the person deprived of what he or she calls his or her right feel fairly treated when that right is eroded based on moral fairness considerations? Mill would thus not see moral engagements as catalysts of achievement of justice as Sandel proposes but rather as two distinct elements of forces that determine the actions of the society. He would shape them differently.
Comparison
Since the two authors, Rawl and Mill, uphold two differing moral principles, which they adequately back up, there is need to compare them based on the quality and weight of the evidence provided. According to the writer, Rawls views are the most illuminating based on the way he backs up his idea of bestowing respect to human beings.
This defense lies on the ideas about the value of appealing justice. It predominantly relies on the perception that, for realization of fine justice to the society, people need to reason together about what is right or wrong. Perhaps looking at justice this way, one rules out other approaches to seeking justice in society.
These include perceiving justice as a way of ensuring maximization of welfare or rather utilities. This happens to facilitate happiness for the wider society and from the dimension of looking at justice as a tool for paying due respect to freedoms of choice.
Personal opinion
In the light of presentation of justice from the context of fostering the four principles that Sandel immensely defends, I believe that the exercise of justice means that fairness must prevail in the society. I wish to declare all the principles as imperative in any just society.
However, given a chance, I would defend the principle of social and economic inequalities. Concisely, this principle advocates for fairness as a trait of any society perceived as fair in terms of according justice to its members without discrimination. Congruent with this line of thought, I believe that reason on what is right and or wrong must characterize justice. However, certain forces of coercion such as differences in terms of power or mightiness need not to determine the choice of what is wrong or right.
With this regard, justice needs to foster fairness, as opposed to its historic association with fate, divine providence or even reincarnation. Equality forms an essential element that gigantically helps in defining the coordinates of justice. This perhaps stands out based on the manner of distributing wealth, opportunities and respect. The respect advocated for here is tantamount to that advocated by Sandel: one based on mutual respect.
Meritocracy can be defined as a system adapted by a government or any other organization where appointments in filling positions are made depending on the demonstrated ability of the candidate and the talents inherent. According to Meritocracy, appointments should not be based on either the amount of wealth owned, family connections, social class, popularity, or friendship, among other related grounds, but rather on merit. Therefore, according to Meritocracy, the social differences that occur in society, including variations in wealth, occupation of various posts in society, and the social status of persons in society, are purely determined by their respective competitiveness and the exploitation of their talents. Thus positions, social status, and responsibilities in society are earned.
Meritocracy is perceived as an opposing force to affirmative action, which advocates for giving preference to a certain group in society to another in an attempt to correct historical inequalities in society and being making the workforce of organizations reflective of the society in which they reside. Affirmative action tends to empower the historically discriminated set of groups in an attempt to promote equality in society (Curry 1996).
The notion of Meritocracy can be challenged as the cause of structural inequalities in society in the sense that the socially disadvantaged are never given a chance to reorganize in also becoming competitive like the rest of the society members. Otherwise, the competitive member takes up the responsibilities, having the disadvantaged being just spectators in society waiting for all to be done by a few elite. The responsibilities that are taken up by a few elite benefit them either economically or in improving their social status in society because some responsibilities come with economic gains and some level of honor in society. The responsibilities taken over by a few elites in society include job opportunities and governance of institutions which places them at either a higher level of living standard or instills some kind of authority in them (Joseph, Bowles and Durlauf 2000). Therefore Meritocracy can be seen as a cause of inequalities that are currently in society because the uncompetitive members of society were never given responsibilities as they did not have the qualification to meet the roles that come with those responsibilities, thus lagging behind socially and economically because they are not in a position on which they can earn honor or economic gain from these responsibilities other than active participation.
Meritocracy can also be perceived as an accelerator of more inequality cases in society, and this can be argued from the perspective of exposure to work challenges. Work challenges normally give an enabling environment for individuals to perfect their skills and discover new ways of doing things that makes them more specialized than those who have never been on such a job. On the rise of other job opportunities, the persons with such job-related experiences normally stand at a better chance than those who have never been on that job because of the gained experience if Meritocracy was to apply because they are more qualified than those who have never been on the job. This situation is likely to worsen inequality levels in society because those who already have been given more and for those who do not have remain in their state because they are not competent enough to take over as per to the justifications of Meritocracy (Kaus and Danek 1995). The persons who have never been exposed to work challenges are likely to lag behind, while those who had a chance will be moving to higher social status in society both economically and socially as they are expected to earn more from the increased expertise and maintaining greater honor in society depending on the responsibilities allocated to them. Therefore its arguable that even the inexperienced individuals need to be given a chance so as to be exposed to work challenges in the process of them building their capacities so as to become as competitive as others. Thus Meritocracy is a way of worsening the structural inequalities that are in society.
Meritocracy can also be seen as a means of sustaining the current trend of inequality in society because the less qualified members are likely not to get opportunities that are to enable them to uplift their living standards on the reason that they are not qualified and if they think they are qualified then there is a group that is better than them. Therefore with the continual application of Meritocracy, there is a likelihood of not correcting the impact of historical discrimination, which lead to the current level of inequality. Historical discrimination may be grounded on either race or gender, in that the past discrimination has drawn lines on equity along with racial difference or sex. This is evident in the United States of America during the slavery times where the African Americans were discriminated to working for the white Americans in the name of slavery which made the African Americans lag behind, and which is reflected in the current inequality levels in the United States of America, where the African Americans are at the low end of the economic command in the United States (Shapiro 2004). This situation will last for many years in the United States of America as long as Meritocracy is to be applied on the reason that the white Americans are likely to influence much because of their economic mighty (Conley 1999). Therefore the application of Meritocracy is not a good thing as it will sustain the historical inequalities as the initially discriminated will never be competitive enough even if they were given freedom.
The application of Meritocracy is limited to the accuracy of setting standards to be used in choosing candidates who are likely to perform some tasks better than others. There is a norm in meritocratic systems that the most competitive candidates are ones to be entrusted to certain responsibilities, but the question of the accuracy of the standards used to evaluate the candidates is sometimes ignored, and in most cases, the standards may be set arbitrary and in this case by a human being with limited knowledge given the theories of human cognition. There are possibilities that the most suitable candidate will be locked out because of the fault standard of evaluating the most suitable candidate. Some standards of evaluation normally involve the sex type, the age of the candidates, the physical features of the candidate, education level, and job experiences, among other standards. For example, there are jobs that use sex as a standard to measure competence, but at the same time, the very job can be done equivalently well and even better by a person belonging to sex that is believed to be weak (McCall 2001). This situation will give an advantage to the sex that is preferred to the other, making the preferred sexs social status and economic status better than they believed to be weak sex, hence promoting inequality in society on unjustifiable grounds.
Women are the most disadvantaged when it comes to such discrimination as they are believed to be weak characters. Therefore, it can be seen from this reasoning that some standards of evaluating competence are full of reasonableness; that is, they are not justifiable from a logical perspective. Otherwise, they are arbitrary. The issue of using age as a standard to measure competence is unrealistic because, at times, younger people can do better than old people in tasks that are believed to be best suited for the old and vice versa; thus its an invalid standard that may be used in Meritocracy (Cahau and Zylbergy 2004 ). Education level also at times does not determine the competence of a candidate on jobs where common knowledge is needed, and job experience does not guarantee that a new entrant in the fields would not perform better than individuals who have been there for years. Therefore the standards used in Meritocracy are never accurate, and for that reason, they are likely to cause unjustifiable levels of inequality in an attempt to choose the best candidates.
Meritocracy is based on the concept of rewarding talents and hard work, although its indirectly represented on its definition as allocation of responsibilities as per to merit. Meritocracy can be justifiable from the deontological perspective, but its unacceptable per the utilitarian school of thought that advocates for doing to your neighbor what you expect him or her to do for you. According to utilitarianism, an action is perceived to be right if it promoted the general good and happiness in society, and its wrong if it is harmful to society. Despite Meritocracys effort to award hard work and talents, it seems to be quite unfair in situations where the current incompetence is due to historical discriminations. The persons who are perceived being incompetent could have been better like the ones currently perceived to be better if it was not of the historical discrimination along the lines of race, for example. The Historical discrimination may have disadvantaged them from accessing some facilities for capacity building, like in the case of United States segregation of Schools, where the whites schools were better equipped than the Blacks schools (Hayward 1986). The current state of the disadvantaged was predetermined by certain historical discrimination, which is not their wish but a situation that denied them a chance of developing themselves. The persons who believe to be competent are competent not because of their with but because of historical circumstances that favored their development; otherwise, the opposite could have happened and them being on the disadvantaged state, therefore.
Meritocracy should be limited to some degree because one should be treating the other as he could have wished to be treated when in such a situation, promoting the common good in society and enhancing happiness in totality by correcting the predetermined inequalities. Therefore, Meritocracy is not just if the happiness and welfare of the rest of the community was the major issue. Thus it is a kind of individualism that is supported by the deontologists (Tangwa 1996 ).
It should be understood that in the society that we are staying in, every person is trying to survive, and it does not matter by what means the desire is to see a new day. Thus persons will engage in all sorts of activities to earn them a living. They are adapting Meritocracy as a system; its likely to provoke the social order in society in the sense that the persons who are perceived to be incompetent to be entrusted to responsibilities in society, which will, in turn, support their living are likely to turn wild on them trying to survive and the group that will be affected are the persons who have been privileges to hold some responsibilities because of their abilities. Individuals with fewer qualifications are the persons who engage much in criminal activities in an attempt to meet their daily needs (Bean 2003). Therefore, if low crime rates are to be expected in a society, then Meritocracy is not the best because the unqualified persons are certain to engage in criminal activities, which will place the whole society at risk and, more especially, the haves(Bedeu 1997). The only way to stop such criminal activities is by absorbing the unqualified also into responsibilities and train them when on the job so as to restrain them from engaging in unfair means of surviving.
There are some special cases where the application of Meritocracy should be limited, like in the case of veterans in the United States. The United States Veterans fought for the country in foreign wars because they were patriotic to their country, and it was for the common good. The active participation in foreign wars restored the peace that everybody is enjoying currently, and it was an act for the common good. After the war, most of these veterans had got disabilities, and on top of that, they had wasted their precious time participating in military activities at the expense of developing their capacities. Now that wars are over, they have come back home, and they are expected to lead their lives like any other citizens. The question that arises is that they should be given jobs even though they do not have the qualifications because they had wasted their time in the military for the common good. Meritocracy system is certain to trash these veterans, thus its never the best at all cases as some cases need special judgment, although it may be justifiable under the deontological perspective, which seem to be rather inhuman. The veterans need to be given jobs as a reward for their patriotism and also for their generosity that costed them a lot, thus do them as they did for you.
Conclusion. Meritocracy is a system that attempts to award responsibilities according to merit. It can be seen as a means of trying to increase efficiencies in the organization by absorbing only qualified candidates. Its limited to the reason that the work force in organizations are never a reflective of society any more as it will promote inequality in society, as normally responsibilities are accompanied by both increased social status and economic gains too, thus having the less competent becoming disadvantaged. Meritocracy is only best suited for technical jobs where complicated technicalities are involved because unqualified persons are likely either to put themselves in danger like in the case of handling machines or unpleasant results will be expected. Meritocracy can be perceived as the cause of inequality, the accelerator of inequality and the sustaining factor of inequality in society. meritocracy can be justifiable from the deontological perspective, but it is not good as per to the utilitarians as it does promote the common good in society because it benefits only some elites in society.
Bibliography
Bean P., 2003, Crime, Taylor and Francis Publishing Company, pp 33
Bedeu H., 1997, The Death Penalty in America: Current Controversies, Oxford University Press, United States, pp 108.
Chau P. and Zylbergy A., 2004, Labor Economics, MIT Press, pp 217.
Conley D., 1999, Being Black, Living in Red: Race ,Wealth and Social Policy in America, University of California Press, pp 55.
Curry E. , 1996, The Affirmative Action, Addison Wesley Publishing Company, pp 16.
Hayward C. , 1986, Segregation in US Public Schools: Desegregation and Segregation, University of Wisconsin Madison, pp 7.
Joseph K., Bowles S. and Durlauf S. ,2000, Meritocracy and Economic Inequality, Princeton University Press, pp 2.
Kaus M. and Danek K. , 1995, The End of Inequality, Basic Books Publishing company, Chapter Five, pp 58.
McCall L. ,2001, Complex Inequality: Gender, Class and Race in new Economy, Rout ledge Publishing Company, pp 5.
McNamee J. and Miller K. , 2004, The Meritocracy Myth. Web.
Shapiro M. ,2004, The Hidden costs of being an African American: How wealth perpetuates inequality, Oxford University Press, pp 102.
Tangwa B., 1996, Democracy and Meritocracy: Philosophy Essays and Talks, Galda and Wilch , pp 38.
Utilitarians Website; Introduction to utilitarianism, Web.
United States Office of Personnel Management, 2007, Disabled Veterans Affirmative Action Program. Web.
The justice system has experienced substantial organizational growth and improvement over the years. This growth promoted individualized treatment of offenders achieved through institutionalization which led to establishment of prisons, juvenile courts among other rehabilitation facilities. These institutions serve the purpose of rehabilitating prisoners as well as instilling desirable values among them.
Over the years, the crime rates and prison population have escalated substantially across most regions in the world. This has consequently resulted in overcrowding of correctional facilities and prisons. Prison congestion is a widespread problem that cuts across most regions and needs to be urgently addressed due to its negative effects on the process of rehabilitation of offenders.
Reasons for Prison Congestion
Although no direct correlation between crime rates and prison has been established, several explanations have been put forward to explain the rising problem of prison congestion. Prisons may be overcrowded due to failure to allocate resources or lack of resources to establish adequate modern prisons to accommodate the increasing number of prisoners.
In addition, elevated crime rate increases the number of people carrying imprisonment sentences consequently promoting prison congestion. In most regions, congestion in the criminal justice system begins in courts where the overall judicial process is slow. Prison congestion consequently arises since large numbers of offenders are held indefinitely in prisons awaiting trial or due to missing files and complex law procedures.
Sentencing policies in the criminal justice system plays a significant role in influencing the number of people serving jail terms. These sentencing policies are highly influenced by public opinion. There is need for reforms in the criminal justice legal system in order to discourage unnecessary and unfair sentencing.
Further, most criminal justice systems are often associated with corruption, irregularities and malpractices which increases cases of unjustified sentencing. In developing countries, the highest proportion of the population is poor hence lacks the resources to hire private legal representation.
Although some countries such as United States provide legal representation for the financially incapable, the wealthy often face lower convictions rates for similar crimes than the less fortunate.
Most criminal justice systems lack after care and follow up services for discharged inmates. After care services are a very important follow up strategy on offenders designed to transform the offender social isolation and dependence resulting from imprisonment and to further accelerate his ability to adjust in the community (Devi 216).
Often ex-convict face ostracism from society and this may hinder their improvement efforts. After care services promote improvement among the discharged offender hence reducing the likelihood of repetition of offence which may lead to imprisonment (Devi 216).
Effects of prison congestion
In addition to hindering effective rehabilitation process, prison congestion adversely affect the lives of the prisoners and the society at large. The criminal justice system often fails to respond to crime in a humane and efficient manner hence in most parts of the world, prisons display elements of violation of human rights.
Research has revealed that prison conditions adversely affect inmates lives which in some cases lead to death. This raises the question whether prison are institutions of rehabilitation or punishment. For the society to regain confidence in the criminal justice system, the system should ensure that the criminal rehabilitation process is effective and offenders are transformed into law abiding citizens.
Possible Solutions to the Problem of Congestion in Prisons
The criminal justice systems need to be reformed such that they incorporate and ensures that the human rights standards are not violated in prisons. This can be achieved through extensive training of criminal justice personnel.
In order to significantly reduce incidences of overcrowding in prisons in our countries, overall sentencing policy should be reviewed and the criminal justice system should ensure that the law governing criminal offences reserves imprisonment sentences to extreme cases that require in structured and monitored institutions (Devi 211).
Minor offenders and offenders who can reform through therapeutic settings in the community should not be imprisoned but should be released under probation basis (Devi 211).
The reformed convicts who have served enough in jail should be set free as long as they are not a threat to the society. However, such provisions have to include extensive analysis of risk management, coping and adjusting capabilities of the inmates preceding their release to ensure that they do not face circumstances that will prompt them to go back to their previous wayward behaviors.
The question regarding investment on prisons should be approached purely as a human resource development issue aiming at improvement in the quality of life among a countrys population in addition to protecting the society from criminals and crime incidences (Devi 212) and not merely as wastage of resources.
Conclusion
Prison congestion is a major problem that needs to be addressed in order for the criminal justice system to perform effectively. Overcrowding of prisons hinders rehabilitation process and negatively impacts on society. It is therefore vital for the legal system to formulate and implement policies that are geared towards reduction of the number of people in these institutions.
This will allow easier management and rehabilitation of offenders under improved conditions which will ensures that the sole purpose of the criminal justice system which is to ensure that criminals transform into reliable and law abiding citizens is achieved.
Works Cited
Devi, Laxmi. Encyclopedia of social change. New Delhi: Anmol publications PVT. Ltd, 1996
This assignment is a discussion on the topic of global justice. In the discussion, it will be argued that global justice is a virtue. This will be illustrated using various issues which are related to global justice such as the international law, the universal declaration of human rights, realism and international institutions like the United Nations.
Discussion
Global Justice
This is a politically derived philosophy which is formed on the assumption that the world is generally unjust and unfair. What this means is that the world is full of biases when it comes to matters justice in the distribution of power, economic resources and opportunities.
Generally, the injustice is fuelled by the politics of domination between nations of the world whereby the rich deny the poor justice in various sectors. In terms of social relationships, the rich people are known to manipulate the process of justice in their favor thus making the poor unable to get justice because they cannot afford to purchase it.
The Concept of Globalization
Globalization can be defined as the minimization of the differences between people of the world and the maximization of their similarities through interactions, cooperation and communication. During the pre-world war period, the world was characterized by minimal interaction, communication, cross-border movements and language homogeneity.
However, after the world war, this situation changed. The changes were mainly triggered by the desire for nations of the world to unite in various spheres of development mainly the economy, education, employment, the environment and governance (Beck 45).
Globalization and Cultural Diversity
Cultural diversity is a variety of human cultures or societies which live in different parts of the world. It can also refer to the static representation of several cultures in a place and at a particular time, which must be interacting in carefully selected patterns.
Cultural diversity is characterized by the minimization of differences and inequalities as possible and the maximization of sameness and equality as much as possible. Due to globalization, todays society is becoming more culturally diverse day by day, meaning that we are moving towards sameness each day and moving away from differences as days move on (Chrysanthopoulos 13).
Realism and Global Justice
This is a state-centric international relations approach in that it looks at states as the key actors in international politics. The theory of realism is based on historical writers such as the works of Rousseau, Machiavelli and Thucydides (Edkins and Vaughan-Williams 124).
The main argument of realism is that international relations is characterized by anarchy, in which states interact for their selfish interests. Realism therefore negates the mutual understanding of states in their relations but rather puts more emphasis on the struggle of nations to amass as much resources as possible in order to advance their own interests. With realism, economic success is the leading interest in international relations (Booth and Smith 200).
International Law and Global Justice
International law refers to the set of laws or principles which govern the relationships between sovereign states (Fichtelberg 41). It was initially formed to govern the manner in which nation states related to each other with a view of improving their relationships in regard to specific issues. International law initially took the form of treaties and agreements between states, which were either bilateral or multilateral.
The treaties were on issues like trade, agriculture and other forms of cooperation between the signatories of the treaties. The world has been changing which has led to the emergence of a new international system whereby states interact more frequently than before. Globalization, terrorism and ethnic conflicts have been on the rise in the recent years (Scott 214). This has led to the adjustment of international law to take care of the issues in the new international system and how states treat their own citizens.
One of the ways in which international law has been changed is in regard to the issue of human rights. International law initially did not interfere with internal affairs of sovereign states and how states treated their own citizens.
But with the rising cases of atrocities committed by governments to their citizens like in Rwanda, Yugoslavia, Liberia among others, international law has been widened in scope to address the issue of crime against humanity based on the universal declaration of human rights, which makes it illegal for any government to violate the so called civil and political liberties of its citizens (Darraj 92).
The protection of human rights moved the international law to create the international criminal court to try the perpetrators of crimes against humanity. Since its formation, the international criminal court has investigated several perpetrators of crimes against humanity like Charles Taylor of Liberia, the Yugoslavian leader Pinochet and has issued a warrant of arrest against Sudanese president Omar Al Bashir for the chaos and atrocities in the Darfur region of the Sudan.
However, the court cannot escape the eye of critics who have accused it of double standards in that it only targets the developing countries. The super powers of the world like the US, which refused to be a signatory to the Rome statute which formed the court, have never been subjected to the courts jurisdictions despite the fact that they have committed crimes of aggression against other states like the Iraq invasion in 2003.
The issue of environment has also made international law to be widened in its scope to include environmental protection. This is mainly due to climate change which leads to global warming. Several treaties have been formed to address the issue of climate change. Examples include the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Kyoto protocol on climate change, the United Nations convention to combat desertification and the Copenhagen talks (Deke 76).
However there seems to be some double standards in honoring the agreements in the protocols and treaties on climate change because the super powers of the world have refused to cut their greenhouse gases emissions as agreed in the treaties and have also refused to increase their contributions towards mitigation measures to match their greenhouse gas emissions which lead to global warming and climate change (Deke 76).
Universal Declarations of Human Rights
Every human being is endowed with certain inalienable rights and entitlements. These rights and entitlements exist as shared norms of human moralities and natural rights. The rights and entitlements underscore the importance of treating all human beings with dignity, fairness and equality irrespective of their cultural backgrounds.
These rights and entitlements are supported by strong reasons and legal basis at national and international levels. Human rights ideas emerged after the Second World War when the universal declaration of human rights was adopted by the General Assembly in 1948 (The United Nations).
Many states in the world have routinely continued to violate the tenets of the international human rights declaration. Despite this fact, human rights laws to some extend remain credible as a reflection of a global commitment to human rights. Each state has the obligation to protect human rights for its citizens (Paul 8).
However, in the modern world, many states continue to deviate from the Universal declaration tenets, especially the major powers of the world. Evidence of declining commitment in observing and protecting this agreement has been rampant in the international community. Wars are waged by mighty powers on states perceived as security threats thus exposing millions of innocent civilians to humanitarian crisis.
It is surprising that these major powers like United States and its allies violate human rights yet they are always criticizing other nations on human rights abuse. Millions of people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somali and Libya are facing critical humanitarian problems arising from war crisis.
Many developing states in Africa, Latin America, and Asia have also severely violated these tenets through their undemocratic governments and uncivilized policies. In all these cases, nation states have indicated their failure in global commitment to Universal Declaration of Human rights.
United Nations and Global Justice
The United Nations is an indispensable institution in the world. Through it, effective actions are taken to prevent and protect citizens of individual states against human rights abuse, deadly nuclear weapon proliferation and in addressing emergencies, national and international security.
Other institutions such as the International Criminal Court ensures justice prevails at national and international levels by indicting states or personalities alleged to orchestrate crimes against humanity. These international institutions play significant roles in building up democracies, checking into security issues that threaten international peace and ensuring that states cooperate in protection of human rights (World public opinion).
However, most of these international institutions have failed. The United Nations in particular has not being able to operate independently without influence from particular members of the international community. In most cases, United Nations efforts are blocked and undermined by powerful states. Politics in the United Nations Security council have prevented it from reacting to serious cases like the Darfur war in Sudan.
Major Powers like China watered down Security Council resolutions condemning Khartoum because of its economic interest with the government of Sudan. Lack of cooperation among democracies has also rendered these international institutions ineffective. Handfuls of non-democracies have actively defeated proposals and resolutions of United Nations on issues relating to terrorism and human rights.
Over years, United Nations has shown that its not capable of ending or preventing wars. Its credibility based on its founding principles to preventing war has been doubted especially after United Nation Security Council breakdown which led to Iraq invasion in March 2003.
United Nation has continued to fail in addressing critical challenges in the modern society like nuclear weapon proliferation, rising terrorist activities, failing to stabilize states like Somali, failing to intervene and prevent genocides like the one witnessed recently in Sudan, global warming, poor and selective response to emergencies as well as protection of human rights. United Nations needs critical structural reforms in order to operate and dispense its activities independently without interference (Lee 82).
International institutions are taken as convenient instruments for furthering interests and policies of particular states. United States in particular has always had the opinion that an effective United Nations can only be possible if it exists to serve Americas interests. For instance in one case, United States had the opinion that reforms in the United Nations were important and necessary but not sufficient in meeting its interests.
In March 2003, United Nations failed to prevent United States and its allies from invading Iraq, a clear indication that United Nations was not living to its full mandate of Universal equality and justice was but serving the interests of few nations. However, this approach to international institutions is slightly changing in America due to structural shifts in the geopolitical landscape of United States politics.
United Nations as an international institution has failed in its principle of formal equality of sovereign states and fairness in the international system. This institution has been operating on double standards principle of conditional and undifferentiated sovereignty to make distinctions among nations in its activities.
In this respect, it portrays its weakness of serving the interests of few states while leaving the rest. For instance, United States has always been involved in serious gross violation of human rights, yet its always the first in influencing the United Nations Security Council to sanction any nation perceived to be violating human rights (Lee 83).
The 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is another example where United Nations legalized the possession of nuclear weapons to five nations while ruling out nuclear option for the rest.
In another case, United States has sought unsuccessfully to accord itself special rights in the Security Council and the Rome Treaty that established the International Criminal Court. This is a clear indication that international institutions have been adversely used by powerful states as their convenient instruments to pursue and protect their interests and policies (World public opinion).
Therefore, its apparent that international institutions exist as convenient instruments of pursuing interests and policies of powerful nations. All major powers in the world use major international institutions such as United Nations to protect and pursue their national interests as well as an instrument of punishing less powerful nations.
In this context, the international institutions do not act as convenient instruments for pursuing interests and policies of all participating states. In many international institutions and especially the United Nations, lack of equality in addressing all nations and lack of institutional independence will continue to limit its effectiveness as a global institution (Lee 85).
Works Cited
Beck, Ulrich. What is globalization? Oxford: Polity, 2000.45.Print.
Booth, Ken., and Smith, Steve. (eds). International Relations Theory Today. Oxford:Polity, 1995.200.Print.
Chrysanthopoulos, Mirium. Cultural Diversity and Education. New York, NY: Lap Lambert Academic Publishing, 2010.13.Print.
Darraj, Sussan.M. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Paris: Infobase Publishing, 2010.92.Print.
Deke, Oliver. Environmental Policy Instruments for Conserving Global Biodiversity Volume 339 of Kieler Studien. Heidelberg: Springer, 2008.76.Print.
Edkins , Jenny., and Vaughan-Williams, Nick. (eds). Critical Theorists in InternationalRelations. London: Routledge, 2009.124.Print.
Fichtelberg, Aaron. Law at the Vanishing Point: A Philosophical Analysis of International Law. Farnham GU9 7PT: Ashgate Publishing, 2008.41.Print.
Lee, Feinstein. UN-Divided. Winter: National Interest press, 2005. 82-86.Print.
Paul, Guchteneire. Democracy and Human Rights in Multicultural Societies. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing., 2007. 4-8. Print.
Scott, Gregory.M. 21 Debated: Issues in World Politics. Kingsway: Longman Publishers, 2002.214.Print.
The United Nations. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. United Nations, 2 June 2007. Web.7 Dec. 2011.
World public opinion. Giving Voice to Public Opinion around the World. World Public Opinion, 14 Jan. 2010. Web.7 Dec. 2011.
According to Thrasymachus what is justice and why would anyone want to be just?
Thrasymachus defines justice as something that gives some advantage to the stronger. He argues that the person in charge of the ruling party is the strongest in each nation. He bases his argument on the fact that those in power are the ones who formulate and pass laws that tend to favor them and give them some advantage over the rest of the people. After those in power have passed the law, they come with an assertion that justice is the act of obeying the law.
According to Thrasymachus, those who fail to obey the set laws of the land are regarded as being unjust and end up being punished for breaking the law. Thrasymachus further emphasizes the fact that justice tends to be relatively similar in all nations because the ruling class in all nations across the world enjoy some advantage over the rest of the people. Since the ruling class is always stronger in a nation, justice can thus be referred to as anything that tends to give some advantage to the stronger in society. Thrasymachus made several conclusions that were aimed at justifying his argument on the definition of justice.
To begin with, he concluded that that justice is found everywhere and will always give some advantage to the stronger. Society consists of the ruling group which is the stronger part and the subjects. The ruling class classes pass laws that give them some advantage and at the same time administer punishment to lawbreakers.
In his explanation of what justice is, Thrasymachus tries to show the relationship between law and justice. By obeying the laws passed by the ruling group, one is referred to as being just and failure to obey the law renders one unjust. All the ruling parties across the world have the same definition of justice which basically emphasizes obedience to the law. Thrasymachus supports the argument that the weak in society should be ruled by the strong in society.
According to him, justice is simply the obedience of the laid down laws and does not go beyond that. According to Thrasymachus, real justice does not exist in the current systems because everything is dictated by the ruling class. The subjects have no choice but to obey laws set by the ruling class without any question. Questioning the law is being unjust and one is bound to be punished by the ruling group by daring to do that.
Thrasymachus argues that the moral values in the society are a complete reflection of the interests of the ruling group and not the society as a whole. Thrasymachus definition of justice and his explanation appears to be a realistic one but his ideal view of justice is equal rights and justice for everyone. The fact that the ruling class formulates of their selfish advantage seems unjust. The subjects have no choice but to be just by obeying the laws of the land whether they favor them or not. One should be just to avoid punishment from the ruling group.
What is Platos definition of a just person? Is it true that such a person would not do what is wrong?
Plato defines a just person as the one who is able to balance the there elements of the soul harmoniously. The three elements that control the soul of a human being include desire, appetite, and reason. Desire tends to motivate a person and drives them to unleash their full potential. The second element is an appetite which makes one become spirited whereas reason rules ones desires and appetites.
According to Plato, failure to balance these three elements of the soul leads to failure in achieving justice. According to Plato, justice can only be understood properly in the context of society. Since society is made up of people, a just society will only depend on how just the people belonging to the society are. Plato believes that justice is only done when the needs of the people in the society are met. He advocates for a minimal state that has a lot of benefits in terms of the ability to meet the needs of the people. Plato further argues that this type of state is bound to face some challenges from external people with intentions of robbing the society of its benefits. Plato believes that for justice to prevail, the personal needs of the individual must be met. A just society meets the personal needs of all the people and not a selected few.
Plato argues that in a system where the moral standards are set by the ruling class, the needs of subjects are often neglected. According to Plato, the ruling class should embrace communism for a just society to be realized. The there elements of the soul have a great effect on whether the person will be just or. If a person is driven by desire and appetite alone, without reason, they are bound to be unjust because they will always want everything for themselves. Reason gives a person a sense of care and will always help a person do things for the interest of every.
It is always difficult to have a just society when there are certain classes of people in society who are portrayed as special and stronger. The ruling class will always want to have some advantages at the expense of the common people and in the process and in the process creating an unjust society. According to Plato, a just person is a person who ensures equality for all. According to Plato, individual justice can only be fully explored and understood after understanding what a just society should be like.
Plato disputes Thrasymachus argument that being just is simply obeying the law. Plato goes on to clarify that the breaking of the law is a result of inequality in society. According to Plato, a just man commits some mistakes at times but does not disqualify them from being just as long as they stand for equality in society. Plato argues that obedience to law should not be the basis of deciding who is just and who is not because some of the laws were formulated out of the selfish interest of the ruling class.
What are the differences between Platos ideal society and our idea of society?
Comparing Platos concept of an ideal society and our concept of an ideal society there are quite a number of differences that can be noted. Platos ideal society should be a minimal state that has the need for all the people in equal measure. Our ideal society should be maximum with strong leadership to guard it against negative external forces. Plato is of the fact that society can have a luxurious state of the needs of the people are met equally.
Since society will have a division of labor, all the people will be provided with all the luxuries that need by the state. This idea completely differs from our ideal society because if everyone is living a luxurious life; society would stagnate because there would be no other motivation for working and being engaged in economic activities. According to Plato, by limiting the luxuries granted to the people, the state tends to enjoy military protection.
Plato believes in the caste system and argues the limitation of power over luxuries is essential in ensuring that the luxuries are not abused by the people. According to Plato, the security forces such as the military should have limited power on luxuries which is a very challenging thing to implement in our ideal society. According to Plato, the people with the most power in society should have restricted luxuries. In our ideal society, it is meaningless to have power if one is not able to enjoy the luxuries and privileges that come with it.
Plato prescribes a very rigorous system of selecting employees and those to be in power by ensuring that those selected are properly educated are well suited for their roles and the power gained would not be abused. Plato suggests this kind of criteria in selecting leaders to ensure that those aspiring to lead the state are not motivated by power and luxuries. In our ideal society, the idea of wanting lead is motivated by either the power associated with it or the luxuries that come with it.
Many people pretend that they are not motivated by these two factors but in the real sense, they are major factors. Platos ideal society does not allow the leader to their own children to prevent them from being raised as rulers just like their parents. In our ideal society, a leader wants their children to emulate them and if possible inherit the throne from them. According to Plato, some of our suggestions for a stable and just society seem foolish to him because he sees them as being very impractical. According to Plato, our ideals are foolish in the sense that we think of a just society like the one that has laws formulated and enforced by the ruling class.
Plato sees the idea of having a ruling class as a very stupid idea because it simply enslaves the subjects to the ideals of those in power. Plato argues that giving those in power some privileges is a recipe for an unjust society.
Socrates philosophy had a great influence on shifting thinking from basic scientific principles to matters that would satisfy the soul. Plato, one of his students, recorded many of Socrates teachings. Socrates was born in Athens. This is the place where he lived and where he came up with most of his ideas. A great philosopher based his conception of justice on the principle: The man who is good is just .
Socrates advocated the idea that justice was good, and that meant that injustice was equal to evil. Furthermore, he emphasized that good was a natural deed and not what man thinks he needs. In addition, he said that a persons nature was an inner self that needed fulfillment, thus the desire to do good was natural.
Providing the explanation of relationship between good and justice, Socrates presented the example of an ill seeking treatment, and who gets a cure and, is finally happy. He also gives the example of another man, who is completely healthy and is, therefore, happier. The point he makes here is that justice is the cure for evil, and that a man who never commits an evil deed do not need to be punished, and thus, happier than a man punished for his misdeeds (Vlastos 300).
Socrates explains the role of justice in mans life by stating that men should do harm to enemies when they are evil, and be just to those who are good. He, however, does not accept this chain of thoughts, as, according to his belief, doing harm to others makes more harm to ourselves.
This was the beginning of the concept that individual should not harm anyone, even his enemies. Socrates also explains that men fall into pleasures of doing harm to those who harm them instead of being just. Summing up his idea of justice, Socrates declares that to be a poor man who is just is better than being a rich man with wealth acquired through injustice, because injustice taints the soul.
In the Crito, there is a dialogue between Socrates and Crito in Socrates prison cell. Socrates was awaiting for his execution, but Crito notes Socrates peacefulness, his calm way, and his lack of fear in front of the face of the death. This leads to a debate, because Crito assisted Socrates escape, and he argues that accepting death would be a great victory of his enemies. He also adds that Socrates was responsible for the education of young people and could not leave them behind as orphans.
In his response, Socrates insists that reason will guide his decisions unlike the masses that are dependent on random acts as a guide. He asks Crito what the laws say about his escape, and he proceeds to state that the Laws say that a residents position in reference to the municipality was like a child in reference to the parent, or like a slave to his master.
He explains that he made a deal with the Laws by remaining in the city and benefiting from it, and that he could not now condemn it on the basis that he was unjustly accused. He further states that the Laws argue that he accepted to obey the law by remaining in Athens after having attained maturity and raised a family within the city walls. Socrates tells Crito that he does not agree with the Laws argument, but asks if they should accept it, and Crito says that they should. This brings the debate, and then Socrates is executed.
We can sum up Socrates conception of law and justice in the Crito, and the Apology as the understanding of what is good means, and that accepting law as justice is important because we accept the law that governs us, and by residing in the laws jurisdiction, we are subjected to its implementation.
Works Cited
Vlastos, Gregory. Socrates: Ironist and Moral Philosopher. United States of America: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
Hobbes and Locke were both natural law theorists and social contract theorists. However, both Hobbes and Locke arrive at different conclusions regarding the existence of justice in the state of nature. Hobbes indicates that in the state of nature, nothing can be unjust& Where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice (Hobbes 78). Locke, on the other hand, contends that even in the state of nature, human beings are inclined toward justice. Locke writes, The state of nature has a law of nature that determines how it is governed, which obliges every one (Locke 9). This paper explains why Hobbes and Locke reach such different conclusions about the existence of justice in the state of nature. The paper will also give a personal opinion on why Hobbes is more compelling than Locke.
The differences in their views
First of all, it is fair to mention that the different comprehension of the human nature of both theorists is the main aspect of their conflicting studies. Whilst Locke sees people as creatures of reason, Hobbes considers human beings as creatures of desires. Another reason for their different conclusions is the fact that they understood the aspect of rights differently. In fact, when the view of Locke is considered, it is found that Locke viewed certain rights as autonomous of the state or government (Locke 10).
Hobbes, on the other hand, viewed rights as emanating from the state. In the end, both Hobbes and Locke come to agree on a rather plan ground that, in the state of nature, human behaviors are supposed to be guided by the laws of nature. They only agree on plan ground, not in totality as Hobbess laws, as it has already been mentioned, are far less secure when compared with Lockes studies. In fact, this is also another explanation or reason as to why in Lockes school of thought, people seek to have greater security.
The belief of Hobbes that justice does not exist in the state of nature
No doubt, the concept of justice is one of the most litigious aspects of the Leviathan. In fact, Hobbes does not ascribe to the view that there are some moral higher values introduced by a supernatural being (Hobbes 80). There is no right or wrong in the state of nature, according to Hobbes. He further argues that there is justice only where there is no shared power. In other words, no injustice exists where there is no law. Hobbess argument here is pegged on the assertion that something unjust only exists in the situation where it has been advanced by the sovereign. These words, the concepts of unjust and just, are just employed by people when making known their distastes and desires (Hobbes 81).
According to Hobbes, these concepts (injustice and justice) refer to something only under the control of the state. Hobbes further asserts that, because there is no control in The State of Nature, it, therefore, goes without saying that there is no justice (Hobbes 90). Using an example of an industry and the aspect of cooperation, Hobbes emphasizes that because it calls for the co-operation of people to produce any consumables, there is nothing like an industry. This analogy leads him to conclude that it is not possible for two persons to reach an agreement because of the distrust.
The view of Locke that justice exists in the state of nature
In Lockes state of nature, people are at liberty to determine their actions and even dispose of their possessions, as and when they want, within the confines of natural law. In other words, the idea of justice as enunciated by Locke has premised on the sense that law is a reason and that the state of nature has laws of nature that determine actions that people can take. Locke uses the phrase law is the reason to mean that reason teaches inhabitants in the state of nature that people should not inflict harm on others (Locke 16).
Locke further argues that wrongdoings of this kind are punishable. In fact, Lockes view of the state of nature seems to emanate partly from theological belief. In short, Locke believes that justice abounds in the state of nature because of the following reasons: in the state of nature, people not only used to keep their promises but also honored their responsibilities (Locke 12).
Locke also indicates that even though some states were relatively insecure, they were good, pleasant, and peaceful. According to him, all these values can only exist in a place where justice reigns. He argued that people in some states endured peace because of property rights (Locke 13). With these observations, Locke indicated that in a nation where inhabitants were allowed socially to punish those who did wrong to them, like in the case of the American frontier, then a state of nature existed in that nation. In other words, the people of that nation are perfectly in a state of nature.
Justice is both a social construction and a natural fact
This happens because, as a social construction, justice is being advanced based on the behaviors or conduct of human beings, and as a natural fact, justice reigns in the mind of people. As a social construct, justice entirely controls the behavior of people who ascribe to the same laws or who live in one place. As a natural fact, it is common sense for any person to know or differentiate what is right and wrong.
Hobbess view of justice is more compelling than Lockes
This is best understood when the time of their writing is considered. For Hobbes, the state of nature was real as he wrote at a time of heightened civil unrest; it was characterized by a fear of death (Locke 11). Thus, even though his points ascribed to science, it can be said that his views were informed by the civil war and chaos, where the state was very insecure. Locke, on the other hand, wrote after these events, and his writing was highly informed by the realities or aftermath of the civil war (Locke 20).
That is why he reached his positive view regarding the state of nature and the position of man in statehood. Via whichever perspective, though, it can be seen that there are far-ranging differences in their conclusions. However, when their views are closely examined and analyzed, it can be seen that although the state of nature of Locke sounds like a place where people would want to live, his methods of arriving at his conclusion are weaker than those of Hobbes. Since Hobbes has used scientific and logical framework to arrive at his conclusions, his findings can be considered as stronger and compelling.
Conclusion
In short, both Locke and Hobbes were highly divided in their opinions because they had a different understanding of many aspects that made up the state of nature. Some of these aspects include human nature, Knowledge of natural law, Civil Society, Rights, and the responsibility or role of the State or government. In terms of the law, Locke argues that people know what is wrong or right and are in the position of knowing what is unlawful and lawful in a manner that makes it easier for them to resolve conflicts. Hobbes, on the other hand, argues that in a state of nature, human beings cannot know or even tell what is rightfully theirs and what does not belong to them.
When it comes to civil societies, Locke holds the view that civil societies create the order as well as grant authenticity to the government. However, Hobbes indicates that civil society only exists when the state applies force for compliance. In other words, civil societies are created by the state. In terms of the role of the state, Locke argues that the only key responsibility of the state is mostly to ensure that justice is not just seen but also must be done or served. Hobbes, on the other hand, argues that a society is created by the state, and this is prevailed upon by the wishes of their sovereign. In short, the differences in the ideas advanced by Locke and Hobbes lie in their understanding of the above concepts.
Works Cited
Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. New York: Continuum Press, 2007. Print.
Locke, John. Locke: The Second Treatise of Civil Government. New York: Constitution Society printer, 1998. Print.
Utilitarian theory is one of the commonly used and analyzed theories by ancient and modern philosophers due to its universal nature in application. Modern philosophers have made several changes in the theory in order for the theory to fit and address the changing needs of the society. The theory has been supported by politicians, economists and the general society since it teaches morals and ethics to the three sectors.
Objectives of the Study
This study aims at investigating the emergence of utilitarian theory of justice, its criticisms, and its effects to the society. The investigation is meant to unravel and clear out all the controversies associated with the theory, including giving a deeper insight of the theory, what inspired its emergence and learning its strengths and weaknesses.
Study Material
In this study, the researcher will use research materials used by other researchers, books written by the modern and ancient philosophers, online sources and case judgments by the courts of law. These sources will provide the researcher with information to understand the application and nature of the utilitarian theory of justice.
Problem Statement
With utilitarian theory being one of the theories of justice, the need to know how the theory offers justice to people, how it determines the conduct between individuals and the challenges the theory is facing in the modern world has made the researcher to undertake the research.
Introduction
Justice determines just conduct of individuals through moral principal. According to John Rawls, theories of justice emerged from political philosophy and ethics. There are several theories of justice that include utilitarianism theory, justice as fairness theory and libertarianism theory. People who supported utilitarian theory were called utilitarians (Rawls 85).
Utilitarian theory holds that if several alternative actions are combined and one of the actions produces the highest utility compared to the other actions, then the action is perceived as morally right. Utilitarianism originated from the United Kingdom due to the rationality of human beings who developed a moral society based on reason.
Utilitarianism was developed after the religious war of between the years 1562 and 1598 in France, at the same period, modern science came to birth. English civil war, which took place between the years 1642 and 1651, demonstrated how human beings were violent and immoral. According to John Rawl, utilitarian theory was lastly revised in the year 1999.
Utilitarians answer the moral question of what is good and what is right and the theory believes that rightness is derived from goodness. A disagreement over what is right and what is wrong often arises from modern utilitarians.
This disagreement has led to formulation of different forms of utilitarianism in the society; these forms include extreme utilitarianism, restrictive utilitarianism and preference utilitarianism. In either of the three above mentioned forms, utilitarianism is a teleological ethical theory; this means that each action or right is judged according to how it maximizes goods at the end (Rawls 120).
Utilitarianism is consequential since the consequences of an action or a rule is taken to judge whether the action or rule was ethically or morally right or wrong. Morals determine the sober state of a country, the higher the immoral actions in a country, the higher the pain and inhuman actions faced by the residents of the country. Account of utility differs with utilitarians and all the goodness is at the bottom of an individual.
Utilitarians have adopted the following theories of value: hedonism, eudaimonism and desire satisfaction theory. According to utilitarian, a society relies on the governance so as to promote the greatest happiness to it is members. Happiness is highly valued in human beings life for their peaceful living.
In utilitarian tradition, hedonism is the most influential. Hedonism arises from the state of individuals wanting to live a life full of happiness without any other discomfort that is happiness is a balance of pleasure and pain. Utilitarianism explained that, happiness created both intrinsic value and intrinsic disvalue in the event of an individual trying to balance the pleasure and pain gained from an action.
Some utilitarians are opposed to hedonism, some people argued that, in the event of falling extremely ill, they prefer to be taken off life support machines to die despite the fact that the life support units will give them the pleasure of a normal living person and extend their life.
Distributive justice is a branch of Utilitarian theory; distributive justice is further narrowed down into utilitarian justice and non-utilitarian justice. Utilitarians use standards of justice in which the distribution of goods and services if effective only if the outcomes are more than any other existing system.
In non-utilitarian standard of justice, justice will be morally pursued if utility will be maximized by doing so. Before the government chooses the kind of distributive justice to use it must understand its motive first and the consequences of the action (Rawls 100).
Utilitarian Theory of Distribution of Wealth
Utilitarians hold several considerations concerning distribution of wealth. They argue that more wealth is usually better to an individual or the government.
A good example to this case could be highlighted by a scenario in which an individual purchases a car but not the happiness that accompanies the purchase and driving of the new car, meaning that the person could only buy things that are related to happiness but not the real product of happiness.
According to utilitarians, wealth can acquire external valuables and wishes to its holder, but it is impossible for wealth to acquire internal valuables to its holder. Increase in wealth does not result to an increase in the utility for the individual because an increase in a single unit of wealth has no significance increase in total utility for an individual; this is explained by the principal of diminishing marginal utility of wealth.
An individual can get the most out of thinning marginal efficacy by distributing it consistently to other individuals.
Diminishing marginal utility is explained by this example, let us consider a working environment, to encourage talented workers to do distasteful, difficult and dangerous work, the employer may choose to pay them different amount of wages to encourage their productivity. This promoted the general utility by increasing their production.
Objections of utilitarian theory of wealth distribution are fairness and rights. According to Rawls, utilitarian premise of wealth does not capture serious difference between persons, that is, the premise lacks fairness. Utilitarian theory of wealth puts all the benefits and non-benefits together for evaluation without considering their distribution.
Utilitarian theory of wealth allows rights of citizens to be violated; the rights are violated through redistributing of their wealth. According to Smart, wealth is created by a few individuals and so it is violation of their rights when the wealth is distributed to other people. Wealth should remain in the hands of its holders without the government or any institution interfering with the way the wealth will be redistributed.
Characteristics of Utilitarianism
There are five main characteristics of utilitarianism. The first trait is that utilitarianism is widespread. The same moral principles apply to each and every character both locally and globally. Moral principles that decide what is right and evil are the same regardless of our disparity. Ethical philosophies are universal yet they uphold the same ethics and morals. This makes utilitarian theory to have universalism as one of its characteristic.
Utilitarian theory is consequential in nature. Utilitarian theory holds that each action has its consequences and individual try to take actions with the best consequences. For example, telling a lies is an offence if it will result in to evil, but it is beneficial if the lies will result in to a benefit.
Utilitarians always look at the consequences behind a certain action. Utilitarianism can be further narrowed down according to the consequences of an action in to act, rule, and ideal utilitarianism. The rightness of an act determines the effects of the activity to the society as argued out by utilitarians. Rule utilitarianism argues that, the relevance of any action relies on the universal repercussions if everyone followed it (Rawls 75).
The value achieved in an action is evaluated rather than the deed itself; all dealings should match with the regulations holding the uppermost utility. Abstract principles are expected to match with activities of individuals in the society as pointed out by ideals of utilitarianism.
Welfarism: utilitarian theory defines welfarism as what is good by utilitarian theory. Good actions results in good consequences, which increase the welfare of the people. Well-being is subjective. Welfare arises from happiness, attainment of goals and satisfaction of preferences. Utilitarian theory is characterized by concern for welfare of individuals.
Welfare varies between individuals depending on the amount of welfare each individual desires to achieve. Welfare has grown from hedonistic utilitarianism to a newer version of preference utilitarianism. In preference utilitarianism, utility is taken as a degree of satisfaction of an individual preference.
Individuals are only concerned with their satisfaction, pleasure and pain is of little interest to them as opposed to hedonistic preference, which is concerned with pleasure and pain. In negative utilitarianism, utility is characterized by lack of dreadful things such as pain and the existence of good things such as joy. Joy and pain do not affect the level of individuals preference in maximizing utility.
Aggregation is the act of summing up different units into a single unit for measurement or valuation. Utility of diverse individuals can be sampled, summed up and compared to determine the overall welfare of the sampled individuals. Aggregation helps utilitarians know the amount of utility arising from a given population.
Most philosophers term aggregation as controversial due to the challenges involved in sampling, measuring and determining the unit of measure (Rawls 200). They believe that utility is not measurable. Individuals hold very different views in maximizing utility, some believe in maximizing total utility while others believe in maximizing the average utility.
In maximizing total utility, they believe that an increase in total population will lead to an increase in their total utility. In maximizing the average utility, the average utility between individuals should be maximized through taking the tradeoff between different individuals utility.
Maximization: utilitarian theory is characterized by maximizing utility or welfare of individuals. In maximization, an individual consumes to his best whatever is good hence gaining the highest possible level of welfare. Individuals should not maximize their welfare in what is bad but should maximize their welfare in what is good.
Given that the utility of an individual is beneficial to the society just like the utility of other members of the society, it is vital and significant to maximize all forms of utilities. Individuals choose either to maximize expected utility or to maximize the actual utility or to be direct utilitarians or indirect utilitarians (Rawls 125).
In maximizing expected utility, individuals prefer to maximize the quantity of utility estimated in the coming future despite the volatility of the world. Maximization of estimated utility is beneficial to the society in various ways but mainly because it is possible to maximize the utility without perfect prediction of the future events that could affect the society in any manner.
In maximizing the actual utility, individuals must maximize what is on hand and produces the superlative results. Utilitarianisms prefer among a range of courses of acts depending on the quantity of utility created and single out the action that maximizes their utility.
Indirect utilitarians believe that people are poor in calculating and the results obtained are never perfect. Indirect utilitarians argue that people should use the rule of thumb in maximizing their utility.
Advantages and Strengths of Utilitarian Theory
Utilitarian theory treats all people equally without special consideration and helps people in making moral decisions, utilitarian theory gives a simple methodology. Utilitarian theory advocates that we value all moral terms like self- sacrifice, justice and honesty.
Utilitarian theory helps people understand the happiness in their mind and help them understand that not all happiness can be bought and so helps the government and other major institutions formulate on how to maintain the happiness enjoyed by people. Utilitarian theory helps people understand the due consequences of their actions, this helps in building a civilized and just society.
Utilitarian theory is simple to use due to its clear systematic approach to ethics, this makes people understand the consequences of ethics with ease.
Utilitarian theory supports a democratic approach in decision-making. The theory allows the majority to dominate over the minority and therefore granting the majorities their democratic right. Lastly, utilitarian theory relies on verifiable claims and principals such as the morality, ethics and utility and it is accessible to all people.
Disadvantages and Weaknesses of Utilitarian Theory
Utilitarian theory does not count anything else apart from happiness, which it equates with pleasure. Utilitarian theory includes calculations, collection of the data, calculating and predicting the results to most people is difficult with an increased challenge of daily collection of data. Utilitarian theory makes people do the right actions for the wrong reasons.
Utilitarian theory does not consider the preferences of people since it assumes that people have common nature and desires. Utilitarian theory presents difficulty in predicting the consequences. For example, when someone is hit, the probability of getting upset is 99.9%, while at the same time, the person may tend to enjoy being hit and getting pleasure out of it.
This confuses the predictability of the consequences. Utilitarianism is a demanding premise in that, purchasing as easy as a candy may be deemed immoral for the reason that the same cash may be spent in a different way to acquire the most utility.
Effects of Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism has wide spread effects both positive and negative in different fields of the government, society and lifestyles of individuals. Utilitarianism has a great influence in law of a country, economics of the world and peoples politics. In these three fields, utilitarianism has highly influenced how policies are formulated, the way of doing things are done and people perception towards certain issues.
In the field of law, utilitarian theory opposes retributive theory. In retributive theory, penalty is instilled to make a criminal pay for his offense but not to engender pain in him (Bentham 50). Under utilitarianism, punishment is justified as it helps the society prevent escalation of criminal activities in the society.
This could be the protection of the individual members of the society from the undisciplined individual or discouraging other people from involving themselves in such criminal actions. This has helped the court of law in case judgments to be able to give the best judgment to a criminal.
In political philosophy, utilitarian theory gives individuals an open mind to think of the right government bearing in mind that the best government has the best consequences. Utilitarian theory also brings to light the governments authority to its citizens and their rights, these provides an option to theories of natural rights and natural law (Smart and Williams 150).
Utilitarians have supported democracy because democracy makes the governments interest coincide with the citizens general interest. Since each individual is the best judge of himself, democracy brings together their interest and hence forming a common interest in all.
Utilitarian theory also challenges democracy, it argues that, strong administration need to test out a mans selfish welfare, any adjustment in the basic selfish welfare will terrorize the stability of the administration.
Classical economists received a lot support from utilitarians especially in implementation of economics policies. Utilitarians were opposed to government interference in trade and industry; utilitarians assume that the economy would adjust itself according to the pressure of the markets.
Later on, utilitarian supported government move of regulating trade and industry after the private sector began taking advantage of utilitarian policies of limited government control and oppressed the consumers. Government regulates the kind of trade to take place in the country; the country mostly favors its residents through guarding them from exploitation by the private sector (Goodin, Robert, 154).
Criticisms of Utilitarian Theory
Utilitarian theory has been extremely criticized by leaders, managers, community and philosophers. Some of the criticisms include utilitarian theory offers resolutions, which are contrary to human beings moral intuitions. Moral intuition is a personal view towards the morality of an issue in the society.
Fundamental evidences of morality are contained in moral intuitions that guide humans on what to do and not to do as argued by many philosophers. Philosophies cannot be justified with moral intuitions due to their moral dilemmas. Moral dilemma occurs when an individual does not know what is right or wrong.
According to Rawl, utilitarian theory argues that, some actions are right or wrong, but the moral intuition holds a different belief. Rawl added that utilitarians conclusions should match with the human beings intuition to avoid conflict of interest between the theory and the belief of human beings.
Utilitarian theory does not give a full account of how human beings are commitment to observing their rights. Utilitarian theory does not give any consideration to individuals rights in certain moral issues.
Utilitarian theory always gives more weight on welfare in the event of conflict between rights and welfare of an individual, utilitarians believed that individual welfare gives an individual maximum utility while rights give no utility to an individual. Even though utilitarians believe that some rights are fundamental in attaining welfare, they rarely account for the rights in attainment of the welfare.
Utilitarian theory is criticized and termed as unfair because utilitarians main concern is maximizing individuals utility. Utilitarian theory support equitable distribution of wealth by maximizing the general welfare of people. Utilitarians in their defense argued that; equality promotes the benefits and general welfare of every individual.
According to John Rawl who was a strong supporter of utilitarian theory, said that inequality is only permissible when it increases the welfare of the least well off members of the society. John Rawl also added that it is better to have a society where all people are poor other than to have a society with a combination of both poor people and rich people.
Utilitarian theory is criticized for failing to realize that individuals should be punished for their actions but not for increasing present and future utility. It is the belief of many people with the utilitarian culture that justice promotes the welfare of the people and the entire society.
According to utilitarianisms, if a punishment will lead to a decrease in peoples welfare then it should not be administered, but if it leads to increase in peoples welfare then it should be administered.
Utilitarian theory claims that a criminal should not ideally be punished if the punishment will not reduce his future crimes (Williams and Smart 100). Criticizers of this theory believe that punishment should be severe even if it will not deter or prevent future crimes.
Utilitarian theory is criticized for its focus on the consequences of actions without considering the motives behind the actions. Critiques explain that each Individual motive following an action is essential to the community since the motive can explain the reason behind taking a certain action.
For example, in politics, an individual may publicly help another person in order to gain publicity and use that publicity to his political advantage, the beneficiary may not condemn such a negative motive in order to enjoy the short term benefits.
Utilitarian theory criticizers claim that; utilitarian theory does not consider what is motivating an individual to take a certain action and the theory should not only look at the consequences of an action (Williams and Smart 80).
Utilitarian theory is criticized because it treats pleasure as utility. Criticizers of the theory argue that; utilitarians contradict themselves in their explanation about treating pleasure as utility. In hedonistic utilitarianism, individuals desire only for happiness and pleasure because happiness and pleasure maximizes their utility.
This desire leads to maximization of joy, but in some situations, trying to exploit happiness of a group of individuals may lead to a result that the individuals did not anticipate for. Happiness is not the only thing that people desire to maximize in the society; individuals still need to maximize their power (William and Smart 105).
Utilitarian theory is criticized for viewing people as saints; it argues that people should undertake only all the actions that maximize their utility. In utilitarian theory, morality is not viewed as right or wrong, but it is viewed as the welfare of the society. Utilitarianism also argues that, for a government, it is morally preferable to perfectly utilize utility.
Lack of perfect knowledge among people will lead to an arbitrary altruistic behavior in utility-maximizing. Utilitarianism interpretation of the criticism means that, the theory advocates people to live a self-sacrificing life that is full of hardships and service to others and this will not be possible.
Utilitarian theory was criticized for its impracticality. Criticizers claim than utilitarians never tested their theory practically and address on how to collect data of wide range of individuals with different preferences, tastes and the uncertainty associated with the society (Williams and Smart 85).
Conclusion
As discussed, utilitarianism theory in philosophy argues about the greatest happiness for the greatest number . This theory determines the preference and utility of individuals and explains how they can be maximized. The theory as seen, shows what is moral and ethical in the society hence promoting peace and democracy in the society.
In conclusion, government continued use of the utilitarian theory of justice is advantageous to the government because the residents maximize their utility and the government manages to control exploitation of the poor through equitable distribution of wealth.
In addition, there is peaceful coexistence between people because every person knows what is right and wrong, they can predict the consequences of breaching peace, and thus utilitarian theory of justice serves as an effective tool of management for the government.
Works Cited
Bentham, Jeremy. The introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. London: Athline Press, 1970. Print.
Goodin, Robert. Utilitarianism as a Public Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Print.
Rawls, John. A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1999a. Print.
Smart, John. An Outline of a System of Utilitarian Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973. Print.
Williams, Ben. A Critique of Utilitarianism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973. Print.
In A Theory of Justice, John Rawls deliberates on how applying logic in justice principles would solve common problems like societal structures, assigning right duties to individuals and distribution of economic and social advantages to all people in society among other pertinent issues.
Instead of concerning himself with the elusive notion of restoring justice in any unjust society, Rawls elementary duty in this book is to come up with principles of justice that would be universally applicable and used in shaping an ideal society.
To some extent, Rawls borrows from Immanuel Kants principles of ethics that campaign for principles of nature where an individual has to do to others as he or she would expect them to do to him or her. According to Rawls, principles that would govern a society are principles chosen by individuals if they were in an original position and they acted rationally having mutual neutrality.
To expound these principles of justice, Rawls came up with two principles of justice viz. Principle of Equal Liberty and Difference Principle. These principles can be understood better by looking into what Rawls calls Original Position and Veil of Ignorance.
If people acted or chose situations that are ideal for them with neutrality, then justice would become fair and this would overcome the infringements presented by theory of utilitarianism. Rawls provides a strong argument for these principles and these principles are good justice principles.
The Two Principles
Before putting forward his two principles of justice, Rawls begins with expounding a hypothetical original position that each individual should adopt. At this position, the involved parties would determine precepts of justice from behind a veil of ignorance.
The veil mentioned here would fundamentally subterfuge people from recognizing any facts about themselves hence eliminate the possibility of littering justice with personal issues. Rawls says, no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like.
I shall even assume that the parties do not know their conceptions of the good or their special psychological propensities. The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance ((Perry, Bratman & Fisher 580). Therefore, in accordance with this argument, there would be no class, talents or any social distinction in the society.
Rawls approaches this issue from hypothetical original point to eliminate personal issues that litter justice principles. For long, people have made decisions and passed justice based on personal likes and dislikes without considering the other party. Rawls uses this original position, to attain a neutral ground where individuals would pass judgment that they would wish to be passed on them if they were in the shoes of their subjects.
This is where Rawls agrees with Kantian Ethics that are rooted on natural law of doing to others, as one would wish to be done to him or her. In other words, it is a case of one giving what he or she would expect to get back. Rawls original position eliminates personal interests and the eventual justice would be fair to all people in society.
If justice would be decided from the original position, it would be fair for all. Rawls assumes that parties in the original position would agree to his two principles of justice because of the following reasons: firstly, given the fact that these parties do not know their position in society neither do they know their class, there is a probability that they would end up in any class or get any natural asset.
Therefore, due to this uncertainty, these parties would try their best to ensure that the justice passed favors all people regardless of their classes. In any case, an individual in the original position would be passing judgment for him/herself.
Considering this, all individuals would pass judgments that favor themselves to ensure that if they find themselves in any class, they would be comfortable in it. Therefore, in a bid to create an ideal situation that would favor the maker of the situation, the overall justice would be fair to all.
It is natural that people want the best things for themselves; therefore, they would come up with structures that are best for themselves and because they do not know where they would be in future, the overall judgment would be best for them and fair to everyone else. Moreover, Rawls thinks that people in the original position would agree to his two principles because these principles gives a standard way out in distributing natural resources, economic and social advantages in societies. However, what are these principles?
As aforementioned, Rawls puts forward two principles of justice viz. Principle of Equal Liberty and Difference Principle. The principle of equal liberty states that, each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others (Rawls 301).
On the other side the Difference Principle states that, Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that; they are to be of the greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society, and offices and positions must be open to everyone under conditions of fair equality of opportunity (Rawls 303).
The principle of equal liberty is egalitarian for it ensures that every person gets equal liberties. In this case, justice would prevail and societies would be structured in a way that would allow mutual understanding. This first principle is absolute in its nature, and to some extent, it echoes libertarianism whereby people will have right to speech. However, Rawls admits that on its own, this first principle may not address all issues facing the society.
Therefore, he throws in the second principle and he is quick to point out that the second principle is important but for it to be realized, the first principle has to be fully applied. The second principle does not substitute the first; on contrary, it complements it by adding some specifications that the first principle may not address.
The second principle as aforementioned is the Difference Principle. Rawls divides this principle into two clauses addressing the same issue of social inequalities.
The first clause calls for distribution economic and social disparities in a way that, they are to be of the greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society (Rawls 303). This clause differs from the first principle by eliminating the egalitarian bit of it. It allows some people to have benefits over others; however, these benefits should be of great help to the less fortunate in society.
For instance, talented people in society may have benefits over others; however, they should use these talents appropriately and channel their results back into society for the help of least talented in society. In principle, even though they have their talents, they should not use them for their own good.
The second part of difference principle states that economic and social disparities should be distributed in a way that, offices and positions must be open to everyone under conditions of fair equality of opportunity (Perry, Bratman & Fisher 578). This part is egalitarian just like the first principle for it calls for equality at all levels.
Rawls explains these principles well by putting sense into them in a way that would compel someone to accept them. For instance, considering difference principle, Rawls provides a sustainable social structure that would eliminate injustice. The difference principle calls for formulation of projects that would allow some people to have more benefits in society than others.
Some people would have more incomes, status and so forth over others. For instance, managers in blue chip companies would earn high salaries than street cleaners. This is logical and acceptable. People with talents in society would be allowed to pursue their talents and have higher social status than others. Rawls is fine with all these possibilities.
Nevertheless, such disparities would only be allowed under certain controlled conditions that would allow better lives for the least advantaged people in society. Rawls puts forward two conditions; one, these disparities would be allowed if their outcome have direct or indirect positive effects in empowering the least advantaged in society.
For instance, if paying a blue chip company manager millions of dollars would benefit the least advantaged, then so be it. As long as the outcome of such disparity is improving livelihood of the poor and less fortunate in society, then it is allowed. Secondly, Rawls indicates that as long as the procedure of accessing high posts in society is free and fair, void of irrelevant criteria and discrimination, then it is all right.
Moreover, the difference principle addresses other ethical theories like the socialist idea, which calls for distribution of responsibilities and benefits based on ability and need respectively. In essence, the least advantaged people in society have more needs whilst those greatly advantaged have the highest responsibilities.
This boils down to merit where skills are rewarded and at this point, Rawls principles become good principles of justice. The society has for long promoted courses that would benefit only those who are well off in society leaving the least disadvantaged to groan under poverty and misery. However, Rawls first clause of the second principle of justice eliminates this problem.
People should only change economic and social institutions if only they will benefit all people in society not the well off alone. For instance, there would be a proposal that seeks to allow erection of a nuclear plant in a family neighborhood whereby, the families around the nuclear plant would not benefit; however, the plant would provide well-paying jobs to professionals who are already well off.
Under, Rawls principles, this nuclear plant would not come to be; however, in contemporary society, this plant would be introduced regardless of the plight of the neighboring families. This is unfair; it is injustice. In the wake of these facts, Rawls principles of justice stand out as a better way out of the quagmire that societies have plunged into.
Rawls principles are even better than utilitarianism. According to Perry, Bratman, and Fisher, utilitarianism states that as long as actions promote felicity, they qualify as good actions (589). However, Rawls offers a better approach in addressing pleasure and happiness. Utilitarianism has many infringements that violate basic human rights; however, Rawls principles allows for equality and at the same time allow individuals to do what they love doing hence become happy.
The difference between the two is what takes precedence over what. While in utilitarianism, the quest to derive felicity and pleasure takes precedence over human rights, Rawls principles are the exact opposite. Equality should prevail and this is why Rawls starts by taking people back to the original position. After ensuring that equality prevails, Rawls then incorporates the issue of deriving happiness.
In essence, if what an individual is doing does not benefit other people in society, it is wrong whether it brings happiness or not. Rawls principles are good because if societies are structured according to his suggestions, then at least everyone will be happy in society because justice would be fair for every body. Otherwise, without adopting these principles, societies would continue to suffer social injustices because social classes and positions have allowed people to pass biased judgments that benefit them alone.
Conclusion
Rawls comes out clearly in his principles of Justice. He starts by referring people to make judgments from an original position covered with a veil of ignorance. This veil covers people from acknowledging their interests, status, or positions in society.
At this point, people would make judgments and decisions that are fair to everyone because these decision makers do not know where they would belong in future; therefore, they would pass judgments that are best for themselves thus making the judgments fair to everyone.
Rawls then gives his two principles. The first one is an egalitarian principle calling for equal distribution of liberties to all people in society. This provision eliminates many injustices while the second principle furnishes what the first does not address adequately.
This second principle allows classes in society only if the outcome of such classes would be for the benefit of the least advantaged in society. Rawls provides a strong argument for these principles and these principles are good justice principles because they address pertinent issues of injustice in society. They are better than utilitarianism for their basic objective is upholding human rights as opposed to utilitarianisms happiness.
One works best while performing the duties he/she likes and naturally suited. Every person has skills to execute roles in society. There is a correlation between justice in the society and an individual.
If only justice can be found in a society, then justice in an individual will be an easy task. Finding justice in the society is easier than finding the justice in an individual. Begin by looking for the virtues of character in a constitution before look for them in an individual (Plato 215, par 3, L 1-3).
Justice, which is suitable for the constitution of the country, is also beneficial to the people. An individual is jus a minute portion of a society. What pleases the community pleases the people? If a person does the task, he or she is well suited to then the person will be happy. This will eventually see the whole society happy and happiness is a concept in justice.
Justice has different meanings to different people and societies. The Platos theory of justice tries to balance what people and societies practice. Justice is the good of another (Plato 42, par 2, L 12). The society upholds the virtues such as justice, piety, courage, friendship and fairness.
The nation stipulates harsh consequences for people who are unjust. The society has legal institutions with skilled personnel to deal with the moral decadence in the community. Some people do wrong to others and go scot-free. It is better if they are not identified than if identified and fail to face the law. In such cases, injustice becomes profitable. I say that injustice is profitable, and justice is not (Plato 24, par 2, L 5).
Today there are agencies e.g. Transparency International, which monitor the conducts of various institutions, then makes it public to the mass. Injustice is rampant among the rich than among the poor. The rich are happy ad respected while the poor are unhappy. Plato thwarts this argument by saying that justice is good, and injustice is evil irregardless of the status. Call justice a virtue and injustice a vice (Plato 24, Par 2, L 5).
The society is also full of the unjust, but they are considered just due to the roles they play. The judicial system is regarded as the highest authority where justice should prevail. Plato argues that one is just if his duties require him to lie. This is why the judicial lawyers defend the criminals in the courts.
People expect to get the best from their fellows. This equilibrium can be attained if each does the best to a colleague. There are those who hinder the justice levels in the society. These include the thugs, rappers, terrorists, prostitutes and other related actions. The society tries to be just, but the people in it can not allow it to achieve that standard. Different individuals have different meanings of justice. What one considers just may be considered unjust by the other.
The American culture manifests the theory of Plato to some extent. This culture tries to eradicate the discrimination against race and gender. America is a liberal state where one does the role he or she is naturally suited. The increased health insurance cover for the children is a critical step towards attaining justice in the United States of America.
Giving women opportunities to exercise their potentials acquired naturally is a road to achieving Platos theory of justice. Some people still use tyranny to rule in the society. Tyranny is unacceptable because it is unjust. Look at all the wealthy private citizens in the cities who have many slaves, for, like a tyrant, they rule over some (Plato 249, par, 2, L, 2-3). Some individuals do various things just to please them. They do not care about the suffering of the otters.
The Americans believes in the outcome of the judicial process irregardless of whom is on the wrong. The lawyers may be forced to make false statements during trials to win cases for their clients. The American culture is particularly strict on terrorism and wages war with the offenders. This will see people living happily. If just and injustice is clear to us, then acting justly, acting unjustly and doing injustice are also clear (Plato 120, par 3, L 1-2).