Category: Justice

Introduction

Right and wrong are concepts considered to emanate from one’s behavior. Both notions are debatable since what is accepted in a given setup can be viewed as wrong in a different setting. People are considered to be right when they follow various set rules and regulations in a given entity or environment in which they live. On the other hand, wrong is any activity that is considered to be against the laws, morality, culture, and ethics that are held by a given society. It also entails conducts that are against justice and equity. This essay provides insight into the differences that exist between rights and wrong in regards to justice based on the three readings from the book ‘A World of Ideas’.

Stephen L. Carter’s Separation of the Church and State

According to Carter’s article on the Separation of the Church and State, much of his ideas are drawn from the understandings of the separationists concerning religion and secular lives. These people hold the idea that in any given American society, some significant restraints should be subjected to justice for religious purposes (Carter 293). The implementation of such ideas in the justice system is considered wrong. For instance, when a policy is either supported or opposed by the politicians, a closer examination to investigate whether it is derived from a religious or secular background is done. For such reasons, it is wrong for the public to influence the policy negatively by appealing to either the religious or secular reasons (Carter 293).

In a setup whereby the separationists dominate the locality, the implementation of public policy should be done in such a way that it conforms to the desire of everybody. This state of affairs can be accomplished by considering the religious, pluralistic, and separationist points of view among others. Owen reveals that people, groups, and organizations perceive right and wrong differently (4). In this case, it can be wrong for one group of society (deemed as the majority) to justify their rightness based on the plausibility of their numbers (Owen 4).

Another justification to show that the separation of the church from state is wrong is seen where most religious beliefs are used exclusively in the private sectors. In such situations, the public is barred from using such beliefs (Bunge 18). This act should be abandoned owing to the important roles the churches play in shaping the public domain in the right direction. For example, in his article ‘Separation of Church and State’, Carter confessed that he met a Christian minister who had a drug rehabilitation program (294).

He elaborated on the benefits of religion in rehabilitating drug users (Bunge 18). Although such programs were not supported by the state, their results were far above the expectations of the agencies that were defeated in the first place (Carter 293). The failure of the government to support the religious organization through funding is wrong. To correct such issues, a clear understanding of the metaphorical statement of the separation of the church and state should be put in place. Such an idea of separation should rather be codified based on morality as a requirement for the citizens irrespective of their roles in society (Carter 293).

According to the Lemon Test, public policy is required to institute a secular purpose that is non-religious concerning the state action. This test requires the state to restrict the religion from the public. Such action is bound to affect the policies. It is perceived as the separation of the public from the religion (Carter 295). Although the separation is viewed to be impartial, it has given a new dimension to the public that is more secular (Carter 293).

Rene Descartes’ Fourth Meditation of Truth and Error

It can be noted from the Descartes’ fourth meditation of truth and error that God exists. According to Descartes and Cottingham, God cannot lie since He is the creator of the mediator; hence, He handles His freedom and judgment (38). The bone of contention is noted in the third statement that God is responsible for His judgment that leads to an error (Descartes and Cottingham 38). Descartes acknowledged that man was the intermediate between God and nothingness (2).

It was stated that God is not a deceiver because he is supreme, infinite, and powerful. The ability to commit error is because the mediator is finite. The lack of the infinite aspect of being is prone to act in the nothingness. Due to this idea, he blames God for bringing about his errors. Therefore, it is wrong for Descartes to accuse God of committing his errors (Descartes and Veitch 2).

Furthermore, the article reveals that Descartes acknowledged that he cannot comprehend God’s creation. The proponent held that the perfection of the creation was more understandable when it was examined as a universe rather than conducting investigations on one creature (Descartes and Cottingham 38).

The mediator in Descartes’s article realized that God provided him with two important items namely knowledge and freedom. Further understanding revealed that the scope of the knowledge was so much limited while that of the freedom was limitless. Therefore, his errors arose from his failure to control the boundaries of the freedom to conform to the knowledge limits (Descartes and Cottingham 40). In conclusion, it was wrong to accuse God of being responsible for making the mediator go astray. The errors resulted from the misuse of the knowledge and freedom that he possessed.

Martin Luther King, Jr., the Defense of Injustice

Martin Luther King’s letter from the Birmingham jail was written as a response to a statement of concern and warning that was issued by the white religious leaders of the South who supported the injustices. Martin Luther King Jr. was worried about the unjust laws that were formulated to act against the people with colored skin.

As a result, he specified that ‘A just law is a manmade code that squares with the moral law or the law of God while unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law” (Luther and Vivian 254). He further noted that “just laws should uplift human personality while unjust laws degrade human personality” (Luther and Vivian 254).

Luther and Vivian clarified that it is wrong to uphold the unjust laws since every person has both legal and moral responsibilities to obey evenhanded laws only (254). Such people should also have an ethical obligation to disobey and shun the unjust laws (Luther and Vivian 254). Martin Luther King Jnr. showed an example of unjust laws that were used by the Nazis regime in the Netherlands. Such laws had downgrading effects on people besides creating differences amongst them. It is noted in the latter that injustices must be constantly checked to ensure that they do not spread. Consequently, it is wrong to create unjust laws that lead to the mistreatment of people.

Works Cited

Bunge, Mario. Treatise on Basic Philosophy: Ethics: The Good and The Right. New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media, 2012. Print.

Carter, Stephen. Reflections on the Separation of Church and State, 2002. Web.

Descartes, René and John Cottingham. René Descartes: Meditations on First Philosophy: With Selections from the Objections and Replies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Print.

Descartes, René and John Veitch. Discourse on the Method and the Meditations New York, NY: Cosimo Classics, 2008. Print.

King, Martin Luther, and C.T. Vivian. “Letter from Birmingham jail.” Arguing About Law 1.1 (2013): 254. Print.

Owen, Judd. Religion and the demise of liberal rationalism: the foundational crisis of the separation of church and state. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001. Print.

According to Webster’s dictionary justice is ‘the quality of being just or fair, the act of determining rights and assigning rewards or punishments. There are several great people who have spoken about justice on several occasions. Every individual needs to be accountable for what-so-ever they do. For instance, for a student like me, it is most important to do justice by studying to the best of my ability and get good grades.

By doing so, I will do justice to the institution which is taking care of my education as well as my parents who are paying my education fees. Secondly, I believe in the legal system and I feel it is the most proper way to measure justice. It is one of the most important aspects of one life to do justice and to get justice. There are also instances when the guilty are punished but at the same time, the innocent are also punished. For instance, when a murderer is given the death penalty, his family did nothing wrong, but have to bear the burden of his absence. Here the court has done justice by punishing the criminal, but there are other family members who suffer from the decision.

When the technical aspects of justice are discussed justice is divided into two groups – distributive justice and retributive justice. Distributive justice deals with the proper allocation of wealth, power, reward, respect between different people. For instance, according to the egalitarianism theory of distributive justice, the proper distribution of wealth should be an equal one. In other words, no individual in a group should have more or less than any other individual in that group.

This is also true for other types of goods. Retributive justice is associated with the proper response to wrongdoing. For example, the lex talionis (law of retaliation) is a theory of retributive justice that says that proper punishment should be equal to the wrong suffered, and it is like life for life, fight for a fight, hand for hand, leg for leg and so on. The meritocratic theory states that goods, particularly wealth and social status, should be distributed to match individual merit, which is generally understood as some combination of talent and hard work. In other words, this theory says that it should be only for those who work hard to achieve it (Economist’s View). For example, a singer needs to practice to get recognition from the public as a good singer.

I would like to say that there are several legends who have spoken on the topic of justice. There are also various religious groups defining justice in different forms. But in general, I feel that justice is the right of every individual. Each and every person need to be responsible to do justice to all individuals with whom they are associated. They need to do justice to the profession they are into and also abide by the laws of society. Besides, those who seek justice should be given justice if they deserve it.

Work cited

Economist’s View Meritocracy, [2007]. Web.

The idea of developing a perfect society where all are equal and justice reigns have always been a dream for many. In fact, justice is one of the pillars of a democratic society; those who enjoy equal rights and have access to equal opportunities are highly likely to understand that every action leads to certain consequences. It is therefore essential to ensure that rules are undergirded by specific measures that help to maintain the established order. This paper includes an analysis of two executions in light of the concept of justice. Both events took place in France at the end of the 18th century at a time when the country was transforming into a new democratic state: the French Revolution, in which the monarchy was beheaded literally as well as figuratively. Analysis shows that justice is difficult to attain due to the complexity of the concept and its subjective nature as a construction of the human mind, which is subject to bias.

One of the executions under consideration took place in 1796, after the condemned person, Richard Ludman, had been convicted of killing another man. Although direct evidence to prove Ludman’s guilt was not found, some details existed that enabled the judge’s determination (“The Last Dying Speeches”). Richard Ludman confessed and was executed according to the decision of the court. The other execution, which took place in 1793, is an event in French history that continues as a subject of discussion because it involved the execution of the king of France, Louis XVI (“The Execution of Louis XVI”). The differences that characterized the two condemned individuals, as well as their crimes, affected the application of the principles of justice in each case.

To establish a basis for analysis, it is necessary to consider the scene. The French Revolution, ending the monarchy, erupted in 1789 as a result of the collapse of social and political orders that had been established centuries earlier. French absolutism, largely relying on the power of the nobility and clergy over the common people, failed because the existing social construction was unable to respond to the needs of industrial society (Jones 4). The country was transforming as technological advances began to influence the production of goods. In the process, capitalism became a reality that the established order tried to dismiss.

The economic situation in the country had also worsened due to losses from the Seven Year War, unfavorable weather conditions over several consecutive years, and ineffective management in almost all spheres of life in French society. Famine and a high level of unemployment led to numerous riots among people who were starving and oppressed (Jones 28). The government failed to make the economy more efficient, instead choosing to use violence to suppress rioting and disobedience. This course of action further intensified the tension between the ruling classes and the rest of France. Louis XVI was obviously unprepared to address all these challenges, leading to negative consequences for millions of people, including himself.

The revolution aimed at changing the social and political order, which might be considered a positive shift for the country. France needed transformation in order to remain on the political world map and remain one of the most powerful countries in Europe. However, the changes were implemented in a chaotic manner and were accompanied by a considerable degree of violence. Although executions are associated with the time of the French Revolution, they had been a common type of entertainment for people before this period. In that light, the execution of Richard Ludman could be considered an ordinary event as numerous criminals were sentenced to death in his time. Ludman had committed murder for some material benefit and was to be executed as a murderer. In this case, the principles of justice were manifested since a man who took another individual’s life gave his own life in return. Many cultures have deemed this formula fair, and it is still applied in some parts of the world.

The case of Louis XVI was different since, although he did not murder anyone with his own hands, he was also executed. The French people blamed him for all their misfortunes and the disaster that had afflicted their homeland. Clearly, it would be difficult to pronounce the king completely guilty in this respect as the country was governed by his ministers and advisors. Moreover, at the time Louis XVI ascended to the throne, France had been affected by numerous social and political ills that his predecessors had largely ignored. Thus, the newly crowned ruler also found himself in the complicated position of having to balance the needs and demands of the nobility and clergy (that supported monarchy) against the needs of common people who invested their labor and produced wealth. The great difficulty lay in the fact that the nobility was likely to overthrow the monarch for any actions that reduced their power and prosperity.

As mentioned, the state needed serious reforms to bring change to the no-longer-viable old order. However, the king failed to understand what was required and made many mistakes during his rule. For example, he suppressed riots and executed people, allowed his country to start a war that caused thousands of casualties, and he failed to ensure the development of the economy to prevent famine and unemployment (Jones 28). Louis XVI had the power to make final decisions as the political order of France was absolutism, putting it within his scope to make hard decisions and start painful but needed reforms. Therefore, he can be said to have been responsible for the deaths of many even though he did not actually commit murder.

As a result, the French people decided that the king would have to pay for those victims of his reign. At his execution, when the former ruler was about to speak his last words, the people in the street started shouting and refused to listen to him (“The Execution of Louis XVI”). Parisians were enraged and demanded his death; they were unwilling to hear anything he might have to say. The exclamation of the condemned man was remarkable: “I forgive my enemies—I die innocent!” (“The Execution of Louis XVI”). In other words, the deposed king apparently believed he did not deserve such a punishment as he had not committed a crime. However, his former subjects did not support this viewpoint, continuing to blame the king for all their problems. They found him guilty and wanted the strictest punishment for this man who (according to public opinion) had ruined the lives of millions.

At this point, it is necessary to consider an important aspect of justice. As all should receive what they deserve, so an individual who had killed someone was to be executed. The case of Richard Ludman, who confessed although there was no direct evidence regarding his crime, seems clear in that light (“The Last Dying Speeches”). However, the situation with Louis XVI is less obvious. A trial took place, in which numerous details associated with wars, famine, unemployment, and the royal family’s extravagant lifestyle were articulated. It seemed to many that the king held complete power to stop (or not to start) wars, give food to those in need, and be less wasteful. However, in reality, he could only control his family’s expenses, yet he seemed not to care enough to perform even that minimal service. The country was in a difficult geopolitical position and was economically inefficient, precluding simple solutions, and the king failed to exercise the necessary power irrespective of French absolutism.

While the crimes credited to the king were numerous and serious, they were not properly considered during the trial. In short, the execution of Louis XVI was neither a manifestation of justice nor an act of punishment but rather a mere act of revenge on the people who had suffered because of the social order that had been established centuries before the French Revolution. No one listened to the defense team or even the prosecution as the citizens now wanted a complete overthrow of the French monarchy as well as the physical destruction of the person who embodied the institution. Therefore, the execution of Louis XVI did not represent a punitive measure aimed at discouraging others from disobeying existing rules and laws. The revolutionaries simply took revenge for centuries of injustice that was a feature of the French society of that period, typical of any feudal society.

The two executions shed light on such facets of justice as punitive and revanchist. The line between the two can be blurred, but the latter cannot occur in a truly just society. Of course, inefficient rule and the king’s performance of his duties were factors, and he deserved punishment. However, it was essential for his judges to listen carefully to all the details and arguments of the various parties. Such analysis might have helped the country develop a more effective solution without those victims and a ruined economy. Even though Louis XVI was responsible for his decisions and his unwillingness or inability to rule effectively cost him his life, his revanchist execution created a dangerous precedent that undermined the principles of justice. Certain acts should lead to specific consequences, which is one of the pillars of the concept under discussion. When punishment is used to satisfy the desire for revenge without thorough consideration of the situation, justice can become truly blind and unequally applied.

Apart from a general understanding of the purpose of justice, the two executions reveal another important aspect of the matter. Richard Ludman and Louis XVI represented different social strata, affecting the way they were executed. Louis XVI was guillotined (beheaded) as suited to nobility, while Richard Ludman was hanged as a poor person. Thus, even in the method of execution, justice was applied differently for the rich and the poor. Notably, the guillotine later replaced the gallows, and all French people became equal in terms of execution. However, justice never became completely equal for everyone.

In the 18th century, these two distinct types of punishment were acceptable, unopposed by the social groups of the time. Those belonging to the nobility and royal representatives were beheaded, while the peasantry and the poor were hanged. The latter type of execution was regarded as more vulgar and was associated with more suffering and less concern for the condemned. The guillotine was created as technological advancement and a more humane alternative to other methods of execution. In this light, it is reasonable to assert that justice should be based on complete equality and equivalency. Along those lines, a person who committed a milder crime could be fined to repay the harm caused to society.

As mentioned, murder demands execution as a consequence. At that, a single murder in pursuit of some economic benefit can hardly be juxtaposed with the death and misery of thousands. Ludman killed a man and was sentenced to execution by hanging, a painful and prolonged death. In comparison, Louis XVI was sentenced to a less painful and more humane mode of execution. It might be argued that a man who had caused many deaths and endangered the entire country deserved the punishment associated with more pain. However, it appears that social status was stronger than the desire for revenge.

It is obvious that justice was not applied in an equally harsh manner to the two prisoners under consideration as the poor murderer suffered (suffocating) before his death, while the king felt almost nothing but perhaps damage to his pride. This practice still holds true today. In many countries, the poor are subjected to harsh punishment while rich and powerful individuals are rarely punished at all. Even Western countries cannot boast complete justice when it comes to punishment; people who have money have more opportunities since they can pay high-profile lawyers to save them. Less fortunate individuals lack such opportunities, which results in overcrowded prisons where underprivileged groups comprise the majority. During the collapse of absolutism, even though the most prominent lawyers could hardly help the king, Louis XVI still received a certain kind of mercy in the form of the guillotine.

The concepts of morality and humanness associated with justice are manifested in the way the two prisoners pronounced their last words. Although Richard Ludman, an impoverished murderer, was hanged, he was also given the privilege of saying his last words. In his final speech, he addressed young men, taking pains to warn them about “bad houses” and “lewd women” (“The Last Dying Speeches”). The crowd of spectators listened to him, which could be regarded as a comforting act. The condemned managed to reconcile with himself through his last words, making it possible for him to spend the last moments of his life with less despair and horror. Some of those who came to watch his execution might even have felt mercy toward him or gained an understanding of the reasons behind his crime.

The spectators at the execution of Louis XVI did not express the same level of sympathy; they did not let him speak before his execution. They clearly did not want to offer any kind of comfort in their hatred of the king. The public was eager to show disrespect and disobedience even in the last moments of the king’s life. As he had been too far from his people during his rule, so they decided to remain as distant from him as possible during his execution. No mercy was possible as the monarchy had not shown mercy over the course of centuries. However, the king may have comforted himself in claiming his innocence. So, the aspects of humanness are more often in the hands of outsiders who can choose either to express their support or try to make the last moments of the condemned painful and full of disgrace, at least in the case of a public execution.

In conclusion, it is necessary to note that justice is a complex notion that often remains a declaration rather than reality. The French Revolution contributed to the creation of many democratic societies in the world but failed to ensure the rule of justice during or after its time. Louis XVI was not simply punished for his crime, which received scant analysis in the courtroom, but the king was destroyed as a symbol of absolutism. Thus, justice for the king was revanchist but still shaped by the conventions of a feudal society. Accused of killing millions, he was nonetheless executed as a royal person due to archaic traditions. Richard Ludman, executed several years later, was not given the same privilege due to his social position. In both cases, the public expressed its attitude toward the condemned men and tried to make them feel in accordance with their past actions. Importantly, justice remains a subjective concept, characterized by inequality based on an accused individual’s socioeconomic profile. Although a solution is unlikely to be found, it is vital to make an effort to create a society where justice resides.

Works Cited

Jones, P. M. The French Revolution 1787-1804. 3rd ed., Taylor & Francis, 2016.

“The Execution of Louis XVI. on the 21st. of January, 1793.”CBBcat, 1793, Web.

“The Last Dying Speeches of Those Inhumane Murderers.”CBBcat, 1796, Web.

Introduction

Racial bias in the judiciary system in the United States has been a topic of discussion for decades. Whereas the judicial system is supposed to uphold the rights of everyone without bias, it appears to have failed to support the same within itself. Critics and scholars have discussed and debated racial prejudice experienced during arrests. Minority races have suffered the most in this regard, and have been faulted due to the color of their skin. Specifically, the essay will discuss racial disparities in the justice system. It will be proved that racial disparities in the justice system are caused by individual/personal bias and not flaws in the system.

Why do Racial Disparities Still Occur in the Justice System of the United States?

Racial disparity in the US justice system has only grown more intense over the years. Interestingly, many people in the US believe that they are not racists. Burch (2015) argues that racial bias in the judiciary system has grown due to the rejection of the idea of racial disparity. The premise suggests that people do not want to believe that there is racial bias in the system, to the point that they are not comfortable discussing solutions to the problem. Thus, the stated issue has been ignored and due to this, has grown exponentially.

Indeed, it can be argued that policies (Hetey & Eberhardt, 2014) and general racial bias resulted in an unfair system. The two minority groups that have experienced racial disparities in post-conviction sentencing are the black American and Hispanic communities. Using history as a backdrop, one can argue that the convictions held by the forefathers have been carried through generations.

Black American and Hispanic communities formed much of the hard labor work force in American history. Apart from this, they were perceived to encourage crime due to their culture, and their socio-economic class (Leiber & Peck, 2015). Both communities were believed to participate in violent and gang-related crimes. There have been attempts to resolve the issue of racial discrimination in post-sentencing convictions based specifically on the color of the skin, and on the beliefs of the past. One factor that has become clearer with time towards this end is that identifying the causes of the bias is the first step to resolving the issue.

Disparities Are Usually Cumulative and Not Characterized by a Clear Beginning and a Definite Ending

Fader, Kurlychek and Morgan (2014) argue that despite disparities being cumulative, they cannot be characterized by a clear beginning or a definite end. In discussing the sociology of racial bias in the justice system, one has to think back and draw lessons from history. As mentioned, the minority groups served as slaves and formed the hard labor workforce in the US. Due to this, they were oriented to depend on groups. The groups were formed within the larger racial group. It is this fact that contributed to the creation of groups post slavery. Initially, the said groups were for social support and not for committing a crime. However, and unfortunately, some groups turned into criminal gangs in an attempt to survive the harsh realities of a very competitive economy. It is at this point that the minority groups were associated with violent crime.

Important to note, the violence can be denoted from the fact that criminal gangs at the time, would snatch jewelry and money from unsuspecting victims. The crimes graduated and became larger and more dangerous. As the crime rate in the US grew, poor and middle-class Caucasians also felt the urge to commit a crime as the Black Americans and Latinas had introduced cheap labor into the market such that their (Caucasian’s) skills and services were no longer required as they were deemed too expensive. Towards this end, therefore, Caucasians also formed criminal gangs. However, due to the bias that had already been established through the years before that time, the society only acknowledged crime that was committed by black Americans to the extent that innocent black Americans would be accused of crimes that Caucasians had committed.

Identification and Understanding the Causes of Racial Disparities May Be the First Step to This Problem’s Solution

According to MacDonald, Arkes, Nicosia and Pacula (2014), racial disparities in the court system between black and white accused individuals are based on court officials’ opinions, and not necessarily, the case facts. The scholars used a scientific study to prove their premise. They took California as the area of study due to its racial diversity and high crime rate. Through the study, the scholars determined that the opinion held by court officials, namely the judge, prosecutor and the jury, has a lot to do with racial preferences compared to the case facts. Thereby, the root of the problem, according to MacDonald et al. (2014), is the beliefs held by individuals.

After the banning of slavery, black Americans were released into the society to fend for themselves. Important to note, as slaves, they were sheltered, clothed and fed albeit very modestly. Releasing them into a competitive economy, with little to no skill, and expecting them to survive was impractical. The said ethnic community grouped themselves in informal settlements, and this led to the rise of gangs, albeit not all being criminal gangs (MacDonald et al., 2014). Some scholars, such as Cochran and Mears, (2015), have refuted the debate terming it generalized. Despite this, the one obvious factor that comes across is that the belief that has fueled racial bias in the judiciary system arose from the history of both Caucasian and black American cultures.

According to a report by the American Civil Liberties Union (2014), racial bias in post-conviction sentencing in the US is alarming. The report states that black Americans get jailed 20% longer than Caucasians, despite having done the same crime. Also, the rate of incarceration is higher in black and Latina men than it is in Caucasian men (American Civil Liberties Union, 2014). The reasons can be traced back to the discussed factors.

As mentioned, much of the decisions that weigh on an individual sentence are made by court officials. Towards this end, it is crucial to also evaluate the role of the court officials, particularly the jury, regarding racial bias during sentencing. Lee McCormick, Hicken and Wildeman (2015) argue that the selection of the jury for any court case is a strategic process for both the prosecutor and the defender. However, jury members of black American descent are rarely involved. At this juncture, it is important to note that many black Americans are accorded black American state defenders. This works against them many a time, especially in jury selection. The power of the office of the prosecutor, combined with the race of the prosecutor, make it nearly impossible for the defender to suggest and add jury members of black American descent. It can be argued that the mere fact that both prosecutor and defender have to turn to races to win a case is disconcerting and proves the point.

Still on the public defenders, majority bargain out of court with prosecutors even when their clients are innocent. The fact that they are overworked and have resigned to the fact that the system will always be against them makes it easier for such public defenders to throw in the towel. Lee et al., (2015) confirm that a meager 3 to 5% of cases that involve black Americans get to trial. For Caucasians, the number jumps to also 94%.

Racial Disparities in Different States and the Outcomes that Cannot be Neglected

Burch (2015) confirm that in Georgia, black Americans are sent to prison 4.25% higher than whites. The discussion, using the given premise, therefore, goes down to whether the black Americans are more crime-prune than Caucasians. Burch (2015) suggests that matters regarding racial disparities in sentencing fail to consider the fact that black Americans, due to their social status, had to resort to crime to survive. Many scholars buy into the premise that history created crime and gangs that are associated with different races. Florida and California have also been identified to have more bias in regard to race than other states. Suffices to mention, the state does not matter much in regard to racial bias in the judiciary system. The impact of the bias, whether extreme or not, is what matters. Such bias denies basic human rights to the affected, in this case the Black American community. The bias also excludes the said community from the general society as they are perceived to be destructive.

Manifestation of Racial Disparities

MacDonald et al., (2014), explain that different types of cases arise different opinions regarding race. Cases that involve drug abuse, drug trafficking, and violent crimes are usually biased against black Americans and Latinas. On the other hand, white color crimes will mainly include Caucasians. Interestingly, if a black American and a Caucasian are accused of the same type of offense, a majority of court officials will be biased against the black American (MacDonald et al., 2014). As mentioned, the scholars believe that court officials fuel the disparities through their personal beliefs.

Another manifestation of bias based on skin color in post-conviction sentencing is identified in prisoners with life sentences without the possibility of parole (American Civil Liberties Union, 2014). The American Civil Liberties Union (2014) report suggests that there are more Black Americans serving life sentences without the possibility of parole in the US than Caucasians. Interestingly, court records show an equal amount of suspects for similar crimes between the two identified human races. The premise goes to show that there is indeed some form/forms of racial bias in post-conviction sentencing. Lee et al. (2015) also add that black Americans had a 33% chance higher of staying in prison awaiting trials compared to Caucasians. Caucasians would, therefore, have an easier process for requesting and acquiring bail compared to black Americans arrested for similar assault charges.

Reducing Racial Disparities in the US

It is clear that people have to take actions to resolve the racial disparities in the judicial system. Several actions have been suggested over time to help resolve the problem of racial disparities in sentencing. One such action is the creation of agencies that take up cases that have any form of prejudice based on race. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Equal Justice Initiative have been actively involved in such situations. These organizations work hand in hand with the government to ensure fair and equal treatment of convicts. Additionally, policies have been reviewed and updated to ensure that impartial and equitable hearing for all persons in upheld in the judicial system. The American Bar Association has also put up measures to ensure such cases are brought to light.

The task at hand is, however, still quite tedious. Behavioral change is sociologically one of the hardest things to do. However, the difficulty does not in any way suggest impossibility of the task. Some behavioral change strategies that can be implemented include community and interpersonal campaigns with influential and respected members of the different communities that will be targeted. The campaigns should be personalized such that they speak to an individual as opposed to a racial group to demystify personal negative beliefs and opinions about race. It can be confidently stated that by tackling the problem at such a low level, the society will be able to accommodate differences based on culture, as there are no differences based on skin color.

Conclusion

In conclusion, many factors have to be considered when discussing racial disparity in the judicial system. One such factor is the manifestation of racial prejudice in sentencing. Evidence points to a bias against minority groups, especially black Americans, in sentencing. For instance, black Americans serve longer sentences than Caucasians who have committed the same crime. Also, the rate of black Americans denied bail during trial is higher than that of Caucasians. Thirdly, a majority of cases that involve black Americans are settled out of court as compared to those affecting Caucasians. All these factors, among others, have accelerated the bias in the judicial system towards black Americans.

References

American Civil Liberties Union (2014). Racial Disparities in Sentencing Hearing on Reports of Racism in the Justice System of the United States, One Hundred and Fifty Third Session, October 27 2014. New York, NY: Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

Burch, T. (2015). Skin color and the criminal justice system: Beyond black-white disparities in sentencing. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 12(3), 395-420. Web.

Cochran, J. & Mears, P. D. (2015). Race, ethnic and gender dividers in juvenile court sanctioning and rehabilitative intervention. Journal of Research Crime and Delinquency, 52(2), 181-212. Web.

Fader, J. J., Kurlychek, M. C. & Morgan, K. (2014). The color of juvenile justice: Racial disparities in disproportional decisions. Social Science Research, 44, 126-140. Web.

Hetey, R. & Eberhardt, L. J. (2014). Racial disparities in incarceration increase acceptance of punitive policies. Psychological Science, 25(10), 1949 – 1954. Web.

Lee, H., McCormick, T., Hicken, T. M. & Wildeman, C. (2015). Racial Inequalities in connectedness to imprisoned individuals in the United States. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 12(2), 269-282. Web.

Leiber, M. & Peck, J. (2015). Race, gender, crime severity, and decision making in the juvenile justice system. Crime & Delinquency, 61(6), 771-797. Web.

MacDonald, J., Arkes, J., Nicosia, N. & Pacula, L. R. (2014). Decomposing racial disparities in prison and drug treatment commitments for criminal offenders in California. Journal of Legal Studies, 43(1), 155-187. Web.

Introduction

The terms First Nations and Aboriginal people are commonly used to refer to indigenous people in Canada. The group makes up about 4% of the total population in Canada. The Constitution Act, 1982 recognizes three groups categorized as Aboriginal people. They include Indians, Métis and Inuit.

Large numbers of Aborigines occupy the northern part of Canada but few numbers are scattered all over the country. Statistics collected during the 2001 Census in Canada showed that North American Indians comprised a population of 957,650; Métis were 266,020 while the Inuit’s were 44,835.

It is however argued that the bureau did not give exact figures. The number of aboriginal people is expected to be larger than that. The question of Aborigines has been a major concern in Canada and Australia since the arrival of first colonialists from Britain (Comeau & Santin, 1995).

First nations/Aborigines in Canada

According to Comeau and Santin (1995), first Nations lived in large nomadic groups in Australia and parts of North America now referred to as Canada. Treaties between settlers and aborigines were signed to enable exchange of goods and services. Some of the treaties included peace and friendship treaties in which aborigines were promised protection against other colonizing powers.

With time, settlers took control over the aborigines and what used to be their agreement was not recognized anymore. The settlers then pushed them to the reserves. This was not a difficult task because tribal fights and small pox infections had reduced their numbers greatly. Settlers then occupied the land initially owned by aborigines and established their own farms.

Since aborigines could not understand English, settlers took the advantage and interpreted the established treaties in their favor. One of the major problems facing aborigines in the modern society is injustices in the court system.

Comeau and Santin (1995) state that aboriginal people account for the largest number of people found in the correctional institutions in Canada. For instance, in Manitoba, a province in Canada, 12% of the total population is aboriginal people. However, they comprise over half of the number of criminals taken to correctional facilities on a daily basis.

This is a suggestion that the rate of crimes among the aborigines is high or they are discriminated against by the justice system. Studies have shown that racial discrimination is deeply rooted in Manitoba. The justice system discriminates against the aborigines because their cultural values and experiences differ from those of the dominant society.

The decision making body in the system of Justice discriminates against aborigines at all points and that’s the reason behind their large numbers in the correctional institutions.

For instance, most of the accused are denied bail, they spend more time in pre-trial detention, there is a likelihood of being charged with multiple offences, stand at high chances of being incarcerated, and finally lawyers spent more time with non-aborigines than they do with aborigines.

Studies have shown that there is a likelihood of aborigines appearing in court without lawyers. This is why they are over represented in every step of the judicial system beginning from charging to sentencing of offenders (Comeau & Santin, 1995).

Social

Crime rate is high among the aborigines than other societies. The following are some of the contributing factors to the increased rate of crimes. They include poor living conditions, unequal distribution of resources, lack of education, high rates of unemployment, inadequate health facilities, cultural values and traditions among other factors. Cultural values expose them to crime for instance; some of them still exercise their hunting and fishing rights which is against the law (Stenning, 1995).

According to Stenning (1995), most of the aborigine households are poverty stricken. It is estimated that more that half of the total number of aborigine households live below the poverty line compared to only 20% of non-aborigine households. The high rate of unemployment among aborigine families is directly related to lack of sufficient education.

They are provided with poor quality education services which make it difficult for them to get good positions in the employment sector which is highly competitive. Due to poverty, most of the aborigines live in overcrowded poor housing conditions. Death rate as a result of air born and water born diseases like diarrhea are high because of poor sanitation facilities. Large numbers of people are forced to live in a small congested house because they cannot afford good and spacious houses which are expensive.

Loss of land to settlers is a major contributing factor to high levels of poverty experienced by the aborigine communities. Aborigines blame the justice system for its failure to assist them in claiming their land which they lost to the settlers or in ensuring that settlers observe their promises.

The system seems to support settlers. This is because at one time, lawyers were not allowed to represent aborigines without getting permission from the federal government. In addition, aborigines were not allowed to contribute money within themselves to carry on with their claims of their lost land. In addition, the judicial system does not support the Aborigines in fighting the oppressive conditions imposed to them by the dominant societies (Stenning, 1995).

Discriminatory Factors

The impacts that the judicial system has on the Aboriginal people is evident that the system discriminates against them. The judicial system takes advantage of aborigines being economically disadvantaged, high illiteracy levels, cultural differences and lack of representation in the system to offer unfair judgment to them. Many judges take into account employment when considering appropriate sentences to crimes.

Employment is regarded as a sign of trueworthyness based on the assumption that one would not risk to loose his job by getting himself into trouble. Judges would also not want to terminate the job opportunity in favor of people who depend on the accused.

Employment determines whether an individual is to be released on bail or jail sentence is to be imposed. Potentiality in employment enables an individual to be released on parole. This factor affects aborigines negatively because they have no access to employment (Comeau & Santin, 1995).

Programs offered by the government requiring citizens to be educated to benefit from the program negatively affect the aborigines because of high levels of illiteracy. The government assumes that offenders choose to ignore the law which is not the case with aborigines.

This is mainly because they are not able to read the law, may not access government offices and libraries where they can acquire legal information in addition to the fact that their school curriculum may not provide lessons about the law. It is unfair to assume that aborigines should know the right and wrong in non-aborigine communities because their concept of culture is different.

The justice system should reach them in their first language to make them understand the law. The system should publish articles written in their first language and allow representatives of the group to sit in the juries. This will enhance their understanding of the law.

Aboriginal communities lack important facilities, services and resources which expose them to poor treatment. Most aborigine communities lack counseling services within their home areas. Whether or not to release the accused on bail, parole or probation are decisions which require supervision.

Aborigines are under-represented in the judicial system. Moreover, they are excluded in the decision making body. This is a clear indication that the decisions arrived at will be culturally inappropriate for aborigine people (Comeau & Santin, 1995).

Areas of Discrimination in the Justice System

Process of Choosing People to be policed

There is a tendency of the police to view people in terms of being “criminals” or “respectable”. The police tend to pay more attention on the first group than they do to the second.

They take seriously crimes committed by the aborigines whose culture is different from that of the dominant society because of the fear that they may commit even serious crimes. Police actions are concentrated to groups which seem to be a threat to the rest of the community.

For instance, aboriginal youth group may be barred from gathering in a park by the police for fear of engaging in deviant activities. Studies show that many poverty stricken people engage in crimes. Based on this, police associate crimes with aborigines because they are poor.

It has been observed that some of the aborigines are arrested and held in custody because of an offence which a non-aborigine was neither held nor arrested at all (Kelly & Clarke, 2002).

Pre-Trial Detention

Factors like employment and education are considered by judges in determining whether to grant bail to the accused or not. These factors do not favor aborigines because of their disadvantaged position.

Representation in the System of Justice

High poverty levels among Aborigines make it difficult for them to get lawyers to represent them in courts. The low incomes make it difficult for them to pay a lawyer the result of which they appear alone in courts. This is a good opportunity for the judges to offer unfair judgment (Kelly & Clarke, 2002).

Hearing Process

Before confirmation of charges, the accused person should face several hearings before the court. Out of respect of the officers found in court, some aborigines may be tempted to give answers which they think the officials expect. The rules and procedures used in courts are also discriminative.

For example in the circuit court, there is a one month interval between one court case to the other. However for aborigines, the period can last for several months. Because of the delay, some aborigine victims choose to plead guilty to cut down this period. Aborigines found committing serious crimes are not tried in local courts where some of their community members are present (Hester & Eglin, 1992).

Sentencing

Judges consider the economic position of the accused when offering sentence. Studies show that aborigines are treated harshly because they commit more crimes and also because they are poor (Hester & Eglin, 1992).

Conclusion

Although studies have shown that aborigines commit more crimes than the rest of communities in Canada, the oppressive legal sanctions provided by the system of justice discriminates against them at all levels. The government of Canada should ensure that laws in the judicial system which discriminate against aborigines are removed. Like other citizens, they should be offered fair and equal hearings by the court of law. This will promote unity in the country.

References

Comeau, P. & Santin, A. (1995). The first Canadians: A profile of Canada’s native people today. Ontario: James Lorimer & Company.

Hester, S. & Eglin, P. (1992). A Sociology of Crime. New York, NY: Routledge.

Kelly, H. & Clarke, E. (2002). Deviant behavior: A text-reader in the sociology of deviance. New York: Worth Publishers.

Stenning, P. (1995). Accountability for criminal justice: selected essays. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Introduction

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 Sandel’s 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 writer’s opinion on the same.

Examination of Sandel’s 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 “don’t 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 society’s 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 Sandel’s 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 Sandel’s 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 people’s beliefs, among them religious inclination, infers ignoring them in their reasoning.

To this end, a question remains, does ignorance of other people’s 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 Sandel’s 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, Rawl’s 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.

Works Cited

Mill, John. Utilitarianism. London: Routledge, 2003, Print.

Rawl, John. A Theory of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Print.

Sandel, Michael. Justice: A reader. Oxford: Oxford University press, 2007. Print.

Sandel, Michael. Justice: What is the right thing to do? New York: Farar, Sraus and Giroux, 2009. Print.

Health has always been people’s key priority, which encouraged the humankind to conduct the most daring experiments. One of the most recent concerns, the choice between the social and the medical justice, has emphasized once again the importance of the biological approach to the needs and wants of people. Because of the biological element within human beings is strong enough to dominate the social one and often predetermines the latter, it is essential to draw the line between the social and the medical justice.

It must be admitted that the two models, the social justice and the medical one, concern different aspects of people’s lives. In contrast to the medical one, which touches upon exclusively medical and biological issues, the system of social justice concerns the sphere of the social life of the individuals. Therefore, it must be admitted that the two models offer different viewpoints of one and the same problem – people’s activity. Hence, considering the basic aspects of human’s life, one can claim with certainty that the structure of the social model offers the consideration of people’s life together with a number of social factors that influence it, whereas the biological one presupposes the specifics off human body firsthand (Stewart 6).

It is also essential to realize that the majority of the humankind has few chances to succeed. Taking a closer look at the table suggested by Kronenberg (618), one can see that the social injustice is obvious and shocking. There is no doubt that something has to be done to prevent such things as the inequality, the lack or absence o medical service, poverty and famine from occurring. In spite of the fact that such reforms might take hundreds of years, something has to be started straightaway, otherwise the situation will grow increasingly threatening until people finally give in and stop the fight. For this not to happen, the current situation in the world must be reconsidered and the necessary measures are to be taken. Since at present the social injustice as well as the medical one hinders the career of the challenged people, the aspects of the medical and social justice touching upon the social acceptation of the disabled people must be reconsidered.

This is where the profession of the OT, or the occupational therapist, stems from. As Braveman explained, “occupational therapy’s vision is to promote social justice by enabling people to participate as valued members of society despite diverse or limited occupational potential” (8). Aimed at helping people with physical and mental disparities to enter the society and live a full life, this profession is of paramount importance in the modern society. Helping to level the social and the medical justice in the society, the profession of the OT proves one of the most essential at the moment.

Unfortunately, the need in the OT specialists is evident. Despite the common understanding of the complicacies that the disabled have to face, the society is not ready yet to accept such people as their peers. As Bass-Haugen marled, “An analysis of variables relevant to occupational therapy from the selected surveys showed evidence of health disparities for race/ethnicity and income levels” (27)

With help of the OT professionals, the rights of the disabled and challenged people will be restored. Assisting the latter in their integration into the society, OTs will bridge people. Perhaps, this will make the humankind a bit more humane.

Reference List

Bass-Haugen, J. D. (2009). Health Disparities: Examination of Evidence Relevant for Occupational Therapy. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63, 24–34.

Braveman, B., & Bass-Haugen, J. D. (2009). From the Desks of the Guest Editors – Social Justice and Health Disparities: An Evolving Discourse in Occupational Therapy Research and Intervention. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63, 7–12.

Kronenberg, F. & Polland, N. (2006) Political Dimensions of Occupation and the Roles of Occupational Therapy. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 60 (6): 617-625

Stewart, D., & Law, M. (2003) The Environment: Paradigms and Practice in Health, Occupational Therapy and Inquiry. Using Environments to Enable Occupational Performance. Ed. Lori Letts et al.

Sustainable Partnership with Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions are goals 16 and 17 of the sustainable development goals developed by the UN General Assembly. Numerous policies and strategies have been proposed and are already involved in the change process aimed at accomplishing those ambitious agendas. However, it can be argued that one of the most effective ideas for achieving successful and sustainable Partnership with Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions is the creation of special public awareness teams.

These teams will be created in all UN member states and cooperate with the official UN Offices in those countries. However, they will focus on the relations with the public in order to reinforce achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals 16 and 17. For example, they will encourage citizens to take part in programs and procedures aimed at holding state governments accountable for their commitments to the goals (“Lecture 14,” 2022). They would increase public awareness about the importance of voting, explaining that every vote matters and counts in creating a more accountable, just, inclusive, and peaceful society (“Lecture 14,” 2022). In can be argued raising public awareness is one of the most efficient steps towards achieving the 17th goal.

In addition, these teams will help establish stronger partnerships between states. They will organize programs that will involve people from different countries working together, engaging through social media and other platforms. They will work with their foreign partners to ensure that there is less corruption in their societies and engage in different environmental activities in their local communities. The type of global entrepreneurship that would be most applicable for this idea is “horizontally minded entrepreneurship for problem solving” (“Lecture 14,” 2022). This model is likely to be the most efficient type because it provides opportunities for the comprehensive integration of human resources, skills, and knowledge.

Reference

Lecture 14: Global Creativity for Sustainable Innovation / Sustainable Global Innovation [PDF]. (2022).

Introduction

Different concepts of justice derive from distinct perspectives on society, human needs, and potential for positive social evolution. Usually, justice is associated with an equitable and adequate social structure that aims to fulfill essential human rights. It is regarded as a social notion, and harmonic social structure is commonly perceived as the only fair basis for the sound development of global communities.

Nowadays, a great variety of theories of justice exist, but the theory suggested by John Rawls is considered the most influential conception of the 20th century. The key role in Rawls’ stance is given to the idea of the social contract. His theory is grounded on the identification of hypothetical ideal situations in which all citizens are responsible for the political and economic welfare of their society. The main argument provided by the philosopher in ideal theory refers to the fact that hypothetically developed principles of justice serve as the only reasonable basis for efficient problem-solving in a world that is far from its ideal state. In this way, another component of Rawls’ perspective, non-ideal theory, strives to find a way to achieve distant ideal goals. His concept aims to detect the effective, realistic, and ethical methods for moving in the desired direction whereas ideal theory principles serve as the basis for the practical implementation of non-ideal theory methods.

Rawls’ ideal theory continues to provoke disputes among political philosophers and practitioners. While supporters consider it a practical method for problem-solving, the opponents of the theory impugn its validity and accuse its intuitive nature of insufficiency of rationalization of supporting its practical utility. Despite the potential disadvantages discussed by the opponents of Rawlsian ideas, this paper argues that ideal theory is a useful component of the theory of global justice. The following literature review and analysis of distinct perceptions of justice aims to identify the scope and utility of ideal theory application as a method for the achievement of consent at the level of international political relations.

Global Justice

Social Justice and Sociality

The notion of justice refers to the alignment between the social roles of diverse citizens and their status, their rights and responsibilities, acts and rewards, merits and recognition, etc., while the failure proportionally to correlate these aspects of social performance can be regarded as an injustice.

The literature review makes it clear that the conceptual content of justice definition and perceptions of justice are not universal for all times and cultures – they always depend on particular historical experiences and contexts. Philosophers suggest that cultural values and beliefs define the content of the justice principles in particular social environments. However, there are many similar features among the diverse perspectives on social justice that indicate some common features of human sociality and their theoretical descriptions. Thus, the formation of these similar social characteristics may be influenced by the universal human needs and human nature itself.

The majority of modern researchers regard a human as a social being, and it is considered that the essence of sociality is rooted in the alignment of individual and collective needs. Although total harmony in relations between society and individuals is hardly achievable, Hossain and Ali suggest regarding harmonic relations between citizens and society as a higher rule of their mutual expediency. It means that individual needs should be fulfilled only when taking into account the needs of other citizens and social welfare while the interests of the whole society should be realized by considering the interests of each social agent. It is suggested to resolve potential conflicts between individuals and society according to the principle of social unity that encourages tolerance and security in order to maintain social equality. Only this kind of social structure can be perceived as harmonious.

According to Brian Barry, social justice is a mutual advantage that can be approached merely when the principle of social impartiality is fulfilled. Along with equal opportunities, impartiality ensures equal access to social advantages by all citizens. Social impartiality denotes an equal quality of life, level of life satisfaction, and status of individuals in any social system. Because the absolute equitability of individuals is unreachable due to the natural demographic differences (age, physical capability, intellectual aptitude, etc.), it is important to consider these aspects of inequality that do not lead to the elimination of impartiality but, on the contrary, strengthen and deepen it. Thus, the unity of equality and natural inequality, their proportional correlation, as well as the impartial treatment of all citizens, comprise the content of social justice in multiple aspects: political, legal, moral, etc.

Rawls’ Perspective on the Concept of Justice

John Rawls regards fairness as the initial merit of social institutions and justice as fairness can be characterized by the criterion of reciprocity, “viewed and applied between free and equal citizens.” According to Rawls’ perspective, an individual has a right to freedom and social integrity grounded in the principle of fairness and it cannot be violated even by the most prospering society and political structure.

The principle of fairness is the basis of Rawls’ view of justice. Justice as fairness, in its turn, implies the implementation of equality and cooperation principles that will be accepted by reasonable individuals, pursuing their own interests in initial equal circumstances. The principle of fairness does not allow the freedom of any citizen to become a subject of the political bargain. And based on this, justice is perceived by Rawls as the expression of personal dignity and the basis of individual self-respect.

Potential Controversies

The principle of fairness grounded in Rawls’ theory does not have a solid rationale and is expressed as an intuitive idea. Intuitivism is defined by the author “as the doctrine that there is an irreducible family of first principles which have to be weighed against one another by asking ourselves which balance, in our considered judgment, is the justest.” The intuitive idea of justice as fairness relies on the comprehension of justice principles as the objects of initial agreement that would perfectly suit particular circumstances, and these principles should be equally accepted by the parties interested in the promotion of their interests.

Rawls attempts to mitigate his intuitive claims and give them rationalization by introducing the principle of reflective equilibrium. The major methodological aspect of the principle involves the comparison of distinct moral principles and judgments that may lead to the establishment of balance among diverse arguments relevant to a particular case. However, such a method does not necessarily lead to complete rationalization and validation of any moral judgment. Based on this, there is no objective criterion for morality. And Rawls’ concepts may lead to subjectivism and consequent irrationalism in the understanding of justice.

Ideal Theory

Major Principles

In his vision of justice as fairness, Rawls managed to give a second wind to the model of a social contract by emphasizing the hypothetical nature of peoples’ agreements on justice. In this situation, the terms of a social contract and the contract itself are described as hypothetical, non-actual. Ultimately, the major advantage of the Rawlsian concept is not merely in its capability to realize the idea of justice as a social agreement but also in its attempt to include the ideas of freedom and human dignity into his perception of justice.

According to Rawls’ position, justice as fairness is based on the natural state of social equality that can be aligned with the traditional perspective on social contracts. Such an initial state of equality cannot be perceived as an actual state of affairs, but only as a hypothetical ideal condition applied to lead societies to the formation of a particular idea of justice.

The concept of social contract inevitably entails the possibility of individuals’ noncompliance with the accepted ideal norms of behavior and principles of justice. The problems of partial compliance and violation of social contracts’ terms are actual problems that can be faced in the real-world context. As Rawls states, it is important to base the decision-making process aimed to deal with those topical compliance issues on the ideal theory because it provides the only reasonable ground for the systematic comprehension of the most important social and political problems.

Rawls’ claims are supported by many researchers. For example, recent research of global justice concepts in relation to global poverty issues suggests the implementation of a hypothetical analysis of the ideal principles targeting these problems instead of the mere reflection on non-ideal outcomes. It is stated that “fundamentally appropriate assessment of global circumstances of justice should … provide the ideal grounds of … equality.” Such perspective suggests regarding the nature and the objectives of the ideal and fair society as the fundamental part of the justice theory and provides the frameworks for the development of a profound understanding of the actual situation in the society.

Rawls’ concept of justice is the social ideal, and the principles of this kind of justice comprise a significant portion of this concept. The notion of a social ideal is correlated with the view of a community striving to comply with the principles of justice as fairness and characterized by a high level of social cooperation. At the same time, the ideal society is always rooted in the voluntary mechanisms of its development. It means that a community approaches its ideal state in case liberal and equal citizens autonomously and consciously accept the principles of justice in the context of fair conditions. According to Rawls’ perspective, a reasonable liberal individual would choose the best of the possible schemes of basic goods distribution even in the most unfavorable conditions. It means that in these hypothetical conditions, a reasonable citizen would choose the principles of justice suggested by Rawls.

Non-Ideal Theory

International relations are associated with conventionality, the versatility of political systems, and behavioral motives. Thus, the use of ideal theory as the basis for political decision-making at the international level is appealing, and it may be regarded as a premise for undertaking effective actions.

Rawls distinguishes several types of societies, and because the global system requires their cooperation and consensus, the principles of Rawls’ liberal theory of justice should be accepted by all social structures. While the ideal theory provides the methods for the well-ordered societies – liberal and decent peoples – to utilize the principles of justice and create a fair social environment, non-ideal theory can be applied to deal with two other forms of states – burdened societies and outlaw states. Overall, the non-ideal theory may be regarded as the theory of noncompliance. In its non-ideal section, the theory of justice faces the real-world environment and attempts to respond to the problems that occur there.

The major quality of decent and liberal peoples is their desire to live in a world where all nations would recognize the ideal principles of justice and would follow them. And the non-ideal theory thus can be applied by well-ordered societies to achieve this objective in an efficient and morally acceptable way. Such understanding of non-ideal theory bases itself upon the designed ideal conceptions that serve as the goals in political decision-making.

Significance of Ideal Theory

The global political sphere can be regarded as the generalized realm of international relations, and the concept of justice regulating domestic political activities may be efficiently applied to international politics as well. At the level of global society and international cooperation, the use of liberal methods of the hypothetical social contract for the development of the theory of justice becomes possible because the concept of ideal society excludes the consideration of particular economic and cultural features and geographical differences of diverse states. According to Rawlsian principles of justice, the cooperating international parties should consider only the general human values and such an approach is characterized by a high level of impartiality. In this way, it is possible to say that the initial hypothetical equal state introduced by Rawls in his theory effectively suits the concepts of global justice in international relations.

The principles of ideal theory may serve as the major instruments for the initiation of efficient decisions at the international level. And the application of the hypothetical ideal agreement method may be effective because it implies the consideration of common interests and values rather than national characteristics.

Conclusion

It is possible to conclude that the basic rights and liberties and the concept of global justice related to them essentially correspond to the current practice of international cooperation, international law, and policy. By reflecting the major principles required for the achievement of consensus at the global level and providing a potential ground for the creation of the global social system, Rawls’ ideal theory may serve as the basis for the development of a new form of international relations that would take the stand on common moral values.

References

Barry, Brian. A Treatise on Social Justice, Volume 1. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1889.

Hossain, Anayet and Korban Ali, “Relation Between Individual and Society.” Open Journal of Social Sciences 2, no.8 (2014): 130-137.

Rawls, John. The Law of Peoples: With, The Idea of Public Reason Revisited. London: Harvard University Press, 2001.

Rawls, John. Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999.

Sangiovanni, Andrea. “Justice and the Priority of Politics to Morality.” The Journal of Political Philosophy 16, no.2 (2008): 1-28.

Ypi, Lea. “On the Confusion between Ideal and Non-ideal in Recent Debates on Global Justice,” Political Studies 58, no.3 (2010): 536-555.

Historically, people try to protect the concept of free and equivalent people who together invest in standards of social and political equity. This position is a focal component of John Rawls’ record of equity presented by his theory of justice (Von Platz, 2017). It is intended to be a reasonable and fair perspective which will construct the principles of human thinking about standards of equity.

The primary distinctive element of Rawls’ position is “the veil of ignorance” which safeguards the fairness of judgment. The groups are denied all information on their own attributes and social conditions (Rivera, 2019). The principle of originations of equity is drawn from the custom of a social and political way of thinking. The parties are required to choose the option which best advances their inclinations in setting best conditions which empower all the members of the society and protect each group’s interests. The theory gives reasonable uniformity when hiring someone for a job and empowering everybody to fairly apply to preferred workplaces (Rivera, 2019). It makes sure everyone has a right to protect their sense of pride as free and equal people.

“The veil of ignorance” permits society to test the fairness of ideas. Individuals are formed by their race, class, gender, schooling, appearance, sexuality, profession, and family. As individuals behind “the veil of ignorance” do not have the idea of who they will be in this new society, any decision they make in organizing that society could either hurt them or advantage them (Von Platz, 2017). Thus, this theoretical device helps to address the critical social problem of a liberal democratic government to keep a peaceful plurality even while everyone holds a particular personal position.

References

Rivera, J. (2019). The “original position” as public performance: Liberalism, pluralism, and asceticism.Religions, 10(8), 462. Web.

Von Platz, J. (2017). Veil of Ignorance in Rawlsian Theory. Sage