Category: Justice

Introduction

Citizenry is a core aspect in understanding operations of different regions all over the world. It is becoming increasingly vital in focusing on political, philosophical, social, legal and even humanity studies. It also affects aspects of life for people in all countries in form of legal requirements to operate within or without these countries. It reflects on their ability to receive, or otherwise legal citizenry documents for those born within the countries or those that would wish to operate within these countries.

It affects the rights to education, social benefits, rights to education, rights to acquisition of stipulated redress in courts of justice, rights to given political decisions, and to some extent -and this is unfortunate- the enjoyment of basic universal rights.

In understanding the rights to be a citizen to a given country of countries, there is a strong argument for and against its relation and relevance to the basic theories of justice. It must be said that, subject to existing facts, the right to citizenry does not guarantee fairness, justice, equality economic well-being the respect of public officials or pledge of loyalty, or even still the right to economic well-being. This can be vividly observed in disparities in resource distributions within a particular country to which citizenry is, as claimed, equally enjoyed. This is the basis of argument in this philosophical paper.

The writer will to describe the premise of justice as postulated by different theorists, all the aspects and variations in the most relevant arguments in this context and various criticisms (philosophy is about criticism) in their relevance to citizenry. The writer will then try to reconcile different approaches in defining citizenship and related theories. What will flow is the argument for or about whether theory of justice really needs the theory of citizenship and if so, or otherwise, then why. It must be mentioned here that all deductions after arguments will be the writers understanding of this relationship. The relationship borrows from justice and citizenry in the context or past and working laws of Australia.

Theory of Justice

The term theory of justice may not be relevant until all theories affronted in the subject of justice and judicial and/or legal equality are mentioned and analyzed alongside each other. Justice compete for explanation in the understanding of the Marxists, feminists, utilitarian and libertarians, proponents of individualism and even political pluralists with diverge interests. Reconciling the different views on the theories of justice is a cause of disagreement since some of them are complete opposites of the other and compete for the only avenue of justifying their relevance to justice itself.

John Rawls champions for the solution of distributive justice problems in his initial call for using social contract that he wishes should have bound all in society in the spirit of justice and fairness. He wished that in providing for justice and liberties, there existed a sense of an original position not influenced by history, altruism or egoistic feelings. This provision of justice would come as a result of cooperation to benefit the least privileged in the circumstances. Rawls said:

no one in the rank he occupies in the society, nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence,& The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance. -Rawls, p.53.

He said that in a society, one would have to maximize his strategies in the best service of the least well-off since he did not know what awaited him. This was quite hypothetical and with the assumption that these acts were not historic. His first principle envisaged equal rights as those of any others such as in voting, standing for an elective post in ones country. This can be kept in practice but has the potential of generating conflict on the basis of lack of perfect equality.

He further argued for the rearrangement of social and economic inequalities to reflect the benefit of the most unprivileged in society at any given instance and for open contest for offices, which provided for equal representation. He argued that social class, economic or tribal differences should not deter us from getting the best opportunities for enjoying universal justice and equality.

Opponents of Rawls became his friends and colleagues. Robert Nozick (Norman, 1968.) urged for the minimal states that bestowed only the minimum powers to the state to control exploitation of citizens from citizens by protecting against the use of force, theft, fraud and adherence to contracts signed by parties in an agreement. If these rights were violated, the state would use its machinery to arbitrate. This view emphasizes least state intervention beyond which the state would be depriving citizens of some rights and would be seen to have an invisible hand.

Michael Walzer (Martin, 2005) opposed individualism and embraced communitarism, which he described as the need for citizens to advocate for the strengthening of the civil society and balance individual rights with the cohesion of society. Advocates of individualism, on the contrary, insisted that one is shaped by the society and should be allowed to freely do what is best for self. This, they said gave autonomy for persons and prevented exploitation by busy bodies within societies.

Proponents of maximin reasoning such as Robert Paul Wolff urged that Rawls was only apologizing for the status quo in clarification of his theories. They say the best of things will happen and that optimism plays a greater role in choice.

Feminists also criticized him on the basis of familial relations that continue to carry injustices. They urged that personalizing justice makes it political and that there exist injustices in social relations and that labor discriminations even in status of citizenship and ownership of property through gender biases. Rawls thus assumed intuitive argument to claim justice. The theory of justice should thus enclave the aspects so discusses in balancing proportions to ensure most needed ingredients of equality and equitability in service of all who subscribe to the status of citizenship.

Theory of Citizenship

Citizenship entails legitimacy to a state, responsibility and the right to enjoyment of the state resources as may be provided from time to time in the state constitution. It comes with legal stature and a sense of being answerable with liability to repercussions incase of violations of state laws.

Several theories advance the status of citizenship. The Marshalls Liberal theory outlines the possession of three forms of rights. These are: basic or civil rights in which there is the freedom of speech, ownership of property, worship and equality of justice to all citizens; rights to political alienations such as freedom to vote and stand for office in elected posts and social liberties such as social protection associated with economic hardships, educational needs and good housing.

The challenge comes in when forms of economies are in play. Reconciling capitalism with the ethos associated with equality, for example, becomes quite difficult. This instance challenges the equality yearned for by equal citizenry. In his economic theories, Marx was able to recognize the contradiction in relationship that exists between the abstract equality of citizens and that of civil society. In his argument, the state has a reflection of class differences in civil life- the state is a ruling class while real equality could only result from revolutionary change, save for expansion of rights to vote.

Democracy to him did not extend to offices or factories. Marshall while arguing on the import of increased social activity, welfare development after 1945 also brought increases social security, public education and increased healthcare. Marshall failed to discuss the effects of social change on citizenship rights. Turner on the role of ethnicity said that in developed countries the state immigration policy discriminates on race favoring whites and that social movement in civil society shaped citizenship.

The communitarian theory championed by Etzioni faults the liberal theory on sense of duty to state or community, ignorance on responsibilities, lack of association in society and neglect on the social being in its explanation of citizenry. The suggestions he put forward were withdrawal of government from private ventures while encouraging self responsibility, family life and greater moral dialogue. This theory, however, underestimates the effect of economic dimensions in social problems, lack of cultural dimensions, privilege given to some groups based on race, class and color such as in the case here in Australia and lack of substantive rights enjoyed by the minority such as women who need to engage in social sphere to get noticed even though they have formal rights of citizenship.

Studies by Kyamlika (Tomasi, 1995) on the relationship between justice and citizenship enable an understanding of how they influence each other. Comparing Marx and the communitarians arguments on capitalism, he says that the value of a community lies in the liberation of citizens from social responsibilities. This is in contrast to the argument sustained by the communitarians who believe are bases for personal identity and moral deliberations. In as much as communitarians are in tandem with Marx on liberty- depriving roles within the community, fault his argument about freedom of people.

They say that this is done by interpreting and strengthening the community nature of these roles. Distribution of labor, for example, qualifies to be an activity forced on man. This has been defined as fixation of social activity and is ended, according to Marx, by combining what people produce into objective power. Someone in a community setting can do what is in his capability at any time in accordance to the provisions of the society such as beliefs and norms without adopting the social identity tag. This is communism and it to some extent supported by the liberals.

Kymlicka supports psychoanalytic theory on identity, and by extension, citizenship but faults him when the definition fails to describe the adult identity for which citizenship is valid. The association between social life and self-conception in Ericksons definition is seminal. He says that we have identity in identifying with figures or representations made available to us. In the country context, this would perfectly be through the most patriotic of leaders.

This argument has a linkage with subjectivity from a non-citizen or non-communists point of view or in social life context. A person, he argues, has a tag of a social identity formation for which the moral dimension of the relationship between self and society our identities are formed. He concludes that freedom is a central value of modernity. Political liberalism means freedom of individuals.

Arguments fronted by Ross (1999) supports citizenry as a state where there is a minimum threat on freedom from other peoples actions. He stresses that such kinds of affront on personal freedom may come from quarters such as the ruling class. In the Australian setting, the case of citizenry has changed such that apart from being the in the Australian Citizenship Act Queens subjects in the stipulation of the (or formerly National Citizenship Act) up to 1948, the act alienated all. The aborigines and the Torres Strait Islanders were only recognized as citizens in the Royal Assent of 2007. In this regard, they did not have the freedom of choice, or of they had, the provision for individual security from infringement was not fully guaranteed.

In older democracies, freedom was synonymous to citizenship. However, today citizen was free, not slaves, the concept of a citizen does not express a pre-given sense of belonging nor political responsibility, but rather a capacity to have a choice between a range of alternatives, the right make up ones mind on achievements and freedom to act and live as one wishes.

Sandel (1982) stresses the determination for government criticism that is upheld by the libertarians. The control has a strong bearing on the people power and as been championed largely by the less favored in society. He says that citizens have a fundamental right to liberty and the things we have and which we should use to serve ourselves liberally. He argues further is that no liberties of others should be violated. The government plays a minor role in preventing the violation of liberties and should also be indispensable. In this argument, citizenship suffers from a justifiable inequality since implementing such laws are against the liberty of self or others as in the redistribution which may be argued to make one slave to the majority.

If the argument for liberalism should be true to all circumstances, then all should be done to enable the less privileged and the ruling class alike to enjoy the same liberal rights. However, under the said context, personal safety laws should pass for a bother or infringement to a personal liberty. One would be expected to suffer alone and suffer without the penalty of the state. The redistribution practice of most governments would also be expected not vanquish since in directing taxation to one who does not enjoy the fruits of his labor in this circumstance is tantamount to infringing the liberties for a citizen.

Young, commenting about political theorists, for instance, Michel Foucault and Hebermas, arguing that rights are rights and based on differences associated with geography, race, ethnicity, or creed and the influence of citizenry on application of justice remains enormously biased. The tie of deprived justice even in states purporting to provide equality of citizenship is a challenge that needs a revolutionary approach.

Tomasi (1995) qualms the association between culture and deprived justice. Equality, he says, suffers at the mercy of citizenship while there remains disparities associated with deeply rooted cultural practices. Citizenship can therefore not be a clear bargaining ground for fair justice, save for when these practices are recognized and laid bare as causing deprivation of this equality and appropriate measures put in place to apply rational law in each special circumstance.

From the foregoing, a theoretical and normative form of citizenry needs to be engaged in all aspects that befit it such as democratization for clear advocacy. This is in light of the fact that the understanding of justice needs clear insight into what citizenship holds. The arguments on theories of justice not only confines justice to the description of the law but also restrict it to the interpretation of the same. Justice will be denied if the interpretation of citizenship within the law is unfavorable. For one seeking equality of citizenship based on universal liberty, the law should confine itself to describing a citizen as a liberal.

On communitarian grounds, the citizens wish should direct him or her to being a subscriber to communal interests while personal interests are at their minimal. This move fails towards addressing grievances of capitalistic thoughts within communalists and puts the two theoretical perspectives at even greater loggerheads.

In describing a citizen on capitalistic grounds, the argument champions a just case based on the maximizing on advancement of individual interest but within the law. This is largely, an aspect development of individualism. It portends the biggest bias in considering the disparity in the modern democratic economies. All theories of citizenship are safely within the fundamental rights of individuals and are therefore greatly supplementary to all possible considered theories of justice. It should also be noted that theories of justice fall short of describing the provisions of a just citizenry except with the help of the accepted description of citizenry.

Treating these two related subjects with due caution is necessary since application of equality related to justice finds explanation in laws which may after all be interpreted to favor only those in classes or the ruling elite at the expense of those who need justice most, eventually depriving them of the much needed provisions of equality in citizenship. It is thus safe to conclude that theory of justice badly need theory of citizenship all for the good or bad of each other since they are part of each.

References

Martin, O. H., (2005). Introduction: Changing Citizenship Theory. Comparative Perspectives in Democratic Framework. PS: Political Science & Politics, Vol. 38, pp 667-671.

Norman, S. (1968). Theory of Action, Bloomington: Indiana University Press. pp. 285-6.

Ross, P. (1999).Multiculturalism, Aboriginal rights and the nation Nation & Identity, pg 114-142.

Robinson, Dave & Groves, Judy (2003). Introducing Political Philosophy. Icon Books.

Sandel, M, J. (1982). Jjusttice and the Good Liberalism and the Limits of Jjusttice (Part 1), pg. 133-153.

Sterba, J. (1995) Contemporary Social and Political Philosophy. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.

Tomasi, J., (1995). Kymlicka, Liberalism and Respect for Cultural Minorities. Ethics, Vol. 105, pg 580-603.

Young, I. M., (1989). Pollitty and Group Difference: A Critique of Universal Citizenship. Ethics, Vol. 99: Issue No 2, pg 250-274.

Introduction

Libertarianism refers to a theory that advocates for individual freedom in terms of thoughts and actions, what will usually be referred as liberty. The ideology of libertarianism is founded on the principle of natural rights that existed before the advance of governments which is the reason that it advocates for personal liberty to come before the rights of the government.

As such, libertarianism advocates for two major forms of freedom; in transfer of personal property and own life which it argues that a person should live his/her life as one would wish and that transfer of property should be unrestricted as long as it is consensual (Conway). This is the libertarianism ideology that Nozick subscribes to and which forms the basis of the Wilt Chamberlain argument which is going to be the focus of our discussion in this paper.

The Wilt Chamberlain Nozick argument is an attempt to provide redress to the unfair distribution of resources which has historically existed. To do this Robert Nozick attacks all forms of patterned theories of justice distribution on three premises which he justifies using the following examples; the Wilt Chamberlain argument, the self-ownership argument and the Kantian argument (Conway).

In Wilt Chamberlain example, Nozick reasoning proves that no form of patterned theory of just redistribution is defensible in the long run; this is basically because of the fact that free exchanges between individuals will as a matter of fact disrupt any preexisting pattern of just distribution and cannot also be relied on to achieve future ones (Conway).

Because all forms of free exchanges are just, and all forms of just exchanges disrupts patterned theory of justice, then it goes that all free exchanges of property can never be patterned. In a nutshell Wilt Chamberlain argument as advanced by Nozick indicates that liberty upsets patterns, an unavoidable outcome that can only be evaded by either limiting peoples freedom or in that case Wilt Chamberlain freedom if we are to maintain a patterned theory of just distribution (Conway).

Throughout this discussion this is the position that this paper will be evaluating by critically reviewing all related arguments, its major critiques and finally why this theory of just entitlement is more practical to achieve and favorable as opposed to patterned theories of just distribution.

Entitlement Theory

Entitlement theory refers to a model which provides a framework that explains just exchanges in private properties among individuals, what Nozick refers as a theory of distributive justice (Conway). In entitlement theory individual persons are regarded as ends in themselves but not as subjects to other peoples which is one of the principles of morality that Nozick raises in the cause of this theory. The entitlement theory is therefore the foundation of Nozick perception of what justice in holdings entails and it limits.

As such this theory is central to Nozick objection on patterned theory of just distribution because of its inference on all patterned theories limitations and shortcomings on sustaining just distribution of properties. The entitlement theory has three important theories; principle of justice in transfer, principle of justice in acquisition and principle of rectification of justice (Green).

The first principle of justice in acquisition attempts to describe how the people might have initially obtained and owned private property historically which Nozick reasons must have been unjust given that it was earned illegitimately through exploitation of slave labor.

It is from deduction of this principle that gives rise to the third principle of rectification in which Nozick brings forth suggestions of solutions that should be adopted to rectify the unjust distribution and ownership of property as described in the first principle of just appropriation. Hence, the third principle advanced by Nozick of rectification of injustice is actually an exploratory attempt to find lasting solutions of addressing these historical injustices that led to unjust distribution of property and acquisition.

Towards this end Nozick tackles the issues of compensation, restoration and so forth in this section as possible solutions that might rectify the current situation. It is notable to mention that Nozick third principle of rectification is specifically developed to addresses the failures of the theory of just distribution which he perceives to be ineffective.

The second principle of just transfer entails the process of voluntary property transfer between individuals that is made on the basis of consensual agreement (Green). Thus just transfer is described to have occurred when there is freewill and consent made by a person when transferring or acquiring the property.

These three principles of property ownership is what Nozick identifies as necessary for a legitimate holding of property and just distribution in what he refers as the entitlement theory (Conway). In his own opinion Nozick provides only two possible scenarios of a legitimately obtained property which is if it was originally acquired or transferred in a just manner, anything else does not constitute just holdings of property (Faser and Nozick).

It is from these principles that Nozick develops three major forms of arguments one of which is the renowned Wilt Chamberlain argument which is an analogy that attempts to expound on the concept of entitlement theory.

Because the Wilt Chamberlain argument is founded from the three principles of entitlement theory, let us briefly discuss the Lockean Proviso which Nozick advances to support the principle of just appropriation which he says obliges people to appropriate natural resources in just manner that must ensure enough and as good in common is left to others (Nozick).

Lockean Proviso

The Lockean Proviso is a theory advanced by John Locke which is one of the concepts contained in his labor theory of property; Nozick modified the Lockean proviso in order to advance the self-ownership theory that governs the historical acquisition of property (Nozick). Though Nozicks Lockean proviso is compatible with John Lock self-ownership theory it has slightly been modified to specifically provide circumstances under which acquisition and transfer of properties must occur for it to be regarded as just.

The Lockean proviso that Nozick advances to define the criteria for just appropriation of property states that though every appropriation of property is a diminution of anothers rights to it, it is acceptable as long as it does not make anyone worse off than they would have been without any private property (Nozick).

To determine whether a property was originally acquired in a just manner three factors must be shown to exist; one, the process of acquisition should not disadvantage others that relied on the property for their survival, two, acquisition should not be based on enhancement of the property and finally the acquisition should not contravene any of the principles of just distribution of property (Nozick).

Having discussed the foundation of Robert Nozick entitlement theory and the concepts of libertarianism let us now take a critical analysis of Wilt Chamberlain argument that Nozick advances to show how all patterned theories of justice cannot be achieved.

Wilt Chamberlain Argument

Wilt Chamberlain argument that Nozick presents in this theory is the ultimate example of how the concepts of justice and liberty are incompatible as far as patterned theory of just distribution of properties are concerned. In this argument Nozick does succeed in indicating that peoples freedom of choice, herein referred as liberty is the greatest limitation to any patterned theory of just distribution of property.

This is because liberty provides people with leeway to freely decide and make choices in the way that they choose to transfer or acquire good. In doing so it is not possible to achieve any form of uniform (patterned) distribution of the same goods because liberty entails the ability to make arbitrary and random choice of actions (Long).

On the other hand a patterned theory of just distribution requires two important considerations in transfer of goods i.e. it must be just in accordance with principles of entitlement that we have so far described and it must fit a particular pattern (Long).

For instance the distribution of goods should be equal and just among all subjects before and after acquisition, or it is transferred in a manner that maximizes its utilization, or distributed by any other criteria that would promote equality; whichever the pattern it should be just and patterned.

But as we shall see to achieve this outcome it will be extremely hard and would ultimately require the sacrifice of personal liberty if a patterned just distribution of wealth is to be achieved. Let us now analyze the Wilt Chamberlin argument point by point; premise one of the arguments requires us to imagine a state where just distribution of goods has already taken place based on any of the several patterned theories of just distribution which we can choose from.

Our interest will be in the following points that Nozick is going to raise in this argument starting with point number two; in this case several people are described to have freely consented to buy tickets in order to obtain rights necessary to see Wilt Chamberlain play basketball. This point raises two fundamental issues, one, the principle of liberty and two, theory of just distribution of wealth. Because the people enjoy the freewill to transfer their resources as they wish there is the aspect of liberty in this process of wealth distribution.

The resulting distribution of goods leads to Wilt being able to acquire more resources than any other person in the society now that he has significantly higher amount that was contributed by several of the members in this hypothetical society. The question then becomes is this resulting distribution of wealth just?

To answer this question will have to look more closely at what John Rawl has to say in A Theory of justice which we shall look at later on, but in a nut shell according to Nozick just distribution of goods is describe to have occurred if any of these two conditions are satisfied.

For previously unowned property if enough and as good is left to the others to appropriate or if transfer of goods has been freely consented to; in our case the second condition applies and we can therefore determine Wilt newly acquired wealth to be just and legitimate (Conway). In any case the consenting members willingly chose to transfer this portion of their wealth in exchange of the luxury of watching Wilt play the basketball.

This seemingly arbitrary action has two major ramifications in that one it upsets the just distribution of goods and two because of their choice another group of the society members would be thought to be far worse now than was originally the case before this choice was made by the other section of the society, an outcome that would make one question whether indeed this transfer of wealth was just.

These outcomes are the major issues that Nozick is raising in his theory of libertarianism which as we have seen are incompatible with any form of theory that advocates for patterned just distribution of goods.

For example in order to sustain the status quo which would certainly maintain the original just distribution of resources which we had assumed to be equal and just for the sake of this argument, it would mean completely curtailing the liberty of people to transfer goods regardless of their consent, this is unlikely to be the case in any form of society.

The other option would be drastic reduction of liberty in order to achieve a desired form of just distribution of goods which Nozick states is still unacceptable regardless of the extent of the limitation in freedom of choice. The reasons for this premise is best illustrated through another argument that Nozick illustrates, that of self-ownership which also justifies one of the principles that is expounded by the Wilt Chamberlain argument; that of liberty.

The Self Ownership Argument

This is the second most important argument that Nozick advances to justify and defend the theory of libertarianism; the self-ownership theory states that individuals own themselves  their bodies, talents and abilities, labor, and by extension the fruits or products of their exercise of their talents, abilities and labor (Dammon).

Thus, because people own themselves they should be at liberty to do what they choose without being regulated by any form of authority, of course as long as their actions are not adverse to the welfare of the other members of the society.

This principle of liberty that Nozick is advancing here is essentially the same principle that he is trying to defend in the Wilt Chamberlin argument. But the self-ownership theory is also trying to advance another line of thought; that of slavery, which again implies lack of liberty because individuals in this case are bound to work extra without their volition in order to cater for the welfare of others.

This is what Nozick is referring as slavery, which is slightly so because there is no choice in failing to pay the tax (Birch). In extent other people ends up benefiting from this unjust distribution of resources, and not only this since this scenario also raises another important issues of morality.

Because peoples are ends in themselves, moral principles demands that people not be treated as objects which is the case when they are exploited for the benefit of others; more specifically the resulting wealth that emanates from this arrangement can only be unjust. This is based on the second principle of entitlement theory which Nozick states must involve voluntary and free consent; since this is not the case, this wealth must be considered to be unjust.

But it must be noted this is only for that part of the tax which the government collect which is not channeled towards the three key functions that Nozick thinks should be the role of a minimal State; protection from fraud, theft and security (Nozick). In the following section let us take an objective criticism of the various principles that Nozick raises in his discussion of libertarianism theory in general and more specifically in the entitlement theory.

Discussion on the Critique of entitlement theory and Libertarianism

It is a fact that all forms of patterned theories of just distribution are incompatible with the principles of entitlement theory or in that case those of libertarianism; indeed as we have so far indicated they are mutually exclusive.

Having said that what Nozick advocates as the way forward out of this quagmire appears to be impossible to achieve; faced with a choice of sacrificing either the liberty that people enjoy in acquisition and transfer of wealth or disruption of patterned just distribution of resources, Nozick chooses to sacrifice patterned just distribution theory rather than liberty.

Being a libertarian, freedom of choice is a necessity that Nozick thinks should not be reneged for the sake of maintaining a patterned just distribution of wealth; the question then becomes is this option the most favorable to make under the circumstances. To answer this question we need to consider the implications that result from this choice as well as the principles that are contained in A Theory of Justice by Rawls.

As far as freedom of choice is concerned most critiques of this premise argues that unrestricted freedom of choice negatively affects other members of the society that would not otherwise be the case if liberty was limited.

However I find this not to be a serious objection because failure to choose is actually a choice in itself; in that case, the section of people that argues were made worse off by the choice of those who chose to pay for Wilt chamberlain ticket actually also did make a conscious choice of not paying for it. In both instance the aspects of consent and free will are seen to be present.

In A Theory of Justice Rawls derives the First Principle of Justice and the Second Principle of Justice from one of the key theories that he discusses; the difference principle. The First Principle 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 (Hikaru).

This principle largely attempted to guarantee the basic human rights of all the persons in a society which is seen to be the case in this argument, this is because the liberty of the first group of people who to chose to buy Chamberlain ticket does not in any way lessen the liberty of the second group that chose not to pay for it.

The next critique of Nozick theme is based on his self-ownership theory; true the inferences that Nozvick arrives through this stream of thought appear to be radical but certainly not outrageous. The point of contention in this case is not the moral or ethical issues that surround slavery, but rather the undesirable outcome that unwillingly forces someone to work without their consent for the sake of other people.

This robs the individual a degree of liberty and propagates the distribution of unjust wealth; so to say that people who pay tax are essentially in control of their life as compared to slaves is a very flimsy argument that holds no water. The major characteristic and the only feature of slavery which makes it so evil is its nature that requires someone to work for whatever reasons, be it for good or otherwise without their consent in what amounts to coercion.

Indeed the current system that has been put in place by the government to ensure compliance of tax laws amounts to coercion and forced labor for the simple reasons that you cannot earn unless you pay tax. Besides, taxation system is seen to significantly curtail the freedom of choice; its justification by the government therefore fails the test of objective principles of justice which Rawls describes can only be chosen behind a veil of ignorance (Hikaru).

In any case Rawls theory of justice seem to agree that individuals should be left alone to decide whether to allocate part of their wealth by choice to less fortunate in the society because the government distribution system of taxed wealth cannot be said to be unbiased.

In A Theory of Justice Rawls recognizes the fact that all individuals desire to achieve a desirable end through the application of principles of justice which requires just consideration of their fellow human beings (Hikaru).

It is on this basis that Rawls advances the principle of fair choice situation which is aimed at providing a person with acceptable alternatives of arriving at a reliable determination of justice under ideal conditions. The principles of justice which is the central concept in A Theory of Justice ideology is developed through a process that Rawls describes as the Original Position which refers to a hypothetical position from which all individuals adopt when attempting to arrive to a certain principle of justice (Lennon).

This is what Rawls refers to as the Veil of Ignorance in which he is actually describing personal biases or circumstances that essentially prevent someone or institutions in this case from making a fair assessment of a given principle of justice, which is the reason why the wealth distribution by the government is unjust. This veil of ignorance that limits someone or an institution from making an objective determination of principle of justice include level of intelligence, talents, social status, assets and strengths.

Hence, the veil of ignorance that are described to exist in the Original Position are what enables an individual to determine and choose an ideal principle of justice that is free from bias (Lennon). As a result this perspective of Original Position leads to what Rawls describes as a maxim strategy which would maximize the prospects of the least well-off and therefore enable equal distribution of economic resources in the society (Lennon).

But since this is not even the case no justification of tax should be presented despite the fact that this line of reasoning is beside the point of why tax should not be allowed; this is because tax cannot be justified even in circumstances that can be shown to lead to just distribution of resources.

Nevertheless, this would be the position that the principle of justice would hypothetically hope to achieve when applied in an ideal society, but the same principle of justice that Rawls advances does also provide for inequality to occur in the society but only under specific circumstances, at this point this principle diverges from the Nozick theory of entitlement.

Let us now finally discuss the third widely held objection to Nozick theory of entitlement which vilifies Nozick objections of wealthy people from helping the poor based on the morality principle which emanates from the Kantian argument. Foremost let see what Rawls has to say about this in his Theory of Justice; the foundation of A Theory of Justice ideology is anchored in two important principles.

These two principles of liberty and equality are incompatible as we have just determined to be the case in Nozick theory of entitlement; this is because liberty will always upset any theory of just distribution or equality in this case. But just to mention Rawls attempted to reconcile this incompatibility using two different perspectives i.e. circumstances of justice and the fair choice situation which he concludes are the two circumstances that often confront an individual (Hikaru).

But this is not really the point of our focus; in advancing the difference principle Rawls specifically mentions that inequality in the distribution of resources should only occur if it is to the advantage of those who are worst-off (Hikaru).

Now if we look back at the circumstances that result from this new form of unequal distribution of wealth we get to see it is certainly not to the advantage of the worst-off who would be the poor, in this case it is the likes of Chamberlain who are benefiting from the proceeds of a just distribution. If this unequal distribution does indeed fail to benefit the poor are we not obliged to help the poor in this case in contravention to Nozick morality principle; I would concur, but first there are two things to consider.

One is the conditions that I would be expected to be obliged in helping the poor, note that if this is enforceable for instance in form of taxes that would be contravening my liberty which would make it unjust.

Two, we might need to determine if there is really any form of wealth distribution that can occur in a manner that can be described to be equally distributed among individuals in a capitalist State. Because neither the first condition nor the second can be guaranteed with certainty this objection to Nozick theory of entitlement is both valid and void depending on the outcomes of the two conditions.

Conclusion

Indeed no patterned theory of just distribution is defensible, yet we must have both aspects of liberty and justice to achieve an equal distribution of property in the society. By its own standards, I find the just distribution of property to have failed the test in more than one way; this is because if the original holding of properties were justly appropriated we will then have no basis to compel the likes of Wilt Chamberlain to provide for the less fortunate by claiming they owe them in their acquisition.

I would suppose that everyone has the same amount of wealth originally, that is if we are to go by the principles of patterned theory, but we know this not to be the case which makes this theory unreliable. The patterned theory and all forms of just distribution also fails another serious test of it applicability because it relies on a clearly equitable system through which it expects to achieve an equal distribution of resources.

There are two reasons why a patterned just distribution of wealth cannot be achieved; because of the capitalism system and the fact that States have always failed to choose reliable systems of equating wealth because they lack what John Rawls refers as veil of ignorance.

A critical look at the concept of patterned theory that attempts to achieve just distribution of wealth indicates that it actually defeats this very purpose; this is because limiting the liberty to freely transfer property also ultimately limits the acquisition and distribution of the same property by the same extent. If the ability of people to acquire resources is also curtailed how is it possible to achieve a just distribution of the same properties? In such a predicament I would say Nozick principle of rectification does present a favorable option.

Works Cited

Birch, A. The Concepts and Theories of Modern Democracy. London: Routledge Publishers, 1993. Print.

Conway, D. Nozick Entitlement Theory of Justice, 1990. Web.

Dammon C. A Farewell to Marx: An Outline and Appraisal of his Theories. California: Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, 1987. Print.

Faser, E. & Nozick, R. Anarchy, State and Utopia, 2005. Web.

Green, M. The Entitlement Theory of Justice. New York: Basic Books, 1974. Print.

Hikaru, O. Ethical Theories-John Rawls: A Theory of Justice, 2009. Web.

Lennon, J. Business ethics: Metaethics, applied ethics and normative ethics, 2009. Web.

Long, R. Robert Nozick: Philosopher of Liberty, 2002. Web.

Nozick, R. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York: Basic Books, 1974. Print.

Epicurus is one philosopher who believed in living a life full of pleasure. According to him, life without harm therefore a life without pain was the definition of living a just life. Without harm, there was no possibility of pain and therefore pleasure is achieved which constituted justice. Injustice is brought about by pain which in his perspective does not bring pleasure. Consequently, a life that focuses on pleasure is a just one since it constitutes doing what is right to avoid pain.

Epicurus believes that pain is the beginning of injustice to oneself or society. A life filled with pain does not constitute a just life since there is no pleasure when pain is present. In his perception every human being should be in pursuit of pleasure because no one would love to live in pain.

While in pursuit of pleasure, justice is achieved since the person would not bring or cause harm either to himself or society. Pain which is brought about by harm is the main source of injustice, pursuing pleasure involved refraining from doing what does not bring pleasure to oneself but ensuring that obtaining utmost personal pleasure would be the true definition of justice.

This would involve forming a circle of friends who believed in the same beliefs as you since associating with individuals who had different definitions of true happiness and pleasure would not bring true pleasure as this would mean that you would have to live a life of pleasing others other than yourself therefore not finding pleasure which ultimately results to injustice to self^[1].

All efforts exerted by human beings are intended for the pursuit of personal pleasure. Desire for many things was not necessary as this would not cause pleasure since one cannot attain all that he believes he wants to acquire in life. Instead one should be content with what they have and this can be best portrayed by his perception about life and death. He did not think it pleasurable to pursuit the pain that is brought about by thoughts of death since when living death is not present and once you are dead then life is not there.

Therefore, there is no meaningful gain in bringing harm to oneself by contemplating the pain that is brought about by death since none exists in the presence of the other and such thoughts only brings pain thus creating a source of personal injustice. According to his understanding, limiting the desires that an individual may have and expelling all forms of fear especially the fear of the gods and death would result to a life full of pleasure and justice.

Epicurus also noticed that there are other forms of pleasure that have negative results and the acquisition of such pleasure brings more pain than pleasure once sought thus resulting to injustice of self. According to him, pleasure is achieved through happiness which is brought about by relating with friends who possess similar virtues to yours and also possessing a peace of mind. Honest living which brings about a peaceful mind and pleasure to oneself as well as bringing justice to self and to others^[2].

Epicurus truly advocated for pleasure which would bring about justice. Avoiding all forms of fear and pain would bring about pleasure thus resulting to justice to self and to society in general. Pursuit of pleasure which was free from any forms of negative consequences was his definition of justice.

Bibliography

Armstrong, John. Epicurean Justice. Phronesis 42. 3 (1997): 324-334

Footnotes

1. Armstrong, John. Epicurean Justice. Phronesis 42. 3 (1997): 324-334
2. Armstrong, John. Epicurean Justice. Phronesis 42. 3 (1997): 324-334

Introduction

The main idea of Socrates refusing to escape from prison is the belief in justice and knowing to differentiate wrong from right and good from evil, which is also not easy today and wasnt easy for the last couple of centuries.

In the olden days the person didnt have much of a choice when discerning wrong from right, the opinion of the government was what mattered, but as personal liberties started to expand, people were given freedom of choice and that is when the breaking of the law became the boundary between wrong or right, no one could be punished for immoral acts anymore, only for illegal ones.

This boundary however, makes the committer of immoral deeds stay out of jail but it does not make him or her into a complete person with strong moral principles, it just shows that one has to balance the letter of the law with ones personal beliefs. Therefore, it is important to first respect the rights of others, as according to the letter of the law, and then to promote ones beliefs in a non violent manner in order to promote democratic social values.

This idea is at the base of Socrates, Martin Luther King and many more. This idea of moral philosophy favors tolerance and understandings as the base of social interaction, in a society that functions in a communal system where the goods are shared. An idea that has proven utopian in the social sense, due to the economic system and the greedy human nature, but the moral ideas have survived and have influenced millions that use them as the base of the moral philosophy.

Justice and injustice

During the time of Socrates incidents of injustice were common because every man had the right to do whatever he or she deem right as long as he or she had the ability to get away with injustice exempt from punishment. As a result, the stronger few had to enjoy life at the expense of the weak majority (Annas 112).

Socrates defends himself against the claim of impiety or not believing in the gods in whom the city believes. He uses the process of cross-examination to make Meletus agree that the charge against him is false. Although he succeeds in this part, the jury finds Socrates guilty and sentences him to death.

In this regard, it may be said that Socrates general way of defending himself against the charges may not be a good one. However, I think the defense of Socrates is a good one. This paper proposes that despite the subsequent penalty of death of Socrates, his general defense is considered a good one.

Justice should be able to make an individual both good and bad self consistent. It is also supposed to make the society harmonious internally for peaceful coexistence without necessarily having to interfere with the happiness of any individual. It should abhor any irrational and selfish activities which only drive people towards being individualistic. Any acts by individuals should have the interests of the public taken care of so as to bring happiness to the majority.

Justice is not external but is something that should be carried in the soul without interference from outside. If it therefore exists in the soul, it does not depend on convention, chance or external force. This makes justice natural and not artificial because as an inward grace it is entrenched in the human soul (Ferrari, p88). With that in mind, justice is justice regardless of the existing external conditions.

Any form of interference to an element is considered unjust and is therefore wrong. When the spirit, reason and appetite agree that they should all be governed by reason, the individual in question is said to have justice within him/herself.

When there is a good relationship between the state and the people then justice will prevail. Justice should not exist in the society to serve the ones in power but it should be there to bring unity and peaceful coexistence in the society. That is the only rationale that the state can use to bring happiness to the majority.

Conclusion

Without a proper justice system the divide between the rich and the poor will continue to grow which can eventually lead into a frustrated society. The only way to save a state from these frustrations would be the restoration of order and it is only possible if the government is caring (Rosen, p120).

The larger part of it however is easily visible in the society than it is in individuals but this should not be misconstrued to mean that it doesnt exist at the individual level. At the individual level, justice should be regarded as a human virtue because it governs us and makes us both good and self consistent. In the social context, justice is a social realization that creates harmony within the society.

This explains why Plato considers justice as specialization since it ensures that an individual performs his or her duties efficiently without necessarily having to interfere with the others. This will ensure that everyone will be happy in the long run. I totally agree with this because I equally believe that justice lies in the principle of non-interference. There can never be justice when others suffer because they want to make others happy like in the case of Socrates.

Works Cited

Annas, Julia. An Introduction to Platos Republic. New York: Oxford University Press, 1981. Print.

Ferrari, Fiona. The Cambridge Companion to Platos Republic. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007, Print

Rosen, Stanley. Platos Republic: A Study. Connecticut: Yale University Press, 2005. Print

People define justice differently according to their understanding of the situation in question. Most people confuse justice and punishment (Lyons 16). The idea behind it is that two mistakes can provide a solution which implies that a tooth for a tooth and an eye for an eye. I suppose that justice is fair treatment and acting fairly in all situations that one may come across. To get a more precise definition, justice is the course or action which will restore balance to a situation (Augustine 34).

In the discussion, how different philosophers define justice and how they propose on how it should be handled by different groups of people is extremely valuable (Dockendorf 24). For that case, we take two most identified philosophers who are Socrates and Augustine. The two scholars gave their definitions of justice basing on different perspectives but all pointing towards the same direction in giving fairness to people.

For many years, people have defined justice in various ways. Platos work has given records on Socrates views on justice. This gives us the ability to read and understand the Socrates way of thinking toward justice. According to Socrates, justice was just good, and it could only be reached through self knowledge. He claimed that unanimous good existed and each and every person had the ability to find the good.

When philosophers analyzed the justice issue, they discussed and gave their results as justice being good. This is according to Platos Republic first two books. Then they also looked at the opposite of justice as evil. For a person to be seen as just, he or she ought to be a good person and the crucial question here is to know what good is. Kealy indicates that good can be what is necessary, lacked or desired (Lyons 27).

Socrates comes in on the same note and says that they are natural requirements but not what a person feels that he needs. A persons nature is the daimon (the persons inner self which seeks fulfillment). Logically the good preferred since it fulfills a persons nature and Socrates indicate that the hunt for happiness is the normal objective in life.

When I look at the word good, and the definition it leaves me puzzled. What may seem good to me might be worst to another person (Dockendorf 39). This justifies the saying that one mans meat is another mans poison. Every individual is just unique on his or her own way.

The daimon of one person is much different from the other persons daimon. Basing on this factor, Kealy proposes that one should identify his or her own potential (Augustine 43). Somebodys ideas should not be followed to determine what is good for him or herself. This must be done considering Knowledge Next (Lyons 35). Socrates explained the idea and notes that knowledge directs one to good and knowledge itself is good.

This indicates that self knowledge directs one to knowledge of differentiating between evil and good. It is only through the understanding that one can avoid committing evil deeds. One can only commit wrong if he or she is ignorant in his own actions (Augustine 48). According to Socrates knowledge is a virtue and on the reverse is ignorance. In this case, I can cite for major virtues courage, justice, temperance and piety. All these virtues can be drawn back to knowledge.

Justice can be achieved after understanding what is good and what is evil. The search for happiness can be done from good deeds but not evil. In fact, evil will results to the opposite of happiness. So when evil does not exist happiness will prevail (Augustine 50). This can be supported by observing an ill person go to seek medical attention from the caregivers.

When compared with a man who never gets sick, it is obvious that an ailment free person is always happy than a treated man. Then basing on this comparison Socrates argues that the cure for the crime (evil) is punishment and justice enforces that punishment. In this relation, the ill free person is happier than the treated person (Lyons 37). So the person, who never did wrong, will always be happy while the wrong doer gets the punishment for his misdeeds.

Then he identifies the next person who lives an evil life and does not recognize the punishment. This person is similar to a child who avoids medicine to cure his or her illness which is justice (Augustine 56). Later on the child acquires blindness due to ignorance. This child is the same as the person who commits evil and avoids getting punishment. The same behavior may continue which in turn prolongs the punishment and suffering (Dockendorf 46).

Socrates proposes that there is no need of living with unjust souls. The just souls are more important than all the possessions of the earth. He also proposes that if any person realizes that he has committed evil, he should run to the judge and get justice. If he waits for any longer, then he will be increasing the length of suffering. So it is better treating the illness earlier than later, because it would not be chronic then.

According to Socrates, it is good to do just to friends when they are good to us. Then we should harm the enemies when they do evil to us. He identifies that doing evil is harmful than receiving evil or harm (Augustine 58).

Doing justice may be internal; on the contrary, doing harm is unjust while a just man will never harm another. In conclusion, Socrates means that no person should harm another because it is more important to live a just life. In his view, a just soul of a poor person is far much better than a rich mans soul who got his wealth through unjust means.

Saint Augustine was a God fearing person who lived in the Roman Empire. As a man of God, he worked hard to fulfill the requirements of His creator. The most prominent of these requirements was providing justice for all people (Augustine 60). This was to set a good example for the forth coming generations to follow the correct footsteps.

In his live Augustine had a soul that sought the will of God so as to live that was full true human character. In his opinion, he defined justice in the concepts of desire and the will of God (Dockendorf 49). He imagined of an anthropology which gave God a central and primary influence. So he could not foresee true justice lacking the essential element of God (Augustine 64). He gives us his discussion of justice and a society that is just through the City of God in Greek Language.

Augustine makes use of the Bible quoting from different books in justifying his opinions. For example, he quotes from Habakkuk that a just person is comparable to the justice of God who controls his obedient city in respect of his own grace. Form these, it tells us that a just person will always live by his Christian faith (Lyons 39).

In Augustines view, this should be like that faith which is lively in Christian love. This love should be the love of God alone then the love for neighbors just like him or herself. Justice can also be seen as the respect of God through following the rule of love from the Bible. The just individual (par excellence) is an individual whose faith results from the (caritas) which is love of God and others (Lyons 47).

In the City of God peoples, relationship to justice is just secondary sense in Augustines view justice is mainly about God. To be more precise in occasions where God does not receive His due then He has been subjected to injustice.

Justice starts and ends with Christian adoration, devotion and the love of God. In respect of God, there can be no justice without Christ (Augustine 70). The reason behind this is that Jesus Christ lived without sin, and He is truly the only just man who is a measure of justice. Augustine did not restrict himself on spiritual mediation alone.

He performed the role of a magistrate by himself (Dockendorf 56). Whenever there was a conflict, he reasoned out transforming much deeper wisdom, from the Bible and Christ (Augustine 78). He applied a good example of the woman who committed adultery and Jesus told her to go and never sin any more. This is to signify that God has justice for everybody but does not give anybody chance to continue sinning.

Justice as defined by both Socrates and Augustine point towards the same direction although from different perspectives. According to Socrates justice is good as seen by a person and evil as understood by the person. To be able to identify good and evil one requires knowledge (Dockendorf 66). This knowledge helps one to see if good verify evil or good. He proposes that if one realizes that he has done evil he should run for justice (punishment) (Lyons 59).

The highest person who gives punishment is the Judge, from Socrates point of view. Socrates states that justice should not wait; it should be done immediately to avoid increasing the suffering (Augustine 75). St. Augustine, on the other hand, believes that Jesus Christ is the only just man and justice prevails when a society relies on God. Justice comes through faith and love for oneself and others.

The highest person as regarded by ST. Augustine is only God. Justice can never prevail without God in the midst (Lyons 70). In all the definitions of justice, we find that human being is obviously just to others. For justice to prevail, it requires that all people must keep to their correct sides, and whenever one makes a mistake he should seek justice.

Works Cited

Dockendorf, Luc. Socrates,Virginia. West Virginia University, 1996. Print

Lyons, David. Ethics and the Rule of Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Print

St. Augustine. Confessions IV. New York: Long Horn publishers, 2008. Print

Nozicks initial premise asks to imagine a just distribution of income, which will inevitably create a pattern. As soon as P1 is instituted, individuals will engage in dispositions in the name of justice that will create a different pattern, P2, and so on. By the phrase liberty upsets patterns, Nozicks criticizes that theoretical justice approach and also states the matter of fact, that people who are free to bargain or trade will use that freedom to benefit some more than others over time, even if it is not their intention. The freedom will skew any system or pattern of perfect equality as demonstrated by his basketball player example, resulting in the need to formulate new patterns of distribution. In other words, it requires interference with peoples free choice. However, Nozick notably supports liberty as a fundamental right, and therefore such interference would be wrong.

Nozick used the example of a basketball player to demonstrate his point. Given that P1 is established as a just pattern of distribution, the basketball player Wilt Chamberlain continues to drive demand. Therefore, a million fans will pay 25 cents to see him play, providing him with a sum of $250,000. This places far more wealth in the hands of Chamberlain than most others, being either unjust itself or limiting the resources for the ability for others (the poor) to lead happy lives. Therefore, another pattern of distribution would have to be formed. It is important to note that Nozick did not support distributive justice, suggesting that it was unjust because resources are not distributed  they must be gathered, earned, or created by individuals, and then exchanged for something else. Any form of redistribution violates rights, particularly liberty. Nozick suggested his own entitlement theory as an alternative to distributive justice, suggesting that possession of any resource or property must be just in its acquisition, providing another take on Lockes famous labor perspective.

Introduction

Ironweed was a movie prepared by Kennedy William to capture events that occurred during the period of Great Depression. The main characters are Phelan Francis and Archer Helen. Phelan Francis was a depressed alcoholic who unfortunately murdered his own son possibly while in a state of unconsciousness.

He also murdered two more people before the death of his own son. One day, while working in a burial ground in order to recompense outstanding law arrears, Phelan encountered his sons grave. He recalled how he unintentionally murdered his son who aged 13 days old. Phelan remembered how he accidentally dropped his son to the ground and eventually the son died.

Phelan was haunted by three people who he killed. He fantasized about the dead men, and such apparition disturbed his life. Phelan was irresponsible individual who abandoned his family members who are residents of New York at Albany. Moreover, Phelan never felt guilty over his fatal violence acts but instead avoided his work and family responsibilities. He was always involved in severe drinking.

Archer Helen was a musician in a radio station while Phelan Francis was a gifted league baseball pitcher. However, misfortune surrounded lives of Phelan Francis and Archer Helen. Phelan was haunted by his own son and other two people he murdered. On the other hand, Archer Helen was suffering from cancer. Francis, the father of three children, left his family after succession of ill-fated events that disturbed his life.

Though initially, Phelan was a hopeless, bum and stubborn person, he was able to seek redemption when he realized his mistakes after sometime. Phelan acknowledged that he was a thief, abandoner, bum, murderer, and drunker. He was willing to transform his life. During his lifetime, Francis was a vagrant, incompetent, and lazy person who depended on other peoples effort.

Phelan roamed from one region to another looking for appeasement and sustenance that would satisfy his needs. Despite Phelans unjustified behavior, people pitied him. At the end of the story, Phelan went back to Albany and reconciled himself over negative acts he was involved in during his past life. This paper reflected on how justice not only prevailed upon characters of the movie but also on the State of Albany.

Absolute Justice

According to Pizzitola, absolute justice was beyond persecution of offenders who breached the States laws; it also presupposed the interpretation of divine law (12). The aim of justice was to punish offenders who performed harmful deeds in appropriate way which fit the level of offense committed. Though, many challenges happened in the society, justice would prevail at the end.

The perpetrators, like Phelan, would not escape off the hook; absolute justice would fall on them. Whether the aim was upon spiritual system or criminal operation; offenders, like Phelan, would eventually come to pay their price. This was a time when ultimate justice would pace on its course. There was life after death, and people who committed evil deeds would be judged according to their actions in life.

Pizzitola viewed that mourning was a basic psychological process in which victimized people had to perform in order to express their emotional dissatisfaction; such discontent feelings expressed themselves in search for vengeance and retaliation (10). People who lost their loved relatives mourned because they lost individuals of highest value who had roles and duties to play in life. Archer Helen was grief when she lost her son due to an unintentional incident that happened to Phelan.

The catastrophic event struck Archer Helen together with her two children; the incident negatively changed their lives. It was an unforgettable history. However, Phelans action could be perceived as intentional because apart from accidentally murdering his son, he is also alleged to have murdered two more people. Absolute Justice aimed to punish evil deeds in order to promote fairness to every person (Pizzitola 9).

Absolute Justice was an ideal sprite that ensured that offended people (the three murdered people) should not seek vengeance; because they would reap justice from the Divine being who was capable to accomplish death, in spite of the biological status of Phelan who was accountable for such deaths. Justice could only be realized through upholding Divine principles based on morality (Pizzitola 4).

Forgivingness could only take place when Phelan had to seek reconciliation. In order to forgive, Phelan had to embrace the essence of mercy, good and justice (Pizzitola 6).

The Ironweed story ended in a good note when Francis realized his weakness; he begged for forgiveness from his family members. Supposed Phelan did not reconciled, he would have faced justice over his evil actions. The offended people like Archer Helen acquired spirit of forgiveness; this was the basic assurance that would enable her not to seek vengeance as a way of retaliation against Phelan.

Indeed, Archer Helen embraced forgiveness that helped her to fulfill her duties in life and to strengthen her whenever she encountered negative deeds in the world. Pizzitola expressed that it was important to note that, even though Francis was forgiven, his evil deeds would not go scot-free. Francis had to be punished according to the States law, and by stipulation of the Divine justice (5).

However, some people claimed that ultimate justice could be achieved through death penalty in order to discourage killers and to enhance sacredness of human existence (Pizzitola 5). Nevertheless, death penalty was seen as an unfair and harsh sentence to offenders. The appropriate remedy was to respect life but to look a fair way of punishing offenders.

Divine justice presupposed the Divine goodness that embodied morals and highest principles which enhanced human life. Ultimate justice was a divine justice that encompassed unconditional love; a love that did not seek to revenge but which embraced forgiveness (Pizzitola 10). Unconditional love presupposed that the Divine being would be able pass judgment upon the offenders.

Justice as Law

According to Pizzitola:

Law was enacted to safeguard members of society from aggression; to institute the rules that would ensured community was united; to develop the community upon conditions raised by community members; to make certain that justice prevailed in the society; to prosecute offenders; and to sustain social order (13).

Justice was a scheme of law through which each individual got her or his due according to the stipulated regulation; it was a fair deal. However, some challenges was experienced when seeking justice; for example, legislatures frequently involved in complicated procedures that marred their committed to accomplish justice to every person.

There was a claim that Justice delayed was justice denied (Pizzitola 10); this was applicable to: burdensome and delayed processes in court proceedings, lack of appropriate court systems, and impediments toward achieving justice through involvement of worthless cases.

Lack of effective court system contributed to injustice cases in the Ironweed film; for instance, Phelan was a serial killer who escaped blamelessly without being arrested in jail. This reflected how the judicial system in Albany was ineffective. Pizzitola asserted that a just society could only be accomplished when judicial system in the State was committed to provide justice to every person in the society (10).

Pizzitola viewed that justice was a continuous and regular disposition that aimed to provide every person his or her due in the society (14). The purpose of justice was to render punishment and reward every individual according to his or her deeds.

Justice was meant to render each person what belonged to him or her in order to instill equality among people. The rule of law was enacted to safeguard individuals autonomy and life, and to offer protection against the illogical deficient actions in the State (Pizzitola 17). Phelan could have conformed his will and actions according to the decree of law.

Nevertheless, what messed up with Francis was that he was a bum and lazy person who depended on other people for survival means (Pizzitola 18). In fact, to make the matter worse was a fact that Phelan misused little resources he had through alcoholism. Impacts of alcohol addiction interfered with Francis life plan; he was incapable to adhere to rules of law in the society.

Justice was a set of regulations enacted through legal institution. Pizzitola affirmed that laws were important because they shaped societys politics and economic factors in many ways; therefore acted as a chief social arbitrator of relation among people (20). Criminal law provided means through which the State could put perpetrators on trial.

On the other hand, constitutional law safeguarded human rights for every person in the State. However, the judicial system in Albany was questionable whether was it actually committed to inculcate justice in the State (Pizzitola 16). In fact if the judicial institutions were dedicated, then perpetrators, like Phelan, could have been disciplined through the rule of law.

Pizzitola stated that laws were a system of rules that were foundation of all deeds and decisions in which governing institutions had to up hold (24). Various institutions in the community generated governing regulations; however such laws could be meaningless if such governing bodies did not enforced such laws. Judiciary was the legal governing body that obliged every person to follow laws.

The role of laws was to instill order and peace in the community. Citizens in the society had to be more cautious when dealing with one another; any harm caused by any individual would be subjected to penalty as affirmed by law (Pizzitola 23).

Judicial system was mandated to ensure that every individual conformed to the decree of legislation; those who were defiant to the law were dealt with according to the regulation. Pizzitola asserted that it was upon consent of the governing institution to support people who were irresponsible to moral accountability (16).

For instance, judicial system of Albany was the approval body that could support criminals, like Francis, in order to transform them into individuals who would be responsible for moral customs in the society. Pizzitola viewed that it was the accountability of judicial system to make certain that social order in the society were sustained and maintained (27).

Pizzitola claimed that laws were vital in order to make sure that justice was provided to every person regardless of individual status; every person was equal under rule of law of the society (25). In order to build a balance between good and evil in the society, the rule of law was required.

People who committed offense were supposed to be prosecuted according to what was stipulated under the law. Law was a regulation that was not permanent; laws could be changed depending on peoples needs, and its relevance according to the contemporary society (Pizzitola 20). The principle behind every law was to enhance social order that promoted equality and human rights for every person.

Justice as Cultural

According to Pizzitola, cultures are main systems that accomplish human needs. Cultural justice comprised of shared just principles among members of various cultural communities.

Nevertheless, Pizzitola viewed that there was debate about how the State could act justly to the minor cultures in the diversified cultural communities where major cultural customs were only reflected in constitution of the State (26). Actually, all justice aspects involved cultural conceptions; culture was the basis of traditions, beliefs and values of the society (Pizzitola 22).

Pizzitola asserted that people could oppose their cultures principal traditions in order to devise alternative rules of justice; governing rules should be significant and relevant to peoples needs. Rules hence were susceptible to be modified (23). Besides that, culture should approve suitable visions for generating justice conceptions. According to Pizzitola, distributive justice was the best devise to use in order to ensure that resources, benefits and burdens were fairly and equally distributed to all cultures in the society (21).

Justice as Ethics

Ethics involved what was morally acceptable or unacceptable; on the other hand, justice concerned what was legally acceptable or unacceptable. Justice was morally ethical; therefore performing what was morally ethical was legal (Pizzitola 24). This showed how justice and ethics were related.

Pizzitola expressed that justice had the responsibility to perform restorative role; expecting an offender to restore an innocent sufferer to a situation where a sufferer was in before offense committed (27). Justices was a devise tool that was used to compensate people who were victimized by offenders. Restorative justice would ensure that Francis restored and compensated people he murdered, and his family members who suffered because Francis was not responsible enough to take care of them.

Pizzitola viewed that justice also was punitive in the sense that it penalized offenders who committed crime (29). Justice ensured that burdens and profits were distributed among people in the society in a manner which was just and fair to every person.

However, in case institutions in the community distributed burdens and resources in an unjust manner, there was supposition that such institutions needed to be changed (Pizzitola 32). Pizzitola stated that justice served as corrective measures in the society and to make certain that any form of punishment was just and fair to offenders (33).

It is important to note that the aim of punishment should be objective and impartial; should not be marred with prejudice and biasness. However, injustice acts still existed in judicial system of the State that was influenced by racism. It was questionable why Phelan could escape guiltlessly when Albanys judicial system knew that he was dangerous criminal; this suggested that judicial institution in the State was inefficient to curb crimes.

The basis of justice was rooted on social stability, equality and individual autonomy. The stability of the community relied on the manner citizens of the society were treated justly (Pizzitola 34). If people were unequally treated; there would be social instability, strife and crimes in the society.

Pizzitola claimed that people depended on one another, and they would only maintain their social unity when their institutions practiced just principles (35). If people were unequally treated, their essential human dignity was dishonored. Justice generally controls moral values of a person in the society.

Conclusion

Justice was a notion that concerned duties and rights of people in the society. Justice was an interpersonal concept that sought to resolve conflict among people. Justice would ensure that: society members were safeguarded; offenders were punished due to committing unlawful actions; and victimized individuals were given restitution.

Absolute justice was not actually attainable because human beings were not perfect, but limited beings; however, they focused to achieve absolute justice. Justice was aimed to promote better interests in the society; nevertheless, this was not to claim that inferior interests should be suppressed.

Justice aimed to sustain and build right behaviors while judicial court was responsible to deliver judgment among peoples. Moreover, the remedy of court was an alternative resort that was exercised only when disputes happened. The judicial proceeding was intended to provide solutions toward existing disputes. Court was responsible to handle injustice cases that had already happened in the society and reassure the mass of fairness and accountability.

Works Cited

Pizzitola, Louis. Hearst over Hollywood: Power, Passion, and Propaganda in the Movies. New York: Columbia University Press, 2002. Print.

Platos book the Republic is now believed to be one of the most influential works in the history of Western philosophy and political science. This work focuses on a large number of questions; one of them is the definition of such notions as justice and injustice. In this book Plato intends to construct a model of an ideal or harmonious state, which would be governed by philosopher-kings, or those people who are best suited for the role of rulers. The author advocates the belief that to be just is always better than to be unjust (Plato, 39). The main message which this quote conveys is that justice is not only a moral obligation, but a necessity. It is not a burden which a person must bear just out of the fear of punishment. On the contrary, it is the knowledge of the good that helps people to co-exist with one another (Plato, 215). Therefore, the ignorance of an unjust man harms the others and himself. This is one of the core ideas in the Republic.

This opinion is frequently challenged throughout the book. It should be borne in mind that Plato expresses his views through the key, protagonist, Socrates, one of the greatest Greek thinkers and the authors teacher. At the very beginning, Socrates, Thrasymachus and Glaucon try to present various interpretation of justice. Thrasymachus believes that justice is the interest of the stronger (Plato, 18). In his opinion, everything can be just if it is useful for those people who possess power. However, Socrates refutes this theory by saying that rulers do not always know what is in the best interest because every human being can make mistakes. Therefore, there should be some principle which they can follow in order to make the right decision. However, another interlocutor, Glaucon does not fully agree with Socrates. He thinks that people behave in a just manner mostly in fear of retribution (Plato, 43). In other words, justice can only be imposed from outside. Consequently, everyone may commit a crime or any other immoral act if he or she knows that it can be done it with impunity. This is Glaucons overarching thesis.

In his turn, Socrates attempts to prove that this opinion is erroneous. First, he points out that justice is absolutely essential for the functioning of any community, city or state. Without it this city may simply collapse in chaos. Therefore, justice may be interpreted as the principles established within the state for the welfare of each citizen. They are intended to serve the best interests of an individual and society. This is the reason why justice should not viewed only as moral duty. This resembles the idea of social contract (Ferari, 353). To some extent, such approach reminds common law views on the concept of justice (Kelsen, 385; Lippens, 31). It should be born in mind that according to the principles of common law, the judge must rely not only on statutes and regulations but only on his own perceptions of justice (Sarat & Kearns, 7). So, to some degree, he may act like a philosopher-king. Nevertheless, Plato argues that this is the privilege of aristocracy this is why many of his views have been criticized (Ryan, 8).

Finally, Socrates strives to elaborate his ideas; he states that a tyrant never tastes of true freedom or friendship (Plato, 287). Finally, sooner or later such individual will be overthrown by his subordinates. The thing is that his dominance relies on compulsion rather than persuasion. Paradoxically, he, himself, fears the others. In this way, his life gradually turns into a constant nightmare. Plato also proposes a metaphor of a many-headed monster having a ring of heads of all manner of beasts (Plato, 314). Modern scholars believe that this beast represents various sides of human ego, most basic instincts (Rice, 114; Pappass, 100). The key problem is that an unjust man is the person who is governed by this beast. This eventually leads him to ruin.

It should be noted that Socrates marks out several elements of human nature, 1) the appetitive beast, in other words, human desires; 2) the lion or our emotions; and the reason, human part. These elements are hierarchical. The reason is placed at the highest level and the major goal of a person is to govern or subdue the appetitive beast. In turn, an unjust man cannot to do that and becomes virtually subhuman creature.

Naturally, Platos Republic does not offer conclusive evidence that justice is always better than injustice. Perhaps, each individual has to decide it for oneself. Overall, we may say that Plato does not actually offer concise explanation of justice in his work. He only enumerates some of its major elements like search for truth, welfare, and moral reason. Socrates defends justice against injustice claiming that injustice is perilous to the community and to the individual. Justice lays the foundations for the existence of every society. Hence, it is not an external obligation imposed from outside.

Works Cited

Ferrari. G. R. The Cambridge companion to Platos Republic. Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Kalsen H. What is justice?: justice, law, and politics in the mirror of science: collected essays. The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd., 2000.

Lippens. R. Imaginary boundaries of justice: social and legal justice across disciplines. Hart Publishing, 2004.

Pappas. N. Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Plato and the Republic. Routledge, 2003.

Plato, & Jowett B. Republic. Spark Educational Publishing, 2005.

Ryan. A. Justice Oxford readings in politics and government. Oxford University Press, 1993.

Rice. D, H. A Guide to Platos Republic. Oxford University Press, 1998.

Sarat, A, & Kearns T, R. Justice and injustice in law and legal theory. University of Michigan Press, 1998.

Introduction

Aquinas, Cicero and Augustine have greatly contributed to the concept of natural law and its application in the contemporary society. From their arguments, it is evident that natural law is directly related to the concept of justice and that they are the foundations to good governance. Accordingly, this paper will critically analyze the arguments brought forward by these scholars, show the relationship between natural law and justice and finally point out how these suppositions could contribute to good governance.

Main Body

Since the beginning of time, humans have existed as social beings who lived together interdependently. However, for a harmonious existence, there was need for laws and rules that defined the extent to which an individual would behave towards himself and others. According to Aristotle, human beings were naturally meant to be political. He argued that humans had a natural affinity for group coexistence and that this could only be facilitated by the availability of a strong government or a leader. One question, though, remains elusive (Taylor, 1997, par. 4). What, actually, is the source of the content of these laws? What makes a given society believe that doing action A is illegal or doing action B is legal? These are the questions that have led to years and years of scholarship with an ultimate focus of determining the content of law. Among those who have contributed greatly are Sophocles, Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas, Augustine and Cicero. They make their scholarly contribution on the classical natural law theory.

On his part, Cicero purports that Naturallaw is the essence of true law and true law cannot be at loggerheads with nature. It is characterized by universality, consistency and eternity. In addition, commands of natural law call for duty while its prohibitions drive one away from wrongdoing. Despite human efforts to try and limit and alter some part of the natural law, Cicero argues that this is unfair and it is a sin. However, he further argues that trying to change the whole law in its entirety is impossible. This perspective gives insight on what natural law is all about. It is an innate part of a human being and that it calls not for an interpreter. Naturally, an individual is capable of defining and clearly expounding on their meanings. Human efforts cannot force an individual from obligating to their demands. In terms of universality, natural laws cannot portray any discrepancies in one region of the earth to the other. In addition, the law does not mellow or change with time. They remain the same. And that God is overall and is the creator of the natural law (Constitutional rights foundation, 2009, par. 5).

Considering this argument, one factor comes out clearly. Natural law is an innate construction of God and no human being can change it. In fact, any human effort to alter it could result into trouble for the citizen. Bastiat as quoted by Taylor (1997) argue that any possible contradiction between human law and natural laws of morality could lead the citizen to have to make the decision of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. (p. 12). This marks a close relationship between the conceptions of natural law by Cicero and the concept of Justice. Equally, justice is a concept that defies time. It does not mellow after a given period of time. Justice does not have a given human specifications like the due process involved in law. As Hameed (2007, par. 6) quotes the United States constitution, equal justice cannot be denied to any society. This is because justice possesses a quality of timelessness and hence never changes.

Augustines contribution towards natural law equally runs towards the same line. He also attributes the wrongness and rightness of human actions to an innate part of the human body. He believes that human beings are prone to sin. This was characterized by Adam and Eve who sinned against God and hence brought into existence the concept of original sin. His conceptualization draws a similarity with Cicero. Just like him, Augustine argues that laws are innate and are created by God. Trying to go against the natural laws within the human body means that one will be trying to defy Gods order of creation and hence, one has to be punished just like Adam and Eve brought punishment to mankind by trying to go against God.

How do scholars view the Concept of justice? One of the greatest contributors to this concept is Plato. He critically analyzed the several concepts that tried to explain justice and comes up with the definition of justice in two perspectives; individual point of view and the social perspective. As an individual, he defines justice as a human virtue. As a concept of virtue, justice is an innate part of a human being and it is responsible for consistency in good deeds. Socially, justice was defined by Plato as social consciousness that makes a society internally harmonious and good (Bhandari, 2008, par. 1). Plato makes a definition of justice in the lines of social morals and righteousness.

Platos definition of justice gives a clear picture of the similarity between Cicero, Aquinas and Augustines conceptualization of natural law. Plato argues that an individual who is just will always live a happy and fulfilled life. He argues that virtues contain an aspect that enables them to harmonize the wellbeing of an individual or a society. Without virtues, this internal aspect of harmonization gets lost and therefore results into a life that is not happy. Naturally, the soul of an individual is destined to play certain roles and perform certain given functions. When these roles are well played, the soul feels satisfied and happy. These functions and roles are virtuous. However, whenever the soul is denied the opportunity to work its roles as expected becomes unhappy and portrays bad working (Bhandari, 2008, par. 7).

Basically, Plato argues that the human soul contains an innate obligation to perform certain functions. Naturally, these functions are virtuous and just. This therefore ascertains the argument by the named scholars above that natural laws are innate. While Plato argues that the soul always wants to perform its functions which are in nature virtuous and just, Augustine, Aquinas and Cicero argue that natural laws develop within human beings and therefore they do not need an outsider to expound. They argue that naturally a human being will have an internal push to behave virtuously. Therefore, within a human being lies a fountain of virtues and justice which Cicero, Aquinas and Augustine call the natural law while Plato on his part calls it justice. Aquinas believes that every man was imparted a sense of reason by God. Through this sense, his actions and ways were to be well defined. He had to use this reason imparted to him by God to make judgment on every aspect of his life.

These arguments concerning natural law and justice are a great source of knowledge about the role of the government. Aquinas, Cicero and Augustine are for the fact that a human being, though with an innate disposition to behave justly, has a weakness that causes him to behave unjustly. They all point out that humans will always want to act towards their own good. This calls for a form of regulator that would ensure that the society operates within the expectations of God who was the creator of the natural law and justice. Aquinas on his part advances the role of the government by pointing out that it should act as the weapon for the common good of the society. He goes further to justify that if the government forgets its fundamental role of ensuring that citizens act within the expectations of the natural law and also ensuring common good for the society, it is the role of the citizens to revolt so that justice is restored.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is evident that the concept of natural law as advocated by Aquinas, Cicero and Augustine are very similar to the concepts of justice. In both, a human being is created with an internal structure meant to observe a harmonious coexistence within the society. These propositions affirm Platos definition of justice. In his argument, he emphasizes on the fact that the soul always operates on certain lines which are virtuous. The baseline is that both natural law and the concept of justice argue that within the human being is a push to do good. This was created by God. However, human beings will sometimes get derailed and start acting towards selfish interests. This calls for a government or leader that would ensure that individuals act in ways that would promote common good. And this forms the foundation of a government.

Reference

Bhandari, D. (2008). Platos concept of justice: An analysis. Web.

Constitutional Rights Foundation. (2009). Thomas Aquinas Natural Law and Common Good. Web.

Hameed, S. (2007). Concept of justice in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Reading Islam. Web.

Taylor, E. (1997). Natural Law. National Center for Constitutional Studies. Web.

Introduction

Everyone deserves to be treated in a just manner. However, and unfortunately, the concept of justice seems to mean different things to different people. This essay seeks to explain and defend the concept of justice according to one Thrasymachus.

Life of Thrasymachus

The exact year of birth of Thrasymachus remains unclear. Dionysius intimated that Thrasymachus was younger than Lysias. Dionysius wrongly believed that Lysias was born in 459 BC. According to Aristotle, Thrasymachus lived between the times of Tisias and those of Theodorus although he did not state the exact dates. Cicero indicated that Thrasymachus and Gorgias lived around the same time.

Aristophanes seems to give an exact reference for Thrasymachus life in the mention of his play, Banqueters which was performed in the year 427 BC. It is therefore probable that Thrasymachus had been a teacher in Athens for some period before the play was performed. In his writings, Thrasymachus makes reference to Archelaos, the King of Macedonia between 413 and 399 BC. Rightly so, Thrasymachus was on the scene in the fifth century BC (Rauhut).

The Concept of Justice according to Thrasymachus

Other than his date of birth being unclear, his philosophical ideas are also not clear. Some people believe that he was a Sophist. It is in the Book One of Platos Republic that Thrasymachus becomes visible. His encounter with Socrates is dramatic and emotional as he attacks the position taken by Socrates that justice is a vital good (Rauhut). Thrasymachus asserts that injustice, if it is on a large enough scale, is stronger, freer, and more masterly than justice (Rauhut).

As they argue with Socrates on the issue of injustice, Thrasymachus says that justice is nothing more than the advantage of the stronger (sparknotes). In other words, justice for the poor does not exist. As we know it, justice is a preserve of the stronger. This could be stronger in terms of wealth or power.

According to him, it pays not to be just and it is not the person who behaves justly who benefits but the person who acts unjustly. The assumption here is that those in power are always unjust but they access justice at the expense of the weak. The only just thing that we can do to justice is to ignore it in totality.

From the long discussion with Socrates, three major issues are raised by Thrasymachus, three attempts at defining the concept of justice. Thrasymachus sees justice as the advantage that the stronger have over the weak. By strong is meant those in power, the rulers, and the rich and so on. Secondly, Thrasymachus perceives justice as an imposing laws on people; obedience to the laws of the land. Lastly, Thrasymachus sees justice as that advantage that one has over another.

Defence for his Conception of justice

Let us start with the first conception of justice: advantage of the stronger. The stronger refer to the ruling party, the government of the day, the leaders and any other person who is in a privileged position either due to power or affluence. In every society, it is the same people who make laws which always work to their advantage. The weak will call it injustice but to the strong, it is just to follow those laws that favor them (sparknotes).

It is not so clear why the weak must always follow the rules set by the strong and why such following is always in the interest of the strong. Some scholars, among them Wilamowitz, Zeller and Strauss have treated Thrasymachus as a natural right crusader. The scholars argue that it is only natural that the weak are ruled by the stronger (Rauhut). This is rightly so in almost every society.

Another group of scholars comprising of Hourani and Grote have dealt with the second conception of justice by Thrasymachus. According to them, justice is all about obeying of laws.

They seem to vouch for legalism and accordingly, Thrasymachus is portrayed as a relativist who believes that justice cannot be thought of outside the body of laws. It is all about observing existing laws. As such, any good deeds performed outside the set rules cannot be seen as elements of justice. One wonders where acts like obedience to parents fall if it is not defined as justice.

The third group of Kerferd and Nicholson observes that the third conception of justice by Thrasymachus is his main part in the justice issue. In this regard, Thrasymachus is an ethical egoist who stresses that justice is the good of another and thus incompatible with the pursuit of ones self interest (Rauhut). This qualifies Thrasymachus under ethics more than in politics. In other words, Thrasymachus thrives more in ethical arguments than political ones.

Taylor and Burnet look at Thrasymachus as an ethical nihilist. According to them, the cardinal aim of Thrasymachus is to prove that justice does not exist. This argument can lead to a back and forth argument. If Thrasymachus believes that justice does not exist, are we to take that as the truth? This would go against the Principle of Non Contradiction (Cliffnotes). The mere mention of justice implies that justice indeed exists.

Barney and Johnson have suggested that Thrasymachus should not be taken for what he is not. He is a sociologist cum political scientist who offers observable facts that equals to a cynical commentary on those who follow a traditional, Hesiodic conception of justice (Rauhut).

Lastly, another group treats Thrasymachus as a confused thinker. This arises from the fact that even his own conceptions of justice do not marry, they dont support each other yet they are from once person (Rauhut).

Thrasymachus may have been treated as seen in the above discussion yet his input cannot be wished away. His ideas are very crucial in ethical and moral theory. Where ethics is concerned, his views have majorly been seen as the first fundamental critique of moral values (Rauhut).

In addition, he seems to foreshadow Nietzsche when he insists that moral values are socially constructed and are nothing but the reflection of the interests of particular political communities (Cliffnotes). He is seen as propagating cynical realism in political theory that states that might is right.

Conclusion

Thrasymachus is such a pillar in ethics and political philosophy. He cannot be wished away, he can only be studied deeper from his fragments so that a better understanding of Thrasymachus is sought and used to enhance the said fields of ethics and political philosophy or theory. Strong people have the courage to do wrong.

Works Cited

Cliffnotes. Republic by Plato: Summary and Analysis. 2013. Web.

Rauhut, Nils. Thrasymachus (fl. 427 BCE). 2011. Web.

Republic Book I: Summary. 2013. Web.