Category: Justice

Introduction

Justice and vengeance are two words which seem to have the same meaning, but in reality, they have an entirely different meaning. Webster’ dictionary defines justice as “the administering of deserved punishment or reward; the administration of what is just according to law,” and vengeance as “the infliction of injury, harm, or humiliation in return for an injury or offence.” Many people believe that in vengeance, there is no love, unlike in justice.

In today’s society, people tend to seek vengeance instead of justice. When people are wronged, they desire to take revenge without considering the consequences. The difference between these two deeds is that justice is administered according to the society’s law, but with a vengeance, one tends to take the law into their own hands, and rage controls those deeds instead-of love that governs how justice is sought.

Vengeance vs. Justice

Vengeance only punishes people who what they did and mostly it is unruly and outside-the-law thus causing feuds. If carried out properly, justice teaches the wrongdoer the wrongs of his/her deeds, provides reparation to the victim and stops further quarrels. Justice is founded on civilization accomplishments of humanity, on law, legitimacy and philosophy and after a just trial and revealing the unknown.

Vengeance is merely retribution, at times without ethical and just grounds, and it is fierce. It does not take into account the guilt, and mostly it is not fair. Vengeance is basically a response based on emotions and does not make the offended feel better, but on the contrary, it makes matters worse. Justice punishes the offender fairly according to the law and makes him/her realize his/her wrongs hence making the victim feel much better. Justice involves the law, while vengeance involves one’s emotions.

Some people prefer vengeance than justice. Most people feel strongly coerced to rectify wrongs, to see unfairness rectified compellingly, directly and determinedly. Mostly, people are driven by an inner fervour for order and at times, driven by an injustice experienced or seen (Parnell, 43). It is deep-rooted and feels like a coercing need. Many people tend to be vengeful because they don’t trust that the law will punish the perpetrators as they deserve.

The distinction between vengeance and justice is universal. Many doctrines support the idea of justice and affirm that all people should seek justice instead of vengeance. For instance, in Christianity, vengeance is not allowed. Christians are not allowed to take matters into their own hands or have vengeful hearts. To them, vengeance is a sin and its only God who can judge, condemn and grant justice.

However, they respect the laws of the land and accepts that laws can determine what is just and what is not and also prosecute the wrongdoers. Muslims also support justice, and they believe that people should not offend God, and they should not also offend their fellow human. Vengeance is also seen to be sinful and improper. Just like Christians, Muslims are encouraged to forgive those who wrong them and not take matters into their own hands.

They also have their own laws that prosecute the wrongdoers so as to bring justice in their land. People should not be driven by their emotions because anger and rage cannot solve problems. The compelling feeling inside the victim is what drives them to seek vengeance. They desire to inflict pain to those who have offended them and make them feel what they have felt or experienced. This feeling is humane, but people should learn to control their feelings so that justice can be administered.

Even after offenders have gone through trials and persecuted, some victims do not feel that justice has done. For example in a case where a person has murdered someone, even though the murderer can be jailed all their life, sometimes one feels that that is not enough and that they should be killed just like they killed. Long-term imprisonment does not seem like a fair punishment for a murderer. Many people believe that murderers should be hanged to die in cold blood.

Some people believe that vengeance is making victims feel better compared to justice; they believe “eye for an eye” is the best approach to solving problems (Sandel, 84). In every society, there are different laws, and these laws ensure that justice is administered: these laws are, however, different. Different countries have different methods of administering justice.

court of law determines who ought to be punished and who shouldn’t. There are procedures followed, and with evidence, the offender is convicted. In different laws, the ruling spirit is justice and not vengeance. In the perception of justice, punishment is a fundamental part. Any crime is a form of injustice to society. The objective of all punitive systems is to punish wrongdoers and guard society against re-occurrence of crimes.

Nonetheless, if societies were to depend only on penalty and punishment, they would not succeed. An atmosphere of healthy ethics, faith and morals ought to be the norm, where right behaviours are encouraged by all people, and illegal behaviours are opposed. Contemporary societies come up with justice systems that are used for arresting criminals and troublemakers, and for administering penalties believed to be consistent with the committed crime.

These justice systems are organized and fair to all; often, they are precise in choosing the intention of integrity, and inclined towards what is considered just and fair. In a flawless viewpoint, this kind of system is acceptable and satisfactory to both the victim and the society. Criminals learn from their mistakes and agree that they were punished fairly. The victim also feels that justice prevailed and that he/she does no longer feel the desire to revenge. But in reality, this perfect attitude doesn’t exist. Mostly victims feel that wrongdoers were not adequately punished and after trials and persecution, they still feel compelled to revenge. Wrongdoers, on the other hand, feel that they were punished unfairly and that they did not deserve such prosecution. Even when justice has been delivered; some people always feel unsatisfied with the judge’s decision.

Some even think that society needs both vengeance and justice. Every legal system ought to be morally just; they should punish those who are guilty and come up with an ethical duty to gratify the victims’ needs as they can feel avenged. Mostly this is never the case that’s why people chose vengeance instead of justice. Most victims do not feel avenged by the justice systems. In different films, there have been themes of vengeance and justice, where characters are taking matters into their own hands.

They are driven by rage and the desire to make the offenders go through similar pain and anguish. Mostly in these films, there is no justice; there is vengeance. Whenever a character is wronged, the first thing that comes into their mind is vengeance and not justice. People do not mostly seek for justice; they seek for vengeance. They believe that, through vengeance, they will be emotionally satisfied (Nowrasteh, The Stoning of Soraya M).

In Hamlet film, a great price was paid for Hamlet to exact his vengeance. Ophelia was rejected, went mind and then died, good friends were used, manipulated and killed. Polonius was scorned and later killed; Laertes was driven to kill and to violate others; a mother was punished then murdered. In this film, it’s obvious that Shakespeare wants to show his viewers how a person’s sense of fairness and justice can be distorted and corrupted when vengeance is the driving factor.

Vengeance does not prevent further clashes; it brings added problems and destruction. Victims’ initial intention is to seek justice, but they end up seeking vengeance, thus complicating matters further. For example; when the play begins, Hamlet is portrayed as a normal young man even though a little bitter. When he had of his uncle’s betrayal, he tries to seek-out justice for killers of his father, but in the process, this intention was lost.

He planned his close friends’ execution and wanted Claudius to drink from a glass that was poisoned. Even though the people around him give him reasons to seek justice, he is overwhelmed by a desire to get revenge, and he ends up killing all his loved ones. By the time the film ends, Hamlet is left without anything, realizing that his vengeful attitude had so much to do with his loved ones’ death. At the end of the film, the viewer is not left with the thought that justice prevailed.

Rather, they are left with a bad feeling, a bloody ending of the consequences of vengeance. Hamlet’s intention is driven by vengeance instead of justice; this feeling becomes an inner conflict which creates a path for all incidents taking place in the entire film. Hamlet sought vengeance to avenge his father’s death. Through soliloquy, the viewer gets to know Hamlet’s feelings towards justice. He is torn between justice and vengeance, and after going great struggle, he internally tries to justify his vengeful ways (Branagh, Hamlet).

Vengeance makes people feel worse because mostly, they end up doing evil things. Hamlet for instanced killed his loved ones in the name of avenging his father’s death; justice always prevails. In the “To Kill a Mockingbird,” there are issues of vengeance and justice. The story outlines the experiences of two brothers (scout and Jem) through the Tom Robinson trial and their father’s struggles in maintaining his justice. In the end, Tom is declared guilty by the law. This film is not about the triumphant end of the just or the vile vengeance against wickedness. Rather it’s peculiar to reveal the significance of justice together with acceptance, optimism and forgiveness. Through this film, viewers learn that “Courage isn’t a man who holds a gun, but it is when a person fight for what is right despite whether they win or not (Mulligan, To Kill A Mockingbird).”

Conclusions

All countries should preserve their justice systems, and they should not allow their citizens to evade their protocol to achieve their personal satisfaction. Taking matters into your hands is illegal, and a system that does not allow this kind of fulfilment is a true kind of justice. People should not be allowed to go against the justice system to gain personal fulfilment. This can cause havoc in the country because, in vengeance, there is no protocol or even rules.

Victims who are denied this fulfilment are against a justice system that did not fulfil their emotional needs. Acting on emotions is very dangerous because most people are never in their right minds. People are always advised to make decisions when they are calm and relaxed. Emotions are never involved when administering justice unlike vengeance; only fairness and what is morally right is considered. Citizens’ discontentment can crumble a society from within, but justice does not mean granting the emotional needs of all citizens. Some people will always feel dissatisfied with justice systems no matter the efforts done.

Works Cited

Hamlet. Dir. Kenneth Branagh. Columbia Pictures, 1996. Film.

Parnell, Jaime. The impact of attitudes towards justice and vengeance: differences in justice – vengeance motives and NFC in mock jurors rendering non-life, life and death sentences in a heinous murder trial. USA: Central Queensland University, 2001. Print.

Sandel, Michael. Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? USA: Penguin Books Ltd, 2009. Print.

To Kill A Mockingbird. Dir. Robert Mulligan. Universal Pictures, 1962. Film.

The Stoning of Soraya M. Dir. Cyrus Nowrasteh. Roadside Attractions, 2008. Film.

Introduction

The book “Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do?” by Michael Sandel is a masterpiece trying to explore the major ethical and moral issues affecting humanity. According to the author, human beings should be allowed to lead unpressurized lifestyles (Sandel 62). The purpose of this essay is to describe the ideas and concepts presented in this book. The essay goes further to present the best views that can help more people lead meaningful lives. The main argument in this paper is that morality should always be treated as a private matter. This is the case because human beings have universal and natural rights that dictate their lives.

Background Information

Morality is an area that has attracted numerous philosophical ideas and concepts within the past two centuries. Many societies have been using different thoughts and theories to dictate human relationships. However, the author of this book goes further to attack specific ideas such as utilitarianism. The book also supports libertarianism as a powerful principle capable of upholding people’s liberties. Issues that undermine people’s liberties are also attacked by the author. The important obligation of every society is to treat its people with care and dignity. With reason, human beings will make adequate decisions that promote their freedoms and liberties (Sandel 39). Using powerful arguments, the author shows the reader that most of the existing philosophical notions tend to make justice something dependent on people’s interests. True justice, according to the author, should therefore be able to imply neutrality (Sandel 96).

Summary

In the first chapter, the book reexamines the question of justice and why people should take it seriously. The author goes further to present the utility concept. This concept supports human pleasure, dignity, and happiness. Libertarianism is supported as powerful principle explaining why people should be free to make specific decisions. A good example is the ability or freedom to impose self-harm. The fourth chapter focuses on controversial topics such as wars and bearing children (Sandel 43). These are issues that must never be dictated by labor or market laws. The book goes further to explain why human actions matter the most. According to Immanuel Kant, human beings deserve respect and dignity.

The issue of equality is also described in the book. John Rawls believes in a hypothetical contract capable of providing equal liberties to all freedoms including freedom of religion and speech (Sandel 81). This explains why social utility is the best model towards supporting people’s welfare. The issue of affirmative action is also described by the author. The best approach is considering the question of affirmative action through the use of abstract principles. The outstanding lesson is that morality is a subject that has governed every aspect of human life. A positive approach to justice will ensure more people to design and live in the best societies.

Evaluation

From a personal perspective, I strongly believe that the book has achieved the intended goal. This is the case because the author did not intend to change any existing moral argument. Instead, he offers powerful discussions and anecdotes to present the central lesson to the reader. The central lesson obtained from the book is that justice is a positive approach that will ensure more people design the best societies for themselves. The author goes further to consider various concepts and moral thoughts to support the fact that morality should be treated as a private matter (Sandel 82).

Several strengths can be observed from the text. For example, the author uses specific philosophical thoughts throughout the book. Eye-catching stories are also used to pinpoint the weaknesses and strengths of various moral philosophies (Sandel 44). The author also avoids causing unnecessary drama by encouraging the reader to make his or her own conclusions. The book also supports the use of various ideas to create new values that can make our societies much better. The only weakness is that the author fails to outline specific alternatives that can promote equality for all.

I have always studied widely in order to understand various ethical theories. My goal has been to understand the best approaches towards maximizing human happiness. I have always believed that utilitarianism is a powerful principle that can make the human society much better (Sandel 65). However, this text has presented new concepts that have the potential to redefine my understanding of human justice and freedom.

Conclusion

This masterpiece presents powerful concepts that can promote human freedom. Some of the existing principles are inadequate because of their inability to promote equality for every person (Sandel 105). I have understood that justice is a personal subject that must be taken seriously by all. People should read about more ethical principles and philosophies in order to support their liberties. This knowledge will also make it easier for them to create better societies that will support their goals. This study is relevant because it offers new insights that can redefine the morality debate. Societies should therefore use this knowledge to identify new principles capable of maximizing equality and justice.

Work Cited

Sandel, Michael. Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2010. Print.

Meritocracy can be defined as a system adapted by a government or any other organization where appointments in filling positions are made depending on the demonstrated ability of the candidate and the talents inherent. According to Meritocracy, appointments should not be based on either the amount of wealth owned, family connections, social class, popularity, or friendship, among other related grounds, but rather on merit. Therefore, according to Meritocracy, the social differences that occur in society, including variations in wealth, occupation of various posts in society, and the social status of persons in society, are purely determined by their respective competitiveness and the exploitation of their talents. Thus positions, social status, and responsibilities in society are earned.

Meritocracy is perceived as an opposing force to affirmative action, which advocates for giving preference to a certain group in society to another in an attempt to correct historical inequalities in society and being making the workforce of organizations reflective of the society in which they reside. Affirmative action tends to empower the historically discriminated set of groups in an attempt to promote equality in society (Curry 1996).

The notion of Meritocracy can be challenged as the cause of structural inequalities in society in the sense that the socially disadvantaged are never given a chance to reorganize in also becoming competitive like the rest of the society members. Otherwise, the competitive member takes up the responsibilities, having the disadvantaged being just spectators in society waiting for all to be done by a few elite. The responsibilities that are taken up by a few elite benefit them either economically or in improving their social status in society because some responsibilities come with economic gains and some level of honor in society. The responsibilities taken over by a few elites in society include job opportunities and governance of institutions which places them at either a higher level of living standard or instills some kind of authority in them (Joseph, Bowles and Durlauf 2000). Therefore Meritocracy can be seen as a cause of inequalities that are currently in society because the uncompetitive members of society were never given responsibilities as they did not have the qualification to meet the roles that come with those responsibilities, thus lagging behind socially and economically because they are not in a position on which they can earn honor or economic gain from these responsibilities other than active participation.

Meritocracy can also be perceived as an accelerator of more inequality cases in society, and this can be argued from the perspective of exposure to work challenges. Work challenges normally give an enabling environment for individuals to perfect their skills and discover new ways of doing things that makes them more specialized than those who have never been on such a job. On the rise of other job opportunities, the persons with such job-related experiences normally stand at a better chance than those who have never been on that job because of the gained experience if Meritocracy was to apply because they are more qualified than those who have never been on the job. This situation is likely to worsen inequality levels in society because those who already have been given more and for those who do not have remain in their state because they are not competent enough to take over as per to the justifications of Meritocracy (Kaus and Danek 1995). The persons who have never been exposed to work challenges are likely to lag behind, while those who had a chance will be moving to higher social status in society both economically and socially as they are expected to earn more from the increased expertise and maintaining greater honor in society depending on the responsibilities allocated to them. Therefore it’s arguable that even the inexperienced individuals need to be given a chance so as to be exposed to work challenges in the process of them building their capacities so as to become as competitive as others. Thus Meritocracy is a way of worsening the structural inequalities that are in society.

Meritocracy can also be seen as a means of sustaining the current trend of inequality in society because the less qualified members are likely not to get opportunities that are to enable them to uplift their living standards on the reason that they are not qualified and if they think they are qualified then there is a group that is better than them. Therefore with the continual application of Meritocracy, there is a likelihood of not correcting the impact of historical discrimination, which lead to the current level of inequality. Historical discrimination may be grounded on either race or gender, in that the past discrimination has drawn lines on equity along with racial difference or sex. This is evident in the United States of America during the slavery times where the African Americans were discriminated to working for the white Americans in the name of slavery which made the African Americans lag behind, and which is reflected in the current inequality levels in the United States of America, where the African Americans are at the low end of the economic command in the United States (Shapiro 2004). This situation will last for many years in the United States of America as long as Meritocracy is to be applied on the reason that the white Americans are likely to influence much because of their economic mighty (Conley 1999). Therefore the application of Meritocracy is not a good thing as it will sustain the historical inequalities as the initially discriminated will never be competitive enough even if they were given freedom.

The application of Meritocracy is limited to the accuracy of setting standards to be used in choosing candidates who are likely to perform some tasks better than others. There is a norm in meritocratic systems that the most competitive candidates are ones to be entrusted to certain responsibilities, but the question of the accuracy of the standards used to evaluate the candidates is sometimes ignored, and in most cases, the standards may be set arbitrary and in this case by a human being with limited knowledge given the theories of human cognition. There are possibilities that the most suitable candidate will be locked out because of the fault standard of evaluating the most suitable candidate. Some standards of evaluation normally involve the sex type, the age of the candidates, the physical features of the candidate, education level, and job experiences, among other standards. For example, there are jobs that use sex as a standard to measure competence, but at the same time, the very job can be done equivalently well and even better by a person belonging to sex that is believed to be weak (McCall 2001). This situation will give an advantage to the sex that is preferred to the other, making the preferred sex’s social status and economic status better than they believed to be weak sex, hence promoting inequality in society on unjustifiable grounds.

Women are the most disadvantaged when it comes to such discrimination as they are believed to be weak characters. Therefore, it can be seen from this reasoning that some standards of evaluating competence are full of reasonableness; that is, they are not justifiable from a logical perspective. Otherwise, they are arbitrary. The issue of using age as a standard to measure competence is unrealistic because, at times, younger people can do better than old people in tasks that are believed to be best suited for the old and vice versa; thus it’s an invalid standard that may be used in Meritocracy (Cahau and Zylbergy 2004 ). Education level also at times does not determine the competence of a candidate on jobs where common knowledge is needed, and job experience does not guarantee that a new entrant in the fields would not perform better than individuals who have been there for years. Therefore the standards used in Meritocracy are never accurate, and for that reason, they are likely to cause unjustifiable levels of inequality in an attempt to choose the best candidates.

Meritocracy is based on the concept of rewarding talents and hard work, although it’s indirectly represented on its definition as allocation of responsibilities as per to merit. Meritocracy can be justifiable from the deontological perspective, but it’s unacceptable per the utilitarian school of thought that advocates for doing to your neighbor what you expect him or her to do for you. According to utilitarianism, an action is perceived to be right if it promoted the general good and happiness in society, and its wrong if it is harmful to society. Despite Meritocracy’s effort to award hard work and talents, it seems to be quite unfair in situations where the current incompetence is due to historical discriminations. The persons who are perceived being incompetent could have been better like the ones currently perceived to be better if it was not of the historical discrimination along the lines of race, for example. The Historical discrimination may have disadvantaged them from accessing some facilities for capacity building, like in the case of United States segregation of Schools, where the whites’ schools were better equipped than the Blacks’ schools (Hayward 1986). The current state of the disadvantaged was predetermined by certain historical discrimination, which is not their wish but a situation that denied them a chance of developing themselves. The persons who believe to be competent are competent not because of their with but because of historical circumstances that favored their development; otherwise, the opposite could have happened and them being on the disadvantaged state, therefore.

Meritocracy should be limited to some degree because one should be treating the other as he could have wished to be treated when in such a situation, promoting the common good in society and enhancing happiness in totality by correcting the predetermined inequalities. Therefore, Meritocracy is not just if the happiness and welfare of the rest of the community was the major issue. Thus it is a kind of individualism that is supported by the deontologists (Tangwa 1996 ).

It should be understood that in the society that we are staying in, every person is trying to survive, and it does not matter by what means the desire is to see a new day. Thus persons will engage in all sorts of activities to earn them a living. They are adapting Meritocracy as a system; it’s likely to provoke the social order in society in the sense that the persons who are perceived to be incompetent to be entrusted to responsibilities in society, which will, in turn, support their living are likely to turn wild on them trying to survive and the group that will be affected are the persons who have been privileges to hold some responsibilities because of their abilities. Individuals with fewer qualifications are the persons who engage much in criminal activities in an attempt to meet their daily needs (Bean 2003). Therefore, if low crime rates are to be expected in a society, then Meritocracy is not the best because the unqualified persons are certain to engage in criminal activities, which will place the whole society at risk and, more especially, the haves(Bedeu 1997). The only way to stop such criminal activities is by absorbing the unqualified also into responsibilities and train them when on the job so as to restrain them from engaging in unfair means of surviving.

There are some special cases where the application of Meritocracy should be limited, like in the case of veterans in the United States. The United States Veterans fought for the country in foreign wars because they were patriotic to their country, and it was for the common good. The active participation in foreign wars restored the peace that everybody is enjoying currently, and it was an act for the common good. After the war, most of these veterans had got disabilities, and on top of that, they had wasted their precious time participating in military activities at the expense of developing their capacities. Now that wars are over, they have come back home, and they are expected to lead their lives like any other citizens. The question that arises is that they should be given jobs even though they do not have the qualifications because they had wasted their time in the military for the common good. Meritocracy system is certain to trash these veterans, thus it’s never the best at all cases as some cases need special judgment, although it may be justifiable under the deontological perspective, which seem to be rather inhuman. The veterans need to be given jobs as a reward for their patriotism and also for their generosity that costed them a lot, thus do them as they did for you.

Conclusion. Meritocracy is a system that attempts to award responsibilities according to merit. It can be seen as a means of trying to increase efficiencies in the organization by absorbing only qualified candidates. It’s limited to the reason that the work force in organizations are never a reflective of society any more as it will promote inequality in society, as normally responsibilities are accompanied by both increased social status and economic gains too, thus having the less competent becoming disadvantaged. Meritocracy is only best suited for technical jobs where complicated technicalities are involved because unqualified persons are likely either to put themselves in danger like in the case of handling machines or unpleasant results will be expected. Meritocracy can be perceived as the cause of inequality, the accelerator of inequality and the sustaining factor of inequality in society. meritocracy can be justifiable from the deontological perspective, but it is not good as per to the utilitarians as it does promote the common good in society because it benefits only some elites in society.

Bibliography

Bean P., 2003, Crime, Taylor and Francis Publishing Company, pp 33

Bedeu H., 1997, The Death Penalty in America: Current Controversies, Oxford University Press, United States, pp 108.

Chau P. and Zylbergy A., 2004, Labor Economics, MIT Press, pp 217.

Conley D., 1999, Being Black, Living in Red: Race ,Wealth and Social Policy in America, University of California Press, pp 55.

Curry E. , 1996, The Affirmative Action, Addison Wesley Publishing Company, pp 16.

Hayward C. , 1986, Segregation in US Public Schools: Desegregation and Segregation, University of Wisconsin – Madison, pp 7.

Joseph K., Bowles S. and Durlauf S. ,2000, Meritocracy and Economic Inequality, Princeton University Press, pp 2.

Kaus M. and Danek K. , 1995, The End of Inequality, Basic Books Publishing company, Chapter Five, pp 58.

McCall L. ,2001, Complex Inequality: Gender, Class and Race in new Economy, Rout ledge Publishing Company, pp 5.

McNamee J. and Miller K. , 2004, The Meritocracy Myth. Web.

Shapiro M. ,2004, The Hidden costs of being an African American: How wealth perpetuates inequality, Oxford University Press, pp 102.

Tangwa B., 1996, Democracy and Meritocracy: Philosophy Essays and Talks, Galda and Wilch , pp 38.

Utilitarians Website; Introduction to utilitarianism, Web.

United States Office of Personnel Management, 2007, Disabled Veterans Affirmative Action Program. Web.

Introduction

Ethics are an unwritten code. They are believed to be imprinted in the core of men, and are a guide in choosing to do the right or wrong thing. They are associated with our conscience, which guides everyone, such that when one is doing or has done something wrong, one is bound to feel guilty.

Liberation as seen in the bible and the church

The book, The Living Justice, talks about the Bible and the many encounters God had with the people of Israel. This was his chosen people, but their lives were not always smooth. They were generations that rose from the house of Joseph and his twelve brothers. The brothers came to Egypt in search of grain and water, in the time of drought.

They were welcomed by their brother, Joseph, whom they had sold to foreigners, who were passing through their father’s lands. Joseph had then been promoted for his good works through the grace of God, to become Pharaoh’s right hand man.

The household of Jacob continued to grow in Egypt, and the Egyptians became wary of their numbers, and they were taken as slaves. During their time as slaves, they were mistreated. When the worst came to the worst, and their population had grown beyond proportions, Pharaoh gave an order to have all the newborn males killed so that he could reduce the possibility of having Egyptians being toppled by the Israelites (Jones 121).

In the end, God heard their cry and selected Moses to liberate them. He had been brought up with Pharaoh, as his brother, but he had to rise against him. He asked Pharaoh to let the Israelites go, but Pharaoh was adamant and he refused. God then brought upon the Egyptians, the ten plagues that saw them suffer. The final plague, the death of all the Egyptian first borns was the last stroke and Pharaoh finally let up, and decided to let them go.

This shows that God is just and powerful. He fought the battle for the Israelites; they were weak and oppressed. They had lost hope, and He delivered them from the Land of slavery.

Similarly, the church is portrayed as a savior. It is depicted, in several occasions, to come up to to the help of those that are in need and oppressed. For instance, many health care facilities sprouted from the charitable works of the church. They also provide trained personnel and subsidized or free treatment.

Secondly, many schools have been set up by churches to help educate the less fortunate, either for free or at subsidized prices. Thirdly, the church has been seen to come to the aid of those that are dominated over. For instance, they care for the orphans, widows, widowers, the sick and other less privileged people. They counsel them, give them shelter and offer any other service they may require.

The people who mainly offer services in the church are the laymen in the church, nuns, brothers and sisters. The brethren can also volunteer to offer their services. Churches are also involved in the building of children homes and other forms of shelter for the less fortunate. This, therefore, shows that the church tries to offer justice to those that are unlikely to access easy help (Massaro 1-16).

Justice in the Bible and Church

In the case of the Israelites, they were refined through fire and brimstone as they were taken through a wilderness, where they suffered some challenges. It was at this time that they became disobedient and wished they were back in Egypt, where they claimed they had food and drink. This prompted Moses to strike the rock in anger, contrary to what God had told him. This led to Moses not entering the land of Canaan. In addition to that, the Israelites went to the length of worshipping a golden calf made from melted jewels.

This provoked God and He decided that, as a form of punishment, the Israelites would not enter the Promised Land. The subsequent generations are the ones that entered the land.

This shows that wrongs are supposed to be punished. In the same way, the church is involved in the alleviation of immorality. For instance, the Catholic Church may seem a bit too harsh when they excommunicate their church members after they commit fornication. By doing so, they discourage immorality among their congregation especially among the young people.

The church and human rights

The church also propagates the human rights. They recognize all people as equal, and no life is better than the other. It is, consequently, against abortion and the slaying of lives (Curran 56). The Lord gives, and He should, hence, be the one to take. It is also against the execution of convicts. At the end of the day, the church welcomes people of all kinds with open arms. It preaches forgiveness to its congregation.

Controversies

The Catholic Church is on the forefront in the campaigns against abortions. They are justified to be fighting for that voiceless fetus, which cannot speak for itself. The fetus does not have the choice to live or not to live; its fate is decided by the carrier (Himes and Lisa 47).

This may appear unfair, and the gravid mother to be may be crucified as a murderer, but in the Bible, Jesus said in the story of Mary Magdalene that he, who is without sin, should be the first to throw a stone. This goes to show that nobody is perfect. The pregnant mother may be having other children and cannot afford to have another.

She could also be having a detrimental disease like heart failure and cannot carry the pregnancy to term. In such cases, I believe that the church should not impose on the mother to continue carrying the pregnancy as this will compromise both the mother and child. If it were to come to a choice between the two, the mother should be left to survive because she needs to take care of her other children. The pregnancy may also lead to her demise and after that, who will be left to take care of the newborn baby?

The church also preaches forgiveness, but it also acts self righteously when it suspends fornicators form coming to church. The other query would also be why fornication is the only sin that attracts such a punishment, why not murder, adultery, robbery with violence and other acts that would considered as sin. The bible says that all sins are equal; hence, the church goes against it by making some sins seem greater than others.

Works Cited

Curran, Charles Edward. Catholic Social Teaching, 1891-present: A Historical, Theological, and Ethical Analysis. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2002.

Himes, Kenneth R., and Lisa Sowle Cahill. Modern Catholic Social Teaching: Commentaries and Interpretations. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2005.

Jones, Alexander. The Jerusalem Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1966.

Massaro, Thomas. Living justice: Catholic Social Teaching in Action. 2nd classroom ed. Lexington, Massachusetts: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2012.

Introduction

In the story about Cain and Abel, Cain is usually regarded as a bad guy who killed his brother. He committed a crime, his guilt was proved, and the Lord punished him by cursing that “whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold” so the man could like a long but fugitive life (The Bible, Gen. 4.15). However, talking about the most serious injustice that was committed in Genesis 4, it is also necessary to recognize the first true source of unfair treatment. According to the Bible, both Cain and Abel brought their offerings to the Lord, but only the latter gained respect, provoking such feelings as envy and anger in the former, which made the Lord an actual perpetrator of the most serious injustice in Genesis 4.

Main body

At the beginning of their story, both brothers, Cain and Abel, had the same rights and opportunities as the sons of Adam and Eve. It was known that “Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground” (Gen. 4.2). Both men worked and demonstrated their achievements to the Lord. Cain and Abel did not demonstrate any anger, the desire to compete, or the intention to be better. It was a just world with equal resources and a natural order.

However, the situation changed with time as soon as the Lord began participating in the activities of the brothers. Despite the fact that both brothers succeeded in the chosen activities and brought the results of their work, “the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering: but unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect” (Gen. 4.4). Only after such an unfair treatment without any reason, Cain began changing, “very wroth, and his countenance fell” (Gen. 4.5).

It was the Lord who founded social injustice, although the brothers completed their tasks and followed his word. In addition, instead of helping Cain avoid his sins, the Lord seemed to seduce by saying that “sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him” (Gen. 4.7). Anger, envy, and the inability to control his feelings and the Lord’s injustice were the reasons for Cain’s decision to kill his brother.

As well as today’s society, the Bible is based on human relationships and a number of internal and external sources. It is hard to recognize the causes of social injustice in the modern world, but the Bible introduces a clear answer and defines the Lord as the one who started treating unfair to people and provoked jealousy. Instead of learning from his mistakes, being judged, and having an opportunity to change and self-improve, Cain was cursed, banned from his home, and forced to wander and live on the land “not henceforth yield unto thee her strength” (Gen. 12). Such a sentence may be considered as another unjust decision of the Lord for a man who took the life of his brother but had to live a long natural life.

Conclusion

In general, people do not have the right to judge the Lord and his decisions. Still, there is always some space for discussions and evaluations. Genesis 4 is not only a story of two brothers and the moment when the first murder was created and punished. These events show that a true source of social injustice may be properly hidden. Therefore, people can mistakenly believe in the sin of one person and neglect the behavior of an actual troublemaker. It is hard to understand the intentions of the Lord to appreciate the actions of Abel and neglect the achievements of Cain. The truth remains the same that the Lord was the perpetrator of a serious injustice that divided the social world into before and after.

Work Cited

The Bible: Genesis 4. Holy Bible. Web.

Compassion and justice are religious terms that advocate for the rights and privileges of the less fortunate in society. It takes compassion to recognize the needs of the poor people in the society and justice to relieve them of their miserable conditions of abject poverty.

Different religions all over the world have been helping the poor by providing clothes, food and shelter as basic human needs, and eventually preach to them concerning their respective religious beliefs.

Lupton argues that, “the urban landscape is changing and, as a result, urban ministries are at a crossroads …if the Church is to be an effective agent of compassion and justice, we must change our mission strategies” (40). Currently, religious bodies are devising more approachable and effective ways of helping the poor by considering new strategies of compassion and justice in their ministries.

Deepening religious awareness and interconnectedness to each other people enhances religious unity among diverse religions. Unbiased awareness of other religions demystifies stereotyped beliefs associated with other religions and generates sense of trust between various religions, thus creating peaceful coexistence among religions.

Religions reaffirmed their responsibility that they will “…promote dialogue and harmony between and within religions, recognizing and respecting the search for truth and wisdom that is outside our religion, and establish dialogue with all, striving for a sincere fellowship on our earthly pilgrimage” (Robinson 339). The reaffirmation by diverse religions to enhance religious awareness is to promote religious tolerance and interconnectedness.

The current state of the world is very insensitive to the plight of the poor and the sick because the government and the church alone have great responsibility of helping the needy. Since the society is quite insensitive, creation of a compassionate world, where everybody can have a sense of compassion and can voluntarily take an initiative of helping the needy is necessary.

Teaching children to be compassionate “…makes them become aware of the world and it teaches tolerance towards different cultures and personalities … this enables children to be more sensitive and caring, that in turn leads to better relationships with others as they grow into adulthood” (Goode 5). If people were compassionate, then they would be sensitive to the needy and respond to their needs appropriately, the world would become compassionate and a better place to live.

Catholicism holds that the church has a moral and divine responsibility to provide for the needy and be advocates for their justice. According to Catholicism, “society ensures social justice when it provides the conditions that allow associations or individuals to obtain what is their due, according to their nature and their vocation.

Social justice links to the common good and the exercise of authority “(Robison 335). Social justice entails putting measures that alleviate the suffering of the needy and addressing the root cause of the problems.

Creation of socially just world is a divine duty since God is compassionate and humanity should reflect the compassionate attributes of God. Human beings have divine responsibility because in “…all economic and social life, the decisive point of the social question is that goods created by God for everyone should in fact reach everyone in accordance with justice and with the help of charity ” (Lupton 43).

Thus, being compassionate and helping the needy through charity work deepen one’s spirituality because it is in accordance with the will of God, for He sent Jesus to heal the sick, free slaves, feed the hungry, and preach the everlasting gospel to all humanity.

Works Cited

Goode, C. “Teaching Compassion to the Children.” Catholic Journal, (2008): 1-13.

Lupton, R. “Compassion, Justice, and the Christian Life.” Rethinking Ministry to the Poor. New York: Regal Publisher, 2007.

Robison, M. “Justice as Freedom, Fairness, Compassion, and Utilitarianism.” Contemporary Justice Review 6.4, (2003):329–340.

Introduction

Human rights can be considered as a bundle of inalienable rights that each person has by being alive. It consists of the right to live, the right to freedom (i.e., religious or otherwise), the right to work, and other such rights that apply to human activity in general. The acknowledgment of such rights under the Universal Declaration of Human rights is the basis behind the current freedoms that many people around the world enjoy today (Allan 251). However, before the creation of the Universal Declaration of Human rights, various religions such as Christianity, Islam and Hinduism also had their own set of rights that helped to create the basic structure that helped define social interaction and cultures in the past.

What must be understood is that the concept of “human rights” is not new, rather, it has been around for thousands of years and has been utilized as the basis behind how people are expected to interact with each other in society. These rights are expounded upon and protected by societal laws, such as the code of Hammurabi in early Mesopotamia that was created to both maintain social functions and protect individuals from being subjected to acts that violated their rights defined by law (Allan 254). However, it should be noted that these rights depended on the society that was present at the time and its religion. One interesting facet that must be remembered is that there are commonly held rights that are espoused by religious doctrines that are similar in various religions, for example:

• The 10 commandments of the Bible:
  • “thou shall not kill” (protection of the right to life)
  • “thou shall not steal” (protection of personal properties)
• The Qur’an:
  • “As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands” (protection of personal properties)”
  • the one who killed a single innocent person on this earth is like he killed entire mankind, and the one who saves the life of a single person is like he saved entire mankind” (protection of the right to life).

Despite this, the fact remains that there are numerous differences in their application of human rights as well. This paper will examine how various religions apply the concept of human rights and how they differ from one another. It is expected that through this analysis, the concept of “human justice in all religions” will be expounded upon and will show how different human rights and methods of their application are viewed by religions. It is the belief of this paper that different cultures view human rights in different ways due to how they are influenced and controlled by the religions that are dominant within their society.

Differences in the Application of Human Rights amongst Religions

Islam

The application of human rights in religion is varied, especially when comparing Islam and Christianity. While both religious espouse that women have rights, they go about this in drastically different ways. For example, one of the traditional practices in Islam is when a woman is going to marry is that she is to be provided by the dowry. Under their doctrine, this is a human right since it gives her a certain degree of “worth” in terms of what she brings to the family, as well as her capacity to contribute towards the family’s budget (ex: women actually play a considerable role in entrepreneurship in Islamic culture and often use their dowries to fund business ventures). This practice was enacted due to the patriarchal nature of Muslim society, as well as the fact that the Qur’an dictates the need for a wife to support her husband. In this particular instance, this comes in the form of creating and minding a business (Mitchem 128).

When it comes to the issue of homosexuality, the Qur’an states:(7:81) “Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you?”

As such, being a homosexual is considered as an aberration, though it should be noted that there have been attempts at correcting the behavior through counseling and various other forms of positive treatment.

Christianity

Under Christianity, the protection of human rights does have similar themes to Islam wherein it also advocates for the protection of life and property; however, the issue of female rights is far different and does not have the same entrepreneurial context (Mitchem 129). First and foremost, it should be noted that under Islam, entrepreneurship is considered as an inherent right. Namely, whether a person is a man or a woman, they have the right to engage in commerce since it is an important aspect of their culture. Women under Christianity do have fewer rights than men; however, the influence of Christian religious doctrines in European society at the time enabled women to have greater economic, social and sexual rights resulting in them being able to work, choose their husbands and have greater social freedoms (Mitchem 129).

However, unlike in Islam, the Christian context of women’s rights does not have the same “entrepreneurial” aspect in that Christian women are not given dowries. The result is that while Christian women gradually gained the same rights as men, they did not have the financial support that was inherent under the “dowry rights” within Islamic culture (Mitchem 129). From this particular perspective, it can be seen that the religions often have “trade-offs” so to speak, when it comes to the application of particular rights.

On the other hand, while Christianity advocates for equal rights for homosexuals, as stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (an official document by the church from Pope John Paul the Second), this does not extend to the sanctity of marriage.

Hinduism

In comparing the human rights advocated by Hinduism and those utilized in Islam and Christianity, a similar trend can be seen regarding the dowry system and the rights of women. However, these rights are not as reserved as compared to Islam, nor as “liberal” as those by Christianity (Mitchem 130). Instead, what exists is a sort of middle ground wherein women are given almost the same rights as men, but there are still numerous cultural restrictions brought about through religious doctrine, which limits a woman’s capacity involving economic activity and marriage (Mitchem, 130).

On the other hand, Hinduism does have a far more liberal view on homosexuality as compared to Islam or Christianity. In it, Sanskrit texts such as the Narada-Smriti and Sushruta Samhita view the sexual interaction between same-sex individuals as a manifestation of humanity’s third gender or even a means in which sexuality and passion are expressed. While individuals in Indian society do not want such actions to be described as homosexuality and instead view them as an expression of passion, the fact remains that within the context of homosexual behavior, Hinduism embraces and even celebrates this notion to a certain degree (Kendhammer, 475) though it should be noted that being a homosexual in India today is viewed in a distinctly negative light due to external influences on Indian culture (i.e., the British), which sees being gay as a sinful and socially inappropriate form of behavior.

Examining how Religion Influences Culture

It is interesting to note that what constitutes human rights is a very broad concept, especially when applied to various religions that are widespread in the present word and that have very different views as to what can be described as individual’s rights within a particular society. Human rights, when applied to Islam, Christianity, Hinduism can be considered as a direct result of religious socialization wherein its inclination towards granting specific rights to men, women and children were influenced by the specific society and culture. In various instances where religion was fostered, often unwillingly, onto a populace and that in effect changed their perception of human rights and how it was applied. For example, before the arrival of the Spanish to the Philippines, rights were equal among men and women in the country.

However, after the arrival of Spanish colonizers and imposition of Catholicism upon the native population, this changed the human rights dynamic wherein men were considered to have more rights and more privileges as compared to women (Kendhammer 479). It is quite interesting to note that when examining the various countries where European colonization occurred, it can be seen that religious fervor and the proliferation of devout followers is a common theme among such countries at present. European colonizers utilized religious conversion as a means by which the local populace could be influenced and, as a result, subverted the practices that were in existence at the time with something more akin to what the European colonizers wanted. As a result, this changed how local populations viewed human rights and how they were subsequently applied. Through the examples presented in this section, it can be seen that religion has a definite impact on how a culture applies human rights.

How does the application of human rights in religions change?

The religious culture that defines a particular society tends to change over time into something completely different, and this also impacts how human rights are applied. Despite this people, society, and what can be defined as “religious traditions” are still considered part of the original culture despite the drastic changes that occurred. For example, when looking at modern England, the religious culture that embodies it within the current era is drastically different from what it was during the 1880s, the 1400s and even far before that (Pitt 398-408). For example, human rights related to homosexuality, equal rights for women and other such developments over the past 100 years were unthinkable 500 or 700 years ago. When examining such a disposition in classification, it is seen that people in the past became so used to the characteristics that defined a particular gender or stereotype preconception that despite the latter proving otherwise the same “standard” continued to stick, especially when it related religious stereotyping (Pitt 398-408).

For example, despite women showing that they were just as capable as men when it came to certain tasks, the same gender stereotype preconception continued to exist (which classifies women as being the weaker sex), which results in fewer rights, privileges, and distinction being given to their more than capable male counterparts. Such aspects are, of course, no longer seen in the present and, as such, can be considered evidence of a shift in society which had a distinct impact on religious socialization. When examining the concept of change in the way in which human rights are viewed by religions, it can be stated that changes apply to nearly all modern societies wherein what was used to define Catholic, Muslim, Christian, Hindu and Buddhist human rights has gone through various iterations and changes over hundreds of years. Human rights in these religions as they are today cannot even be considered as a similar facsimile of the original religious cultures of their respective societies (Pitt 398-408). While it may be true that some vestiges of the original religious human rights can still be found in the modern world, it is obvious indeed that there are more differences than similarities.

Laws Involving Human Rights and Homosexuality

The HRA (Human Rights Act) was introduced in the United Kingdom in the year 1998 as a means of implementing an internal judicial method of addressing human rights concerns (i.e., cases which cross into apparent violations of human rights). Some interpretations have created positive results in the form of allowing gay marriages within the UK by the middle of 2014. To understand how the HRA applies to gay marriages, it is necessary to carefully examine the context of the act regarding the respect for private life once again. While article 8 of the HRA expressly protects the privacy of individuals, it has also been interpreted to encompass the protection of the individual’s right to develop their personality (Hill 98).

This has to include the basis behind the protection of homosexuals and transsexuals within the UK. The reason for this was that present-day legislation in the UK legalized same-sex civil marriages. While the original ECHR did mention the protection of an individual’s sexual orientation to a certain degree, it did not expressly focus on giving same-sex couples or transsexuals the right to marry. It was only through an interpretation of the HRA based on the “spirit” behind the legislation found in article 8 that present-day legislation allowed members of the LGBT community to get married (Hill 99). From a certain point of view, it can be stated that the HRA was partly responsible for encouraging the passing of such a law since it acted as a precedent, which justified the implementation of the gay marriage.

Conclusion

Based on everything that has been presented in this report so far, it can be stated that different cultures view human rights in different ways due to how they are influenced and controlled by the religions that are dominant within their society. Speaking about Christianity, Hinduism, and Islam in the present-day society, it should be noted that they have undergone some changes that are as a result of the influence of the modern world.

Works Cited

Allan, Alfred. “Are Human Rights Redundant in the Ethical Codes of Psychologists?” Ethics & Behavior 23.4 (2013): 251-265. Print.

Hill, Mark. “Religion and Human Rights: Twentieth Annual International Law and Religion Symposium.” Ecclesiastical Law Journal 16.1 (2014): 97-99. Print.

Kendhammer, Brandon. “Islam and The Language of Human Rights in Nigeria: “Rights Talk” and Religion in Domestic Politics.” Journal of Human Rights 12.4 (2013): 469-490. Print.

Mitchem, Stephanie Y. “Women’s Human Rights-And Religion.” Cross Currents 63.2 (2013): 128-130.

Pitt, Gwyneth. “Taking Religion Seriously.” Industrial Law Journal 42.4 (2013): 398-408. Print.

The Old and New Testaments are significantly different in many aspects, likely as a consequence of the time difference between their time of writing. Both consider it essential, but they assign it, and the qualities associated with it, different roles. The Old Testament gives righteousness a clear definition and makes it a critical attribute of God, ruler, and individual. By comparison, the New Testament depicts it as coming from God and only possible through following His will. As such, it is prudent to compare the two definitions in detail to understand the overt and underlying differences between the two halves of the Christian canon better.

Justice in the Old Testament should be considered in terms of the meaning attributed to the term there rather than its current definition. Haacker claims that “it is about restoration, redistribution, and providing the right. […] The one who is stronger gives; the weaker receives.” Yahweh is supposed to be the ultimate representation of justice and righteousness, who cannot be questioned, and any misfortune, however long-lasting, is the result of his warranted wrath (Mic 7:9). As representatives of God and rulers, monarchs are supposed to deliver God’s justice to the people through their governance. In turn, individuals are supposed to follow the path of righteousness as best they can to maintain Yahweh’s favor.

The New Testament was written in times of the Roman Empire, after the development of classical Western philosophy and ethics. According to Haacker, this development has led to the sometimes-confusing usage of the abstract Greek word ‘righteousness’ alongside its more clearly defined Hebrew equivalent. However, the distinction is mostly meaningless, as God is always trusted to make the right choice, and righteousness comes from him alone.

His commandments and decision are law, yet following that law is not enough for righteousness, and one has to follow God’s will directly to achieve it (Rom 2:1–29). As such, the New Testament makes no distinction between rulers and individuals, as they are all the same before God.

Both the Old and the New Testaments consider justice and righteousness to be of the utmost importance. However, the first half of the Bible considers it to be well-defined and achievable through following a specific set of rules. These laws do not necessarily correspond to modern definitions of justice, being explicitly biased against the stronger party. The New Testament, on the other hand, considers justice to be divine and, thus, incomprehensible to any person. It is possible to debate righteousness of an act according to the Old Testament, even if the topic is complicated, but the New Testament terms, calling someone just is merely an indication of approval (Haacker). As such, while the word has similar positive connotations, the specific meaning is entirely different.

When debating the meaning of justice in the Bible, it is easy to make one or both of two mistakes. One is assuming that it is defined the same way as in the law, while the other is thinking that the definition is consistent in both parts. The Old Testament makes justice a critical trait that God possesses and that humans can achieve by following specific principles. Meanwhile, the New Testament claims that justice is following God’s will, which others cannot determine from the side. As such, to avoid misunderstanding references to justice and righteousness when discussing theology and the Bible, in particular, one should be careful to make sure which term is being discussed.

Work Cited

Haacker, Klaus B. “Justice, Justification, and Righteousness.” Oxford Reference, 2015. Web.

The question regarding suffering is one of the most challenging and difficult for perception. Christianity is focused on the evaluation of the reality of suffering. The major purpose of the paper is to provide an analysis of the justice of punishment in the Book of Job.

The Book of Job raises a significant problem of suffering and pain. It is one of the most known examples of undeserved suffering. The main character in the book is Job, a rich and God-fearing man that has lost everything in a couple of hours. He lost his property, children, and health. He could not get support from any of the relatives as even his wife refused to support the husband. Moreover, she gave Job a piece of advice; she highlighted that blasphemy is the only option for her husband, and he should commit suicide afterward. The disappointment and pain became deeper when he realized that friends convict and judge him. However, aside from all the stated above, the most painful fact for Job was that even God forgot about him and did not answer Job and refused to help him.

Job suffered not only materially and spiritually, but physically and morally as well. As a matter of fact, everyone was against him, even God himself who was fairly served by Job. It should be highlighted that Job was not a vicious man, spiritually, and morally (Job 1:1,8; 2:3). Can anyone imagine the suffering that is so undeserved? Should not God bless such a righteous man? The story regarding the suffering of Job, who was a noble, generous, wealthy, honest, and just person, had so much and has lost everything, raises the question concerning the nature of suffering. However, the answer to this issue seems to be complicated.

There is hardly a man in the world who can comprehend the sense of misery with ease; however, it is even more difficult for a person that gets the punishment undeserved. If the pain is not perceived by a person as the punishment for the sin, it discourages and confuses. The book of Job is centered on this question and aims to highlight that suffering and punishment are acceptable not only for people who committed sins as God may have other objectives apart from punishing for the sin.

The book of Job is also focused on the question regarding the attitude towards suffering. The experience of Job proves that the person that believes in God should be faithful, even facing a tragedy and challenges. The person may ask God what he had done to get such a punishment, in case the individual does not understand the reason for it. However, blasphemy is not acceptable. It is worth stating that Job was almost ready to decry God; however, he did not do it. For the strength and faith, God helped Job, and he lived peacefully for 140 years.

In conclusion, it should be pointed out that the Book of Job teaches that it is not a sin to ask God “why” and “what for”, however, it is a sin to address God in a demanding voice, trying to talk to the Creator on the same level (Job 3:11-12,16,20). God has unlimited power over a human being, and a person should never demand but be faithful and noble.

Work Cited

Mitchell, Stephen. The Book of Job. New York: Harper Collins, 2009. Print.

Introduction

This essay is on love and justice. Love and justice are God’s gifts. The two are virtues which should be practiced by humans for a peaceful and sober coexistence. However, there might be no definite meaning of these virtues though everybody talk about and desire them. Love is all about passion, affection, care and affirmation either expressed by kind deeds or sincere words spoken from a person.

The Bible defines what love is though in different meanings. Love and justice are intertwined and this essay will explain the Christian understanding of love and justice. It will also show how Martin Luther King Jnr tried to practice love and justice in his civil rights campaign.

Correlation between Love and Justice

Love can be based on a romantic relationship, friendship or expressed unconditionally like in parents or spiritually by God. The absence of love will generate feelings of neglect, loneliness and emptiness which are disastrous. Justice is associated with fairness, rights and equality to accessing resources.

Its definition and interpretation is however based on the law and that which is not just is termed as unjust. The absence of justice leads to anger which is shown through strikes, riots or peaceful demonstrations. Notable is the fact that justice delayed is lawfully described as justice denied.

Christian understanding of Love and Justice

Christian belief and understanding of love is founded in the Bible as written by Paul in 1 Corinthians 13:4, 7-8 that “love is kind, patient, accommodative, hopeful, enduring, eternal, is not rude, is not boastful and is never envious” (The Bible 798). They believe that God is love and that he sacrificed his only son Jesus Christ to die on the cross for their sins because he loved them though they were sinners.

They thereby practice love by passionately helping the poor, sick and the needy, charity work, loving their children, children obeying and loving their parents, loving themselves by taking care of their bodies, caring for others and being responsible. Hence they believe that in practicing this sincerely, they are expressing love to others and desire the same to be done unto them.

Christians believe and understand that God is just. They believe that God is fair in that he rewards people with what they deserve. They understand that justice is attained by treating everybody equally, advocating for others to be treated fairly, not discriminating on basis of color, religion, race, wealth and by respecting others. They believe that all are created in God’s image and thus all should be treated equally (Schubeck 23).

Martin Luther King Jnr. and Love and Justice

In his civil rights campaign, Martin Luther King Jnr. had a personal touch with the oppressed and the poor .He gave hope to the poor, companionship to the lonely, help to the lost, understood and advised the ignorant. He advocated for people to help others. Through these he expressed love and was equally loved by the oppressed. He was honest and compassionate man (Dharmara 1)

Martin Luther King Jnr. was a brave human rights defender. In his civil rights campaigns he organized and participated in demonstrations and protests that demanded for the end of racism, discrimination and intimidation. His quest for economic, social justice and racial equality put his life at risk and he was consequently jailed for his advocacy. He practiced racial integration, enlightened the oppressed on their rights and devoted his life to the attainment of justice (Dharmara 1).

Conclusion

It is worth noting that love and justice are important virtues in human life and as such should be practiced by all. They however do not come at ease especially justice and thus sacrifice should be made in order to attain justice. They are intimately related and hence the absence of one or both makes life terrible. We should all advocate for love and timely justice.

Works Cited

Dharmara, Araj. Martin Luther King, Jnr Bound to love. Knowledge of Reality Magazine. 2006. Web.

The Bible. The Holy Bible. New International Version. New York, NY: Zondervan. 1948. Print.

Schubeck, Thomas. Love and justice in narrative. Maryknoll Society. 2007. Web.