In this page, we will present and discuss the concept of justice. As we unfold the subject, several tasks are presented. The answers can be compiled in a document or in a presentation.
What is justice? The different meanings (and goals) of justice:
Distributive justice
Retributive justice
Restorative justice
Reformative justice
Exemplary justice
After watching the video, Can you explain (in general and with examples) each of the five different goals that we demand from justice?
In your explanation, try to differentiate each justice's goal from the others.
Justice can be understood at least in two very different ways:
Individual justice. The kind of justice that is demanded or applied to single individuals, such as in court laws or in our personal lives. Individual justice is perhaps the most common understanding of justice: individuals are treated fair or unfairly, plaintiffs ask for justice, defendants are charged with crimes.
Social justice. In contrast with individual justice, here whole social groups (not single individuals) are taken into account. Minority groups may be marginalised or mistreated. Privileged or powerful social groups may be responsible of the unfair treatment suffered by other social groups.
The Greek philosopher Aristotle considered justice one of the most important virtues of the citizen. Being social animals, human beings run easily into interpersonal conflicts and justice is needed to restore (and ideally prevent) the social peace. According to Aristotle, no society can survive for long if justice does not rule it.
Since justice is a virtue, it falls under the general Aristotelian theory of virtue:
Virtues are good habits that humans acquire along their lives as a result of learning from others and practice with others.
Good citizens acquire many virtues such us honesty, solidarity, courage and justice. These virtues makes them suitable for living in society and those that are best should rule the city.
There is no single and simple definition of each virtue because every situation is different and the virtuous person should apply its reason to decide what is the best course of action in each particular case.
However, Aristotle provides a general principle that should guide us in the pursue of virtue: the golden mean. According to Aristotle, this principle applies to every virtue: we must identify the two equally bad extremes and look for the just (golden) middle.
When discussing justice, Aristotle distinguishes between:
Distributive justice: when the goal is to give to each person what he deserves, according to its merits, its efforts and any other factor that should be taken into account for ensuring a fair distribution of some good.
Commutative (corrective) justice: when the goal is to restore or amend an unjust situation: punishing the offenders and compensating the victims.
According to Aristotle, What are the two key characteristics of human beings? How these two characteristics help a person to become virtuous?
Can you explain with a couple of virtues except justice (e.g. solidarity, honesty, loyalty, bravery) his theory of the golden mean? Identify the two equally bad extremes in each virtue.
As any other virtue, justice also benefits from his golden mean approach. Can you explain how his approach helps us to impart distributive and commutative justice? Use an example.
Do we know how to act justly in all cases or situations? As we have seen in Aristotle's philosophy, it is very difficult to give a simple, general rule for acting justly. But we have some general principles that, taken together, give us a broad description of what justice is:
Equality may be our starting point: each and every concerned person deserves equal treatment.
Departing from equality: genuine needs, desert and merit, promises and contracts.
Equity: equalizing from different starting points, restoring equality may require unequal measures.
Proportionality between actions and consequences.
Proper procedure: independent court, assistance during the trial, etc.
In many concrete situations, one of these principles is more relevant or applicable than the others. But taken together, they cover most situations that require a just decision.
Argue with a couple of examples that justice is sometimes a matter of equality and sometimes a matter of equity.
Research the topic of affirmative action (or positive discrimination as it is also called):
What is affirmative action?
Give an example of positive discrimination, preferably located in Spain.
What is the connection of affirmative action with the topic of justice?
Social justice is the idea that government institutions and non-governmental organizations should ensure a just distribution of benefits, costs and opportunities throughout the whole society.
A socially just society is a society that:
Opposes marginalisation and promotes equal opportunity.
Opposes exploitation and promotes a just distribution of benefits.
Opposes extreme inequality and promotes redistributive, progressive taxation.
This idea emerged in the late 19th century and has been debated since them.
Some thinkers have denounced the notion of social justice as a conceptual mistake. According to those thinkers, justice or injustice is a property of individual actions such as a theft, a murder or a fraud. In all these crimes, there is always a identified culprit that must repair the damage and deserves punishment. But social marginalisation or inequality have no concrete culprit. They are the results of a social system. No concrete individual is responsible of them.
In addition to this not very convincing argument, those thinkers add a second one: in its attempts to achieve a more egalitarian society, governments do more harm than good: they reduce the (economic) freedom of its citizens and they create new injustices and imbalances in the society.
However, the majority of political thinkers consider that social justice can be achieved or at least promoted without damaging basic freedoms and, if done well, without creating new injustices.
Before examining the moderate position of John Rawls on the subject, we may examine two extreme conceptions of social justice:
libertarian anarchists
communitarian anarchists
An introduction to libertarian ideas.
Brief introduction to communitarianism:
Michael Sandel criticism to markets and capitalism:
Summarize the key ideas of libertarians and communitarians regarding social justice.
In your opinion, which one of these two theories (libertarianism or communitarism) is better for achieving social justice?
Summarize the criticism of Michael Sandel to markets and capitalism.
In your opinion, is Sandel right in his criticism?
Introduction to John Rawls:
In his work A theory of justice (published in 1971), John Rawls attempts to provide a novel account of justice that improves and builds upon several previous ethical and political ideas:
Liberalism. Freedom is the most valuable asset citizens have. A political system should put the freedom of its citizens above any other good.
Contractualism. An acceptable political system is one that could obtain the consent or approval from its citizens. This consent can be effective (as in a referendum) or hypothetical: all citizens would approve if asked.
Ethical rationalism. Rational citizens attend to reasons and agree on basic political principles after free deliberation.
Utilitarianism. Human beings pursue happiness, and following John Stuart Mill, happiness includes the improvement of our nature through education. An acceptable political system is one that promotes the happiness of all its citizens, including those in disadvaged situations.
Rawls key insight is to consider fairness as the essential or defining property of justice. A just action is a fair one. But, what is fairness?
impartial treatment
lack of favoritism
free from bias
treating people equally
reasonable and right action
According to Rawls, all the goals traditionally associated with justice (restoration, distribution, retribution and so on) will result if fairness is achieved. Therefore, in order to advance towards a theory of justice we have to focus on how to achieve fairness. Under what conditions do humans act and decide fairly?
In order to arrive at a principled theory of justice, Rawls proposes a thought experiment: instead of reasoning about justice from our particular point of view, let's imagine that we reason about justice without knowing who we are, not knowing our particular situation, our social position, race or even sex. It is as if we are blinded by a "veil of ignorance". Rawls calls this position the "original position":
Summarize the ideas of John Rawls, paying special attention to:
What is fairness? The importance of this concept in Rawls' ideas about justice.
What is the original position or "veil of ignorance"? Connect it with some previous ideas such as contractualism or the role of reason in ethics.
Which are the three principles of justice according to Rawls? Do they all have the same importance or is there a hierarchy among them?
Are we winning or are we losing the battle against inequality?
Answer with reasons and examples after reading the information presented in the two previous links.
¿Debe permitirse que los cristianos conservadores acojan niños?.pdfShould a Liberal State Ban the Burqa.pdfLa verdad desnuda.pdf