Justice, fairness and Equality. foundation and profound influence on the determination and administration of morality. As such,

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Justice, fairness and Equality. foundation and profound influence on the determination and administration of morality. As such,"

Clara Dawson
5 years ago
Views:

1 Justice, fairness and Equality Justice, fairness and Equality have a base from human nature. Human nature serves as the foundation and profound influence on the determination and administration of morality. As such, human nature could impact the rights and the wrongs associated with justice and equality. Human nature may also get influenced by once id that could serve as an obstacle or corruption of justice and equality. Humans could go both ways. They can get good and bad characteristics. The good characteristics would be superego, compassion and feelings for others leading to humanitarian acts equally benefiting society as a whole. An example would be a democracy where everyone is treated equally and justly. The bad characteristics could be acts of selfishness based on the less desirable characteristics that could lead to injustice and inequality such as racism, elitism, corruption, greed, deception, and twisting. Additional characteristics such as greed, sexual desire, lust, hatred, depression and inability to resist temptation could lead to troublesome acts and consequences that lead to inequality and injustice. Human nature represents a significant influence in the venues of justice and equality. In modern society, we need the society to discourage or eliminate any types of dangerous impulses. This is essential as we could have acts of theft, murder, violence, sexual misconduct, intimidation, unethical business practices, lack of regard for the law, unequal applications of the law, illnesses and other problems. Moreover, there is a movement that indicates that we need to ensure that people are treated equally and justice requiring to be administered properly. As our society is becoming more complicated than before with more controversies, inventions of technologies and other transformations, there is a higher need for ensuring that our

2 laws, rules and regulations are applied equally and justly. There has been a breakdown in the application of the laws and a breakdown in the equal application of the laws of the land. As there is a higher risk of trouble with these new aspects of our society, there could be harsher dangerous perils that will exist both with and without the rules and society. Should we not adopt a society at this time that consists of equality and justice, the world would be vulnerable to trouble and endless destruction. There is a debate in the roles of determining and administering justice and equality. John Rawls argues that the principles of justice are the result of fair agreement or bargain and not the result of social status, economic status, or general preferences. He argues that justice is the result of proper uncorrupt and unbiased proceedings that are rational, fair, and just. Neitzsche has a different interpretation of justice. It is his theory that justice has flaws, inconsistency, undue influences, some bias, undue influence, and is not always fair and equal. In The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli felt that rulers must sometimes employ actions and behaviors contrary to ethical norms expected of individuals. This had to be done to safeguard the greater social good of the principality or republic concerned. However, society also expected people in their personal interactions to maintain and uphold high ethical standards in their personal behaviors and actions. In practice though, the observation of ethics is dictated by situations and by the person s social position despite the expectation that everyone lives by them. Is this good for the upholding of ethics for individual persons? What moral and ethical right does society have in expecting strict adherence to the highest ethical standards when they does not expect the same level of observation in themselves? Do circumstances and situations dictate the degree to which one is expected to observe ethical bounds, or is strict adherence

3 expected at all times? Should circumstances and situations dictate the degree of observation of ethical norms? Utilitarianism states that, when faced with a choice, we must first consider the likely consequences of potential actions and, from that, choose to do what we believe will generate the most pleasure. Thus an example would entail the decision of making a law or policy. When considering a decision, we must think about the consequences of the implementation of that policy. It is a more conservative role. For example, when making a decision for equality for gay marriage, there is a utilitarian belief that there will be negative consequences for society. It is argued that it could send a bad example for children and confuse them. It is also argued that the implementation of gay marriage would disrupt the natural family norm. Furthermore, the rule utilitarian, on the other hand, begins by looking at potential rules of action. To determine whether a rule should be followed, he or she looks at what would happen if it were constantly followed. An example would entail the rule associated with the use of the gun under the second amendment. Some people feel that this is a policy/rule or right that is justified. Under the terms of utilitarianism, it is believed that the adherence to the rule produces more happiness than otherwise; it is a rule that morally must be followed at all times. Gun use proponents collectively believe that the second amendment granting them their right to own and use their guns provides more happiness. The use of guns for protection, hunting, and recreational purposes (in their eyes) provides more happiness than people or government banning the ownership and use of guns. This is their definition of equality as they feel they should have the rights to engage in their recreational activities as people with other interests. The distinction between act and rule utilitarianism is therefore based on a difference about the proper object of consequentialist calculation.

4 Rule utilitarianism has been criticized for advocating general rules that will in some specific circumstances clearly decrease happiness if followed. Never to kill another human being may seem to be a good rule, but it could make self-defense against malevolent aggressors very difficult. Rule utilitarians add, however, that there are general exception rules that allow the breaking of other rules if such rule-breaking increases happiness, one example being selfdefense. Rule utilitarians retort that rules in the legal system that regulate such situations are not meaningless. Self-defense is legally and morally justified, while murder is not. The philosophies associated with liberalism and utilitarianism varies in their application and viewpoints of justice and equality. We experience situations every day in life where we have to make a decision. The question of how one might come to decide upon a choice for the decision has been a topic for many years. Most people are always thinking about what would be the morally right decision. But what is a morally right decision and how do people come to the conclusion on what to do. People should be able to act upon the concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, fairness, or equity. Libertarianism is any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals. Libertarians exhibit differing approaches in areas such as the treatment of property rights, especially with respect to natural resources, with some libertarians advocating private ownership rights, while others hold that private ownership should be avoided as being inconsistent with the basic principles of libertarianism. There is a difference in the sense that the review of the consequences or outcomes are not taken into consideration. Libertarians review things but do not make decisions or review consequences.

5 Libertarians appear to think more of a universal application of their ideology and would regard equality and justice be applied universally without any regard any consequences or outcome of the decision or implementation. In this case, the libertarian view of gay marriage is that it is an equal right for men and women to marry the same sex. However, despite one version, there are divisions within the libertarian scope. These divisions would provide some debate or illustrations and paradoxes in the viewpoints of what should be equal and what is defined as justice. Libertarians are broadly distinguished as the right-libertarian and left-libertarian variants of libertarianism. There are sub factions of the libertarians. There are conservatives and there are liberals. There are conservative and there are liberal views associated with the definition and view of equality and justice. Organizations of Libertarians may include members with disparate Libertarian philosophies held together by common purposes. On the other hand, utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined by its usefulness in maximizing utility and minimizing negative utility. Equality, fairness and justice are viewed quite differently between utilitarian and libertarian view points. Utilitarian principles entail the administration of equality and justice dependent on the outcome and consequences. There is a division within the libertarian arenas with regards to equality and justice. For example, there are some libertarians who feel that there is a small need for governmental or state intervention. Other factions of libertarians feel that there is no need for state or governmental intervention. But at the end, what is morally is morally for both sides and both sides agree that equality, fairness and justice are based on morality. But how one sees it, differentiate each one s point of view.

Chapter 4. Justice and the Law. Justice vs. Law. David Hume. Justice does not dictate a perfect world, but one in which people live up

Chapter 4. Justice and the Law. Justice vs. Law. David Hume. Justice does not dictate a perfect world, but one in which people live up Chapter 4 Justice and the Law Justice vs. Law Law & Justice are very different. Law is often defined as the administration of justice. Law may result in judgments that many feel are unjust Justice: Is