Theories Of JusticeEssay Preview: Theories Of JusticeReport this essayTHEORIES OF JUSTICEINTRODUCTIONJustice is action in accordance with the requirements of law. It is suppose to ensure that all members of society receive fair treatment. Issues of justice arise in several different spheres and often play a significant role in causing, enabling, and addressing discord. The goal of the Justice System is to try to resolve and satisfy all these issues for the members of society. Injustice can lead to dissatisfaction, and/or rebellion. The different spheres express the principles of justice and fairness in their own way resulting in different types and concepts of justice. This paper will take a closer look at three justice theories based on our textbook “Moral Issues in Business”, by William H. Shaw and Vincent Barry. I will then use these various theories to create an argument for a topic that will later be defined. (Shaw, Barry, 2004) (Beyond Intractability, 2003)
Injustice: The Philosophy & Theory of Justice is a first-rate book for the 21st century that is written with the utmost focus on policy issues. According to Shaw,
[T]his research and advice for the 21st century has become more informed and in line with my own research and experiences, while also acknowledging my own expertise. In my recent series of letters to my subscribers, I outlined the theoretical foundations of the justice system that have been developed by my family, and I have conducted extensive research, but am unable to publish a detailed, comprehensive list of my findings as that of a lawyer working for a major federal, state, and local law firm.
Shaw’s writing is a highly informative work, because he takes this issue extremely seriously. He discusses it with an active audience.
In the case of business, Shaw argues that there are three basic functions of business.
First, people are motivated to perform as one-tenth of the work within a business enterprise. In other words, the business person in doing so is acting in order to get paid if, at the risk of being fired with good cause, he/she would not receive the fair share of the product or service being delivered to the customer. In fact business-as-usual requires each employee to perform these functions for the benefit of his/her employer. Shaw then goes on to outline the principles of legal philosophy from a specific foundation set to take action from within an organization to achieve a desired result. While the majority of his claims were formulated in light of some evidence that might provide additional insight regarding some of the concepts that stand to be challenged in the courts on any case, I would not call any of his claims to be ‘proof.’ Instead, he gives these specific characteristics a detailed and highly charged structure to analyze. The book is very structured for the average person; it is clear how he believes.
Second, people live a life of good will. This is the basic premise of justice. The idea is that someone who is willing to behave in ways which are not fair to someone who is willing to act in the best interests of the society is considered a good person and/or an unjust person. In the US, this premise is also true around the world, with the exception of India. So Shaw’s writing is very descriptive and detailed, but it is also very nuanced and very open. The basic premise is that when people live in a life of good will, they must choose according to their conscience or be driven by the prevailing prejudices of social order and the whims of the masses.
Third, people are free to live a happy and successful life. The concept of morality is highly important in the public sphere, which should be a strong point for the development and implementation of justice. The idea is that when we have lived in a moral atmosphere that is well characterized by a moral law of the highest order (or the highest ethical norm of the nation), we are free to act what we want to do in the interests of others, regardless of the circumstances of how it was done and why. A person must do what is necessary in order to be good, especially when the circumstances of good will require it and when they lead to the consequences that society desires.
There are the moral problems of many aspects of the law and business, but it is important to note that for all of Shaw’s assertions, he does not provide an insight into the world-view of justice. (Shaw, Barry, 2004a)
The book begins by explaining the concept of justice and then proceeds to explore the issues of morality, free will, freedom of contract and noninterference.
From there it ends by noting that the concept of justice must be taken seriously in every workplace. People who are engaged in a variety of roles in a variety of industries (e
Injustice: The Philosophy & Theory of Justice is a first-rate book for the 21st century that is written with the utmost focus on policy issues. According to Shaw,
[T]his research and advice for the 21st century has become more informed and in line with my own research and experiences, while also acknowledging my own expertise. In my recent series of letters to my subscribers, I outlined the theoretical foundations of the justice system that have been developed by my family, and I have conducted extensive research, but am unable to publish a detailed, comprehensive list of my findings as that of a lawyer working for a major federal, state, and local law firm.
Shaw’s writing is a highly informative work, because he takes this issue extremely seriously. He discusses it with an active audience.
In the case of business, Shaw argues that there are three basic functions of business.
First, people are motivated to perform as one-tenth of the work within a business enterprise. In other words, the business person in doing so is acting in order to get paid if, at the risk of being fired with good cause, he/she would not receive the fair share of the product or service being delivered to the customer. In fact business-as-usual requires each employee to perform these functions for the benefit of his/her employer. Shaw then goes on to outline the principles of legal philosophy from a specific foundation set to take action from within an organization to achieve a desired result. While the majority of his claims were formulated in light of some evidence that might provide additional insight regarding some of the concepts that stand to be challenged in the courts on any case, I would not call any of his claims to be ‘proof.’ Instead, he gives these specific characteristics a detailed and highly charged structure to analyze. The book is very structured for the average person; it is clear how he believes.
Second, people live a life of good will. This is the basic premise of justice. The idea is that someone who is willing to behave in ways which are not fair to someone who is willing to act in the best interests of the society is considered a good person and/or an unjust person. In the US, this premise is also true around the world, with the exception of India. So Shaw’s writing is very descriptive and detailed, but it is also very nuanced and very open. The basic premise is that when people live in a life of good will, they must choose according to their conscience or be driven by the prevailing prejudices of social order and the whims of the masses.
Third, people are free to live a happy and successful life. The concept of morality is highly important in the public sphere, which should be a strong point for the development and implementation of justice. The idea is that when we have lived in a moral atmosphere that is well characterized by a moral law of the highest order (or the highest ethical norm of the nation), we are free to act what we want to do in the interests of others, regardless of the circumstances of how it was done and why. A person must do what is necessary in order to be good, especially when the circumstances of good will require it and when they lead to the consequences that society desires.
There are the moral problems of many aspects of the law and business, but it is important to note that for all of Shaw’s assertions, he does not provide an insight into the world-view of justice. (Shaw, Barry, 2004a)
The book begins by explaining the concept of justice and then proceeds to explore the issues of morality, free will, freedom of contract and noninterference.
From there it ends by noting that the concept of justice must be taken seriously in every workplace. People who are engaged in a variety of roles in a variety of industries (e
Injustice: The Philosophy & Theory of Justice is a first-rate book for the 21st century that is written with the utmost focus on policy issues. According to Shaw,
[T]his research and advice for the 21st century has become more informed and in line with my own research and experiences, while also acknowledging my own expertise. In my recent series of letters to my subscribers, I outlined the theoretical foundations of the justice system that have been developed by my family, and I have conducted extensive research, but am unable to publish a detailed, comprehensive list of my findings as that of a lawyer working for a major federal, state, and local law firm.
Shaw’s writing is a highly informative work, because he takes this issue extremely seriously. He discusses it with an active audience.
In the case of business, Shaw argues that there are three basic functions of business.
First, people are motivated to perform as one-tenth of the work within a business enterprise. In other words, the business person in doing so is acting in order to get paid if, at the risk of being fired with good cause, he/she would not receive the fair share of the product or service being delivered to the customer. In fact business-as-usual requires each employee to perform these functions for the benefit of his/her employer. Shaw then goes on to outline the principles of legal philosophy from a specific foundation set to take action from within an organization to achieve a desired result. While the majority of his claims were formulated in light of some evidence that might provide additional insight regarding some of the concepts that stand to be challenged in the courts on any case, I would not call any of his claims to be ‘proof.’ Instead, he gives these specific characteristics a detailed and highly charged structure to analyze. The book is very structured for the average person; it is clear how he believes.
Second, people live a life of good will. This is the basic premise of justice. The idea is that someone who is willing to behave in ways which are not fair to someone who is willing to act in the best interests of the society is considered a good person and/or an unjust person. In the US, this premise is also true around the world, with the exception of India. So Shaw’s writing is very descriptive and detailed, but it is also very nuanced and very open. The basic premise is that when people live in a life of good will, they must choose according to their conscience or be driven by the prevailing prejudices of social order and the whims of the masses.
Third, people are free to live a happy and successful life. The concept of morality is highly important in the public sphere, which should be a strong point for the development and implementation of justice. The idea is that when we have lived in a moral atmosphere that is well characterized by a moral law of the highest order (or the highest ethical norm of the nation), we are free to act what we want to do in the interests of others, regardless of the circumstances of how it was done and why. A person must do what is necessary in order to be good, especially when the circumstances of good will require it and when they lead to the consequences that society desires.
There are the moral problems of many aspects of the law and business, but it is important to note that for all of Shaw’s assertions, he does not provide an insight into the world-view of justice. (Shaw, Barry, 2004a)
The book begins by explaining the concept of justice and then proceeds to explore the issues of morality, free will, freedom of contract and noninterference.
From there it ends by noting that the concept of justice must be taken seriously in every workplace. People who are engaged in a variety of roles in a variety of industries (e
Utilitarian JusticeAs suggested by philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.The Utilitarian theory of justice promotes social well-being or happiness. Its a system that wants to bring more good to society than any other system. However, it depends on various social, economic, and political facts. A utilitarian must understand the various possibilities, then determine their consequences and assess what options may be available. (Shaw, Barry, 2004)
Utilitarianism is a moral theory which claims that the right action is whatever action brings about the most utility of all the possible actions. Utility is a measure of what is valuable, and John Stuart Mill claims that the only thing which has inherent value is the happiness of individuals. Happiness is defined by Mill as pleasure minus pain, but this is not limited to physical pleasure and pain. Every persons happiness counts equally. So, the right action in a situation is the action whose consequences contain the greatest sum of future happiness that it is possible to create from that situation. (Shaw, Barry, 2004) (Utilitarianism, 2005)
The utilitarian theory suggests that an action is just if it is in accord with the correct principles of justice. These principles will demand that people be given what they are due, and that they be treated equally. People are due what they have a moral right to, but these moral rights are ultimately determined by what set of rules would maximize utility if they were accepted and enforced by a given society. In other words, justice is respecting rights which are defined by their utility. A part of this will be treating people equally, where the type of equality is also determined by what maximizes utility. Nevertheless, an action which follows these principles and is just, may fail to maximize utility. (Shaw, Barry, 2004), (Utilitarianism, 2005)
The Utilitarian theory I believe presents numerous problems in its conception, most of which lie in the fact that the theory oversimplifies many aspects of human life. It would make life very easy and simple if all we had to worry about was causing the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people. However, this gives no protection to the rights of the minority or individual, nor does it allow for the ideal of Justice. (Shaw, Barry, 2004), (Utilitarianism, 2005)
The Utilitarian theory suggests that morality is nothing more than the attempt to bring about as much happiness as possible to as many people as possible. This means that every persons happiness is weighed evenly. However, if there are more people to be made happy by an event or decision, then those in the minority, no matter how many or how close in numbers to being the majority will have to suffer unhappiness. (Shaw, Barry, 2004)
I would like to use an example involving the recent Presidential election. There are two men running for President, John Kerry and George Bush. If those voting in favor of Kerry are fewer in number than those voting in favor of George Bush, then Bush will win. Those who supported Kerry will now be unhappy because their candidate did not win. However, since the majority voted for Bush, does that make them right? Does this mean that their decision to vote for Bush was morally right, while those who voted for Kerry was morally wrong? The final question is, were the rights of those who voted for Kerry violated by the will of the majority? Utilitarian theory only states that what is moral is what will bring happiness to the majority. Thus, Utilitarian theory in my view is in direct opposition of individual rights.
Libertarian JusticeThis form of justice promotes liberty, each person living as they please, free from interference of others. Libertarian justice totally rejects utilitarianisms concern for total social well-being. The Libertarian believes that as long as you are not doing something that interferes with anyone elses liberty, then no one including government should disturb you in living the life you choose, regardless of maximizing social happiness. Libertarian justice consists solely out of respect for ones individual liberty. Liberty takes priority over moral concerns. Its obvious from this that a libertarian world, with a complete commitment to individual liberty, would be a much different world then the one we currently live in. (Shaw, Barry, 2004) (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2003)
One true libertarian was Robert Nozick a Harvard professor, who began with the premise that people have certain basic moral rights, which he referred to as “Lockean Rights” taken from political philosopher John Locke, which Nozick seems to take a lot of his inspiration from. Nozicks theory of economic justice is explained in his “Entitlement Theory” which is summed up in the following manner. (Shaw, Barry, 2004) (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2003)
“A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in acquisition is entitled to that holding.”“A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in transfer, from someone else entitled to the holding, is entitled to the holding.”
“No one is entitled to a holding except by (repeated) applications of (a) and (b).”(Shaw, Barry, 2004) (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2003)In summary, the distribution of goods in a society is just if all are