HOME
The Info List - Justice


--- Advertisement ---



Justice
Justice
is the legal or philosophical theory by which fairness is administered.[2] The concept of justice differs in every culture. An early theory of justice was set out by the Ancient Greek philosopher Plato
Plato
in his work The Republic. Advocates of divine command theory say that justice issues from God. In the 17th century, theorists like John Locke advocated natural rights as a derivative of justice.[3] Thinkers in the social contract tradition state that justice is derived from the mutual agreement of everyone concerned. In the 19th century, utilitarian thinkers including John Stuart Mill
John Stuart Mill
said that justice is what has the best consequences. Theories of distributive justice concern what is distributed, between whom they are to be distributed, and what is the proper distribution. Egalitarians state that justice can only exist within the coordinates of equality. John Rawls
John Rawls
used a theory of social contract to show that justice, and especially distributive justice, is a form of fairness. Property rights
Property rights
theorists (like Robert Nozick) take a deontological view of distributive justice and state that property rights-based justice maximizes the overall wealth of an economic system. Theories of retributive justice are concerned with punishment for wrongdoing. Restorative justice
Restorative justice
(also sometimes called "reparative justice") is an approach to justice that focuses on restoring what is good, and necessarily focuses on the needs of victims and offenders.[4]

Contents

1 Harmony 2 Divine command 3 Natural law

3.1 Despotism and skepticism 3.2 Mutual agreement 3.3 Subordinate value

4 Theories of distributive justice

4.1 Social justice 4.2 Fairness 4.3 Property
Property
rights 4.4 Welfare-maximization

5 Theories of retributive justice

5.1 Utilitarianism 5.2 Retributivism 5.3 Restorative justice 5.4 Mixed theories

6 Theories

6.1 Rawls' theory of justice 6.2 Equality before the law 6.3 Classical liberalism 6.4 Religion and spirituality

6.4.1 Abrahamic justice

6.5 Theories of sentencing 6.6 Evolutionary
Evolutionary
perspectives 6.7 Reactions to fairness 6.8 Institutions and justice

7 See also

7.1 Other pages 7.2 Types of justice

8 References 9 Further reading 10 External links

Harmony[edit] Main article: The Republic (Plato)

Justice
Justice
by Luca Giordano.

In his dialogue Republic, Plato
Plato
uses Socrates
Socrates
to argue for justice that covers both the just person and the just City State. Justice
Justice
is a proper, harmonious relationship between the warring parts of the person or city. Hence, Plato's definition of justice is that justice is the having and doing of what is one's own. A just man is a man in just the right place, doing his best and giving the precise equivalent of what he has received. This applies both at the individual level and at the universal level. A person's soul has three parts – reason, spirit and desire. Similarly, a city has three parts – Socrates
Socrates
uses the parable of the chariot to illustrate his point: a chariot works as a whole because the two horses' power is directed by the charioteer. Lovers of wisdom – philosophers, in one sense of the term – should rule because only they understand what is good. If one is ill, one goes to a medic rather than a farmer, because the medic is expert in the subject of health. Similarly, one should trust one's city to an expert in the subject of the good, not to a mere politician who tries to gain power by giving people what they want, rather than what's good for them. Socrates
Socrates
uses the parable of the ship to illustrate this point: the unjust city is like a ship in open ocean, crewed by a powerful but drunken captain (the common people), a group of untrustworthy advisors who try to manipulate the captain into giving them power over the ship's course (the politicians), and a navigator (the philosopher) who is the only one who knows how to get the ship to port. For Socrates, the only way the ship will reach its destination – the good – is if the navigator takes charge.[5] Divine command[edit] Main article: Divine command
Divine command
theory See also: Divine command

Allegorical fresco cycle (cardinal virtues) by Renaissance
Renaissance
painter Domenico di Pace Beccafumi
Domenico di Pace Beccafumi
from the Palazzo Pubblico in Siena, scene: ’’Justitia’’

Advocates of divine command theory argue that justice, and indeed the whole of morality, is the authoritative command of God. Murder is wrong and must be punished, for instance, because God
God
says it so. Some versions of the theory assert that God
God
must be obeyed because of the nature of his relationship with humanity, others assert that God
God
must be obeyed because he is goodness itself, and thus doing what he says would be best for everyone. A meditation on the Divine command theory
Divine command theory
by Plato
Plato
can be found in his dialogue, Euthyphro. Called the Euthyphro
Euthyphro
dilemma, it goes as follows: "Is what is morally good commanded by God
God
because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?" The implication is that if the latter is true, then justice is arbitrary; if the former is true, then morality exists on a higher order than God, who becomes little more than a passer-on of moral knowledge. Some philosophers have deemed this to be a false dilemma. that goodness is the very nature of God, and there is necessarily reflected in His commands.[6]. Another response, popularized in two contexts by Immanuel Kant
Immanuel Kant
and C. S. Lewis, is that it is deductively valid to argue that the existence of an objective morality implies the existence of God
God
and vice versa. Natural law[edit] Main article: Natural law

Lex, justitia, pax ( Latin
Latin
for "Law, justice, peace") on the pediment of the Supreme Court of Switzerland.

For advocates of the theory that justice is part of natural law (e.g., John Locke), it involves the system of consequences that naturally derives from any action or choice. In this, it is similar to the laws of physics: in the same way as the Third of Newton's laws of Motion requires that for every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction, justice requires according individuals or groups what they actually deserve, merit, or are entitled to.[citation needed] Justice, on this account, is a universal and absolute concept: laws, principles, religions, etc., are merely attempts to codify that concept, sometimes with results that entirely contradict the true nature of justice. Despotism and skepticism[edit] In Republic by Plato, the character Thrasymachus argues that justice is the interest of the strong – merely a name for what the powerful or cunning ruler has imposed on the people. Further information: The Republic (Plato) Mutual agreement[edit] Main article: Social contract Advocates of the social contract agree that justice is derived from the mutual agreement of everyone concerned; or, in many versions, from what they would agree to under hypothetical conditions including equality and absence of bias. This account is considered further below, under ' Justice
Justice
as fairness'. The absence of bias refers to an equal ground for all people concerned in a disagreement (or trial in some cases).[citation needed] Subordinate value[edit] According to utilitarian thinkers including John Stuart Mill, justice is not as fundamental as we often think. Rather, it is derived from the more basic standard of rightness, consequentialism: what is right is what has the best consequences (usually measured by the total or average welfare caused). So, the proper principles of justice are those that tend to have the best consequences. These rules may turn out to be familiar ones such as keeping contracts; but equally, they may not, depending on the facts about real consequences. Either way, what is important is those consequences, and justice is important, if at all, only as derived from that fundamental standard. Mill tries to explain our mistaken belief that justice is overwhelmingly important by arguing that it derives from two natural human tendencies: our desire to retaliate against those who hurt us, or the feeling of self-defense and our ability to put ourselves imaginatively in another's place, sympathy. So, when we see someone harmed, we project ourselves into her situation and feel a desire to retaliate on her behalf. If this process is the source of our feelings about justice, that ought to undermine our confidence in them.[7] Theories of distributive justice[edit] Main article: Distributive justice

This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Theories of distributive justice need to answer three questions:

What goods are to be distributed? Is it to be wealth, power, respect, opportunities or some combination of these things? Between what entities are they to be distributed? Humans (dead, living, future), sentient beings, the members of a single society, nations? What is the proper distribution? Equal, meritocratic, according to social status, according to need, based on property rights and non-aggression?

Distributive justice theorists generally do not answer questions of who has the right to enforce a particular favored distribution. On the other hand, property rights theorists argue that there is no "favored distribution." Rather, distribution should be based simply on whatever distribution results from lawful interactions or transactions (that is, transactions which are not illicit). This section describes some widely held theories of distributive justice, and their attempts to answer these questions. Social justice[edit] Main article: Social justice

This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

According to the egalitarian, justice can exist only within the parameters of equality. This basic view can be elaborated in many ways, according to what goods are to be distributed – wealth, respect, opportunity – and who or what they are to be distributed equally among – individuals, families, nations, races, species. Egalitarian theories are typically less concerned with discussing who exactly will do the distributing or what effects their recommended policies will have on the production of the goods, services, or resources they wish to distribute.[citation needed] Commonly held egalitarian positions include demands for equality of opportunity, though equality of opportunity is often defended by adherents of nonegalitarian conceptions of justice as well. Some variants of egalitarianism affirm that justice without equality is hollow and that equality itself is the highest justice, though such a formulation will have concrete meaning only once the main terms have been fleshed out. At a cultural level, egalitarian theories have developed in sophistication and acceptance during the past two hundred years. Among the notable broadly egalitarian philosophies are communism, socialism, left-libertarianism, and progressivism, which propound economic, political, and legal egalitarianism, respectively.[citation needed] Fairness[edit]

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

J. L. Urban, statue of Lady Justice
Lady Justice
at court building in Olomouc, Czech Republic.

In his A Theory of Justice, John Rawls
John Rawls
used a social contract argument to show that justice, and especially distributive justice, is a form of fairness: an impartial distribution of goods. Rawls asks us to imagine ourselves behind a veil of ignorance that denies us all knowledge of our personalities, social statuses, moral characters, wealth, talents and life plans, and then asks what theory of justice we would choose to govern our society when the veil is lifted, if we wanted to do the best that we could for ourselves. We don't know who in particular we are, and therefore can't bias the decision in our own favour. So, the decision-in-ignorance models fairness, because it excludes selfish bias. Rawls argues that each of us would reject the utilitarian theory of justice that we should maximize welfare (see below) because of the risk that we might turn out to be someone whose own good is sacrificed for greater benefits for others. Instead, we would endorse Rawls's two principles of justice:

Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both

to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just savings principle, and attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.[8]

This imagined choice justifies these principles as the principles of justice for us, because we would agree to them in a fair decision procedure. Rawls's theory distinguishes two kinds of goods – (1) the good of liberty rights and (2) social and economic goods, i.e. wealth, income and power – and applies different distributions to them – equality between citizens for (1), equality unless inequality improves the position of the worst off for (2). In one sense, theories of distributive justice may assert that everyone should get what they deserve. Theories disagree on the meaning of what is "deserved". The main distinction is between theories that argue the basis of just deserts ought to be held equally by everyone, and therefore derive egalitarian accounts of distributive justice – and theories that argue the basis of just deserts is unequally distributed on the basis of, for instance, hard work, and therefore derive accounts of distributive justice by which some should have more than others. According to meritocratic theories, goods, especially wealth and social status, should be distributed to match individual merit, which is usually understood as some combination of talent and hard work. According to needs-based theories, goods, especially such basic goods as food, shelter and medical care, should be distributed to meet individuals' basic needs for them. Marxism
Marxism
is a needs-based theory, expressed succinctly in Marx's slogan "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".[9] According to contribution-based theories, goods should be distributed to match an individual's contribution to the overall social good. Property
Property
rights[edit] Further information: Libertarianism
Libertarianism
and Constitutional economics

This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

In Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Robert Nozick
Robert Nozick
argues that distributive justice is not a matter of the whole distribution matching an ideal pattern, but of each individual entitlement having the right kind of history. It is just that a person has some good (especially, some property right) if and only if they came to have it by a history made up entirely of events of two kinds:

Just acquisition, especially by working on unowned things; and Just transfer, that is free gift, sale or other agreement, but not theft (i.e. by force or fraud).

If the chain of events leading up to the person having something meets this criterion, they are entitled to it: that they possess it is just, and what anyone else does or doesn't have or need is irrelevant. On the basis of this theory of distributive justice, Nozick argues that all attempts to redistribute goods according to an ideal pattern, without the consent of their owners, are theft. In particular, redistributive taxation is theft. Some property rights theorists (like Nozick) also take a consequentialist view of distributive justice and argue that property rights based justice also has the effect of maximizing the overall wealth of an economic system. They explain that voluntary (non-coerced) transactions always have a property called Pareto efficiency. The result is that the world is better off in an absolute sense and no one is worse off. Such consequentialist property rights theorists argue that respecting property rights maximizes the number of Pareto efficient transactions in the world and minimized the number of non-Pareto efficient transactions in the world (i.e. transactions where someone is made worse off). The result is that the world will have generated the greatest total benefit from the limited, scarce resources available in the world. Further, this will have been accomplished without taking anything away from anyone unlawfully. Welfare-maximization[edit] Main article: Utilitarianism

This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

According to the utilitarian, justice requires the maximization of the total or average welfare across all relevant individuals. This may require sacrifice of some for the good of others, so long as everyone's good is taken impartially into account. Utilitarianism, in general, argues that the standard of justification for actions, institutions, or the whole world, is impartial welfare consequentialism, and only indirectly, if at all, to do with rights, property, need, or any other non-utilitarian criterion. These other criteria might be indirectly important, to the extent that human welfare involves them. But even then, such demands as human rights would only be elements in the calculation of overall welfare, not uncrossable barriers to action. Theories of retributive justice[edit] Main article: Retributive justice

Walter Seymour Allward's Justitia (Justice), outside Supreme Court of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada

Theories of retributive justice are concerned with punishment for wrongdoing, and need to answer three questions:

why punish? who should be punished? what punishment should they receive?

This section considers the two major accounts of retributive justice, and their answers to these questions. Utilitarian
Utilitarian
theories look forward to the future consequences of punishment, while retributive theories look back to particular acts of wrongdoing, and attempt to balance them with deserved punishment. Utilitarianism[edit] According to the utilitarian, justice requires the maximization of the total or average welfare across all relevant individuals. Punishment fights crime in three ways:

Deterrence. The credible threat of punishment might lead people to make different choices; well-designed threats might lead people to make choices that maximize welfare. This matches some strong intuitions about just punishment: that it should generally be proportional to the crime. Rehabilitation. Punishment
Punishment
might make bad people into better ones. For the utilitarian, all that 'bad person' can mean is 'person who's likely to cause bad things (like suffering)'. So, utilitarianism could recommend punishment that changes someone such that they are less likely to cause bad things. Security/Incapacitation. Perhaps there are people who are irredeemable causers of bad things. If so, imprisoning them might maximize welfare by limiting their opportunities to cause harm and therefore the benefit lies within protecting society.

So, the reason for punishment is the maximization of welfare, and punishment should be of whomever, and of whatever form and severity, are needed to meet that goal. This may sometimes justify punishing the innocent, or inflicting disproportionately severe punishments, when that will have the best consequences overall (perhaps executing a few suspected shoplifters live on television would be an effective deterrent to shoplifting, for instance). It also suggests that punishment might turn out never to be right, depending on the facts about what actual consequences it has.[10] Retributivism[edit] The retributivist will think consequentialism is mistaken. If someone does something wrong we must respond by punishing for the committed action itself, regardless of what outcomes punishment produces. Wrongdoing must be balanced or made good in some way, and so the criminal deserves to be punished. It says that all guilty people, and only guilty people, deserve appropriate punishment. This matches some strong intuitions about just punishment: that it should be proportional to the crime, and that it should be of only and all of the guilty.[citation needed] However, it is sometimes argued that retributivism is merely revenge in disguise.[11] However, there are differences between retribution and revenge: the former is impartial and has a scale of appropriateness, whereas the latter is personal and potentially unlimited in scale.[citation needed] Restorative justice[edit] Main article: Restorative justice Restorative justice
Restorative justice
(also sometimes called "reparative justice") is an approach to justice that focuses on the needs of victims and offenders, instead of satisfying abstract legal principles or punishing the offender. Victims take an active role in the process, while offenders are encouraged to take responsibility for their actions, "to repair the harm they've done – by apologizing, returning stolen money, or community service". It is based on a theory of justice that considers crime and wrongdoing to be an offense against an individual or community rather than the state. Restorative justice that fosters dialogue between victim and offender shows the highest rates of victim satisfaction and offender accountability.[12] Mixed theories[edit]

This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Some modern philosophers have argued that Utilitarian
Utilitarian
and Retributive theories are not mutually exclusive. For example, Andrew von Hirsch, in his 1976 book Doing Justice, suggested that we have a moral obligation to punish greater crimes more than lesser ones. However, so long as we adhere to that constraint then utilitarian ideals would play a significant secondary role. Theories[edit] Rawls' theory of justice[edit] Further information: Justice (virtue)
Justice (virtue)
and Cardinal virtues It has been argued[13] that 'systematic' or 'programmatic' political and moral philosophy in the West begins, in Plato's Republic, with the question, 'What is Justice?'[14] According to most contemporary theories of justice, justice is overwhelmingly important: John Rawls claims that " Justice
Justice
is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought."[15] In classical approaches, evident from Plato
Plato
through to Rawls, the concept of 'justice' is always construed in logical or 'etymological' opposition to the concept of injustice. Such approaches cite various examples of injustice, as problems which a theory of justice must overcome. A number of post-World War
War
II approaches do, however, challenge that seemingly obvious dualism between those two concepts.[16] Justice
Justice
can be thought of as distinct from benevolence, charity, prudence, mercy, generosity, or compassion, although these dimensions are regularly understood to also be interlinked. Justice
Justice
is the concept of cardinal virtues, of which it is one. Metaphysical justice has often been associated with concepts of fate, reincarnation or Divine Providence, i.e., with a life in accordance with a cosmic plan. The association of justice with fairness is thus historically and culturally inalienable.[17] Equality before the law[edit] Law
Law
raises important and complex issues concerning equality, fairness, and justice. There is an old saying that 'All are equal before the law'. The belief in equality before the law is called legal egalitarianism. In criticism of this belief, the author Anatole France said in 1894, "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread."[18] With this saying, France
France
illustrated the fundamental shortcoming of a theory of legal equality that remains blind to social inequality; the same law applied to all may have disproportionately harmful effects on the least powerful. Classical liberalism[edit] Equality before the law is one of the basic principles of classical liberalism.[19][20] Classical liberalism
Classical liberalism
calls for equality before the law, not for equality of outcome.[19] Classical liberalism
Classical liberalism
opposes pursuing group rights at the expense of individual rights.[20] Religion and spirituality[edit] Abrahamic justice[edit]

Moses with the Tablets of Law, by Rembrandt
Rembrandt
van Rijn

Jews, Muslims and Christians traditionally believe that justice is a present, real, right, and, specifically, governing concept along with mercy, and that justice is ultimately derived from and held by God. According to the Bible, such institutions as the Mosaic Law
Law
were created by God
God
to require the Israelites
Israelites
to live by and apply His standards of justice. The Hebrew Bible
Bible
describes God
God
as saying about the Judeo-Christian patriarch Abraham: "No, for I have chosen him, that he may charge his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice;...." (Genesis 18:19, NRSV). The Psalmist describes God
God
as having "Righteousness and justice [as] the foundation of [His] throne;...." ( Psalms
Psalms
89:14, NRSV). The New Testament
New Testament
also describes God
God
and Jesus
Jesus
Christ as having and displaying justice, often in comparison with God
God
displaying and supporting mercy (Matthew 5:7). Theories of sentencing[edit]

This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

In criminal law, a sentence forms the final explicit act of a judge-ruled process, and also the symbolic principal act connected to his function. The sentence can generally involve a decree of imprisonment, a fine and/or other punishments against a defendant convicted of a crime. Laws may specify the range of penalties that can be imposed for various offenses, and sentencing guidelines sometimes regulate what punishment within those ranges can be imposed given a certain set of offense and offender characteristics. The most common purposes of sentencing in legal theory are:

Theory Aim of theory Suitable punishment

Retribution Punishment
Punishment
imposed for no reason other than an offense being committed, on the basis that if proportionate, punishment is morally acceptable as a response that satisfies the aggrieved party, their intimates and society.

Tariff sentences Sentence must be proportionate to the crime

Deterrence

To the individual – the individual is deterred through fear of further punishment. To the general public – Potential offenders warned as to likely punishment

Prison
Prison
Sentence Heavy Fine Long sentence as an example to others

Rehabilitation To reform the offender's behavior

Individualized sentences Community service orders moral education vocational education

Incapacitation Offender is made incapable of committing further crime to protect society at large from crime

Long prison sentence Electronic tagging Banning orders

Reparation Repayment to victim(s) or to community

Compensation Unpaid work Reparation Schemes

Denunciation Society
Society
expressing its disapproval reinforcing moral boundaries

Reflects blameworthiness of offense punishment in public punishment reported to public

In civil cases the decision is usually known as a verdict, or judgment, rather than a sentence. Civil cases are settled primarily by means of monetary compensation for harm done ("damages") and orders intended to prevent future harm (for example injunctions). Under some legal systems an award of damages involves some scope for retribution, denunciation and deterrence, by means of additional categories of damages beyond simple compensation, covering a punitive effect, social disapprobation, and potentially, deterrence, and occasionally disgorgement (forfeit of any gain, even if no loss was caused to the other party). Evolutionary
Evolutionary
perspectives[edit]

This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

" Justice
Justice
as a naked woman with a sword and balance" by Lucas Cranach the Elder, 1537

Evolutionary
Evolutionary
ethics and an argued evolution of morality suggest evolutionary bases for the concept of justice. Biosocial criminology research argues that human perceptions of what is appropriate criminal justice are based on how to respond to crimes in the ancestral small-group environment and that these responses may not always be appropriate for today's societies. Reactions to fairness[edit]

‘’Justitia’’, copper engraving by Jost Amman, made between 1539 and 1591

Studies at UCLA in 2008 have indicated that reactions to fairness are "wired" into the brain and that, "Fairness is activating the same part of the brain that responds to food in rats... This is consistent with the notion that being treated fairly satisfies a basic need".[21] Research conducted in 2003 at Emory University
Emory University
involving capuchin monkeys demonstrated that other cooperative animals also possess such a sense and that "inequity aversion may not be uniquely human".[22] Institutions and justice[edit] Main article: Law

Painted Coat of Arms
Coat of Arms
of Pope Paul V, ceiling of the room of the geographical maps, Vatican City

Stained glass of the Saint-Paul church in Montluçon
Montluçon
France

Allegory of Justice. Ceiling of galleria del Poccetti in the Palazzo Pitti (Florence).

In a world where people are interconnected but they disagree, institutions are required to instantiate ideals of justice. These institutions may be justified by their approximate instantiation of justice, or they may be deeply unjust when compared with ideal standards – consider the institution of slavery. Justice
Justice
is an ideal the world fails to live up to, sometimes due to deliberate opposition to justice despite understanding, which could be disastrous. The question of institutive justice raises issues of legitimacy, procedure, codification and interpretation, which are considered by legal theorists and by philosophers of law.[citation needed] See also[edit] Other pages[edit]

Adl
Adl
(Arabic for Justice
Justice
in Islam) Criminal justice Ethics Global justice International Court of Justice International Criminal Court Just war theory Just-world hypothesis Justice
Justice
(economics) Morality Napoleonic Code Rationality Rule according to higher law Sociology of law A Theory of Justice
A Theory of Justice
by John Rawls

Types of justice[edit]

Distributive justice Environmental justice Injustice Occupational injustice Open justice Organizational justice Poetic justice Social justice Spatial justice

References[edit]

^ Cuban Law's Blindfold, 23. ^

"Definition of JUSTICE". www.merriam-webster.com. Retrieved 2016-03-02.  "Justice, Western Theories of Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy". www.iep.utm.edu. Retrieved 2016-03-02.  Walen, Alec (2015-01-01). Zalta, Edward N., ed. Retributive Justice (Summer 2015 ed.). 

^ Zuckert, Michael (1996), The Natural Rights
Rights
Republic, Notre Dame University Press, pp. 73–85  ^ Laurence, Timothy (2014). "Overview". In Laurence, Timothy. Good News for the Public Square. LCF. p. xxii. ISBN 978-0-9506454-3-8.  ^ Plato, Republic trans. Robin Waterfield (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984). ^ "The Euthyphro
Euthyphro
Dilemma Once More". ReasonableFaith.org. Retrieved 8 October 2014.  ^ John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism
in On Liberty and Other Essays ed. John Gray (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), Chapter 5. ^ John Rawls, A Theory of Justice
A Theory of Justice
(revised edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 266. ^ Karl Marx, 'Critique of the Gotha Program' in Karl Marx: Selected writings ed. David McLellan (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977): 564–70, p. 569. ^ C. L. Ten, ' Crime
Crime
and Punishment' in Peter Singer
Peter Singer
ed., A Companion to Ethics
Ethics
(Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 1993): 366–72. ^ Ted Honderich, Punishment: The supposed justifications (London: Hutchinson & Co., 1969), Chapter 1. ^ Michael Braswell, and John Fuller, Corrections, Peacemaking and Restorative Justice: Transforming Individuals and Institutions (Routledge, 2014). ^ See, e.g., Eric Heinze, The Concept of Injustice
Injustice
(Routledge, 2013), pp. 4–10, 50–60. ^ Plato, The Republic, Book
Book
I, 331b–c. ^ John Rawls, A Theory of Justice
A Theory of Justice
(revised edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 3 ^

See, e.g., Eric Heinze, The Concept of Injustice
Injustice
(Routledge, 2013). Clive Barnett The Priority of Injustice: Locating Democracy
Democracy
in Critical Theory

^ Daston, Lorraine (2008). "Life, Chance and Life Chances". Daedalus. 137: 5–14. doi:10.1162/daed.2008.137.1.5.  ^ (France, The Red Lily, Chapter VII). ^ a b Chandran Kukathas, "Ethical Pluralism from a Classical Liberal Perspective," in The Many and the One: Religious and Secular Perspectives on Ethical Pluralism in the Modern World, ed. Richard Madsen and Tracy B. Strong, Ethikon Series in Comparative Ethics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003), 61 (ISBN 0-691-09993-6). ^ a b Mark Evans, ed., Edinburgh Companion to Contemporary Liberalism: Evidence and Experience (London: Routledge, 2001), 55 (ISBN 1-57958-339-3). ^ "Brain reacts to fairness as it does to money and chocolate, study shows". UCLA Newsroom. UCLA. April 21, 2008. Retrieved January 15, 2015.  ^ Nature 425, 297–99 (18 September 2003)

Further reading[edit]

Clive Barnett, The Priority of Injustice: Locating Democracy
Democracy
in Critical Theory (Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 2017), ISBN 978-0820351520 Brian Barry, Theories of Justice
Justice
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989) Harry Brighouse, Justice
Justice
(Cambridge: Polity Press, 2004) Anthony Duff & David Garland eds, A Reader on Punishment
Punishment
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994) Colin Farrelly, An Introduction to Contemporary Political Theory (London: Sage, 2004) Barzilai Gad, Communities and Law: Politics and Cultures of Legal Identities (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2003) David Gauthier, Morals By Agreement (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986) Robert E. Goodin & Philip Pettit eds, Contemporary Political Philosophy: An anthology (2nd edition, Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell, 2006), Part III Serge Guinchard, La justice et ses institutions (Judicial institutions), Dalloz editor, 12 edition, 2013 Eric Heinze, The Concept of Injustice
Injustice
(Routledge, 2013) Ted Honderich, Punishment: The supposed justifications (London: Hutchinson & Co., 1969) James Konow (2003) "Which Is the Fairest One of All? A Positive Analysis of Justice
Justice
Theories", Journal of Economic Literature, 41(4)pp. 1188–1239 Will Kymlicka, Contemporary Political Philosophy: An introduction (2nd edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) Nicola Lacey, State Punishment
Punishment
(London: Routledge, 1988) John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism
in On Liberty and Other Essays ed. John Gray (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991) Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia
Anarchy, State, and Utopia
(Oxford: Blackwell, 1974) Amartya Sen (2011). The Idea of Justice. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-06047-4.  C. L. Ten, Crime, Guilt, and Punishment: A philosophical introduction (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987) Plato, Republic trans. Robin Waterfield (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994) John Rawls, A Theory of Justice
A Theory of Justice
(revised edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999) David Schmidtz, Elements of Justice
Justice
(New York: Columbia University Press, 2006) Peter Singer
Peter Singer
ed., A Companion to Ethics
Ethics
(Oxford: Blackwell, 1993), Part IV Reinhold Zippelius, Rechtsphilosophie, §§ 11–22 (6th edition, Munich: C.H. Beck, 2011), ISBN 978-3-406-61191-9

External links[edit]

Wikiquote has quotations related to: Justice

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Justice.

Wikivoyage has a travel guide for Justice
Justice
history.

Library resources about Justice

Resources in your library Resources in other libraries

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Philosophy
entries:

Distributive Justice, by Michael Allingham Punishment, by Kevin Murtagh Western Theories of Justice, by Wayne P. Pomerleau

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Philosophy
entries:

"Justice" by David Miller "Distributive Justice" by Julian Lamont " Justice
Justice
as a Virtue" by Michael Slote "Punishment" by Hugo Adam Bedau and Erin Kelly

United Nations
United Nations
Rule of Law: Informal Justice, on the relationship between informal/community justice, the rule of law and the United Nations Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do?, a series of 12 videos on the subject of justice by Harvard University's Michael Sandel, with reading materials and comments from participants.

v t e

Types of justice

In philosophy

Commutative Distributive Divine Interactional Global Natural Organizational Procedural Restorative Retributive Social Transformative Victor's

Substantive areas

Climate Criminal Environmental Gender Military Racial Resource Spatial Trade

Other

Frontier Poetic

v t e

Philosophy

Branches

Traditional

Metaphysics

Ontology

Epistemology Logic Ethics Aesthetics

Philosophy
Philosophy
of

Action Art

Culture Design Music Film

Business Color Cosmos Dialogue Education Environment Futility Happiness Healthcare History Human nature Humor Feminism Language Life Literature Mathematics Mind

Pain Psychology

Philosophy
Philosophy
of psychiatry Philosophy
Philosophy
of perception Philosophy Religion Science

Physics Chemistry Biology Geography

Sexuality Social science

Culture Economics Justice Law Politics Society

Space and time Sport Technology

Artificial intelligence Computer science Engineering Information

War

Schools of thought

By era

Ancient Western

Medieval Renaissance Early modern Modern Contemporary

Ancient

Chinese

Agriculturalism Confucianism Legalism Logicians Mohism Chinese naturalism Neotaoism Taoism Yangism Zen

Greco-Roman

Aristotelianism Atomism Cynicism Cyrenaics Eleatics Eretrian school Epicureanism Hermeneutics Ionian

Ephesian Milesian

Megarian school Neoplatonism Peripatetic Platonism Pluralism Presocratic Pyrrhonism Pythagoreanism Neopythagoreanism Sophistic Stoicism

Indian

Samkhya Nyaya Vaisheshika Yoga Mīmāṃsā Ājīvika Ajñana Cārvāka Jain

Anekantavada Syādvāda

Buddhist

Śūnyatā Madhyamaka Yogacara Sautrāntika Svatantrika

Persian

Mazdakism Zoroastrianism Zurvanism

Medieval

European

Christian philosophy Scholasticism Thomism Renaissance
Renaissance
humanism

East Asian

Korean Confucianism Edo Neo-Confucianism Neo-Confucianism

Indian

Vedanta

Acintya bheda abheda Advaita Bhedabheda Dvaita Dvaitadvaita Shuddhadvaita Vishishtadvaita

Navya-Nyāya

Islamic

Averroism Avicennism Illuminationism ʿIlm al-Kalām Sufi

Jewish

Judeo-Islamic

Modern

People

Cartesianism Kantianism Neo-Kantianism Hegelianism Marxism Spinozism

0

Anarchism Classical Realism Liberalism Collectivism Conservatism Determinism Dualism Empiricism Existentialism Foundationalism Historicism Holism Humanism Idealism

Absolute British German Objective Subjective Transcendental

Individualism Kokugaku Materialism Modernism Monism Naturalism Natural law Nihilism New Confucianism Neo-Scholasticism Pragmatism Phenomenology Positivism Reductionism Rationalism Social contract Socialism Transcendentalism Utilitarianism

Contemporary

Analytic

Applied ethics Analytic feminism Analytical Marxism Communitarianism Consequentialism Critical rationalism Experimental philosophy Falsificationism Foundationalism / Coherentism Generative linguistics Internalism and Externalism Logical positivism Legal positivism Normative ethics Meta-ethics Moral realism Neo-Aristotelian Quinean naturalism Ordinary language philosophy Postanalytic philosophy Quietism Rawlsian Reformed epistemology Systemics Scientism Scientific realism Scientific skepticism Contemporary utilitarianism Vienna Circle Wittgensteinian

Continental

Critical theory Deconstruction Existentialism Feminist Frankfurt School New Historicism Hermeneutics Neo-Marxism Phenomenology Postmodernism Post-structuralism Social constructionism Structuralism Western Marxism

Other

Kyoto School Objectivism Russian cosmism more...

Positions

Aesthetics

Formalism Institutionalism Aesthetic response

Ethics

Consequentialism Deontology Virtue

Free will

Compatibilism Determinism Libertarianism

Metaphysics

Atomism Dualism Monism Naturalism

Epistemology

Constructivism Empiricism Idealism Particularism Fideism Rationalism / Reasonism Skepticism Solipsism

Mind

Behaviorism Emergentism Eliminativism Epiphenomenalism Functionalism Objectivism Subjectivism

Normativity

Absolutism Particularism Relativism Nihilism Skepticism Universalism

Ontology

Action Event Process

Reality

Anti-realism Conceptualism Idealism Materialism Naturalism Nominalism Physicalism Realism

Philosophy
Philosophy
by region Philosophy-related lists Miscellaneous

By region

African Ethiopian Aztec Native America Eastern Chinese Egyptian Czech Indian Indonesian Iranian Japanese Korean Vietnam Pakistani Western American Australian British Danish French German Greek Italian Polish Romanian Russian Slovene Spanish Turkish

Lists

Outline Index Years Problems Schools Glossary Philosophers Movements Publications

Miscellaneous

Women in philosophy Sage (philosophy)

Portal Category Book

v t e

Social and political philosophy

Pre-modern philosophers

Aquinas Aristotle Averroes Augustine Chanakya Cicero Confucius Al-Ghazali Han Fei Laozi Marsilius Mencius Mozi Muhammad Plato Shang Socrates Sun Tzu Thucydides

Modern philosophers

Bakunin Bentham Bonald Bosanquet Burke Comte Emerson Engels Fourier Franklin Grotius Hegel Hobbes Hume Jefferson Kant Kierkegaard Le Bon Le Play Leibniz Locke Machiavelli Maistre Malebranche Marx Mill Montesquieu Möser Nietzsche Paine Renan Rousseau Royce Sade Smith Spencer Spinoza Stirner Taine Thoreau Tocqueville Vivekananda Voltaire

20th–21th-century Philosophers

Ambedkar Arendt Aurobindo Aron Azurmendi Badiou Baudrillard Bauman Benoist Berlin Judith Butler Camus Chomsky De Beauvoir Debord Du Bois Durkheim Foucault Gandhi Gehlen Gentile Gramsci Habermas Hayek Heidegger Irigaray Kirk Kropotkin Lenin Luxemburg Mao Marcuse Maritain Michels Mises Negri Niebuhr Nozick Oakeshott Ortega Pareto Pettit Plamenatz Polanyi Popper Radhakrishnan Rand Rawls Rothbard Russell Santayana Sarkar Sartre Schmitt Searle Simonović Skinner Sombart Spann Spirito Strauss Sun Taylor Walzer Weber Žižek

Social theories

Ambedkarism Anarchism Authoritarianism Collectivism Communism Communitarianism Conflict theories Confucianism Consensus theory Conservatism Contractualism Cosmopolitanism Culturalism Fascism Feminist political theory Gandhism Individualism Legalism Liberalism Libertarianism Mohism National liberalism Republicanism Social constructionism Social constructivism Social Darwinism Social determinism Socialism Utilitarianism Vaisheshika

Concepts

Civil disobedience Democracy Four occupations Justice Law Mandate of Heaven Peace Property Revolution Rights Social contract Society War more...

Related articles

Jurisprudence Philosophy
Philosophy
and economics Philosophy
Philosophy
of education Philosophy
Philosophy
of history Philosophy
Philosophy
of love Philosophy
Philosophy
of sex Philosophy
Philosophy
of social science Political ethics Social epistemology

Category Portal Task Force

v t e

Ethics

Theories

Casuistry Consequentialism Deontology

Kantian ethics

Ethics
Ethics
of care Existentialist ethics Meta-ethics Particularism Pragmatic ethics Role ethics Virtue
Virtue
ethics

Concepts

Autonomy Axiology Belief Conscience Consent Equality Care Free will Good and evil Happiness Ideal Justice Morality Norm Freedom Principles Suffering
Suffering
or Pain Stewardship Sympathy Trust Value Virtue Wrong full index...

Philosophers

Laozi Plato Aristotle Diogenes Valluvar Cicero Confucius Augustine of Hippo Mencius Mozi Xunzi Thomas Aquinas Baruch Spinoza David Hume Immanuel Kant Georg W. F. Hegel Arthur Schopenhauer Jeremy Bentham John Stuart Mill Søren Kierkegaard Henry Sidgwick Friedrich Nietzsche G. E. Moore Karl Barth Paul Tillich Dietrich Bonhoeffer Philippa Foot John Rawls John Dewey Bernard Williams J. L. Mackie G. E. M. Anscombe William Frankena Alasdair MacIntyre R. M. Hare Peter Singer Derek Parfit Thomas Nagel Robert Merrihew Adams Charles Taylor Joxe Azurmendi Christine Korsgaard Martha Nussbaum more...

Applied ethics

Bioethics Business ethics Discourse ethics Engineering ethics Environmental ethics Legal ethics Media ethics Medical ethics Nursing ethics Professional ethics Sexual ethics Ethics
Ethics
of eating meat Ethics
Ethics
of technology

Related articles

Christian ethics Descriptive ethics Ethics
Ethics
in religion Evolutionary
Evolutionary
ethics Feminist ethics History of ethics Ideology Islamic ethics Jewish ethics Normative ethics Philosophy
Philosophy
of law Political philosophy Population ethics Social philosophy

Portal Category

v t e

Jurisprudence

Legal theory

Critical legal studies Comparative law Economic analysis International legal theory Legal history Philosophy
Philosophy
of law Sociology of law

Philosophers

Alexy Allan Aquinas Aristotle Austin Beccaria Bentham Betti Bickel Blackstone Bobbio Bork Brożek Cardozo Castanheira Neves Chafee Coleman Del Vecchio Durkheim Dworkin Ehrlich Feinberg Fineman Finnis Frank Fuller Gardner George Green Grisez Grotius Gurvitch Habermas Han Hart Hegel Hobbes Hohfeld Hägerström Jellinek Jhering Kant Kelsen Köchler Kramer Llewellyn Lombardía Luhmann Lundstedt Lyons MacCormick Marx Nussbaum Olivecrona Pashukanis Perelman Petrazycki Pontes de Miranda Posner Pound Puchta Radbruch Rawls Raz Reale Reinach Renner Ross Rumi Savigny Scaevola Schmitt Shang Simmonds Somló Suárez Tribe Unger Voegelin Waldron Walzer Weber

Theories

Analytical jurisprudence Deontological ethics Interpretivism Legalism Legal moralism Legal positivism Legal realism Libertarian theories of law Natural law Paternalism Utilitarianism Virtue
Virtue
jurisprudence

Concepts

Dharma Fa Judicial interpretation Justice Legal system Li Rational-legal authority

Related articles

Law Political philosophy more...

Category Law
Law
portal Philosophy
Philosophy
portal WikiProject Law WikiProject Philosophy changes

Authority control

GND: 4020310-4 NDL: 0057029

.