Justice as a Controversial Topic in Philosophy - Term Paper Example

Exam According to the English definition, justice means a rightful action. Further elaboration indicates that for aperson to be right, he needs to act in a morally upright manner. The principles of justice ensure that regardless of the prevailing situations, all parties involved should receive judgment according to their actions. Justice based on moral principles enhances fairness among all involved parties. The definition can be manipulated to fit various parties’ opinions. Consequently, philosophers define justice as a component of both moral virtue and an accepted opinion of the society that translates to political, personal or social opinion. In order to establish the most applicable definition of justice, it is necessary to classify justice under ancient Greece philosophy by Plato, medieval Christianity philosophy by Augustine and Aquinas. In addition, early modern philosophies by Hume and Hobbes and recent modern philosophies by Mill and Kant are crucial. Justice ensures that all parties in various situations achieve what is rightfully theirs and present what they should give. Social issues and philosophers opinion Social issues include war, punishment, civil disobedience, equal opportunity, slavery, international relations and property rights. Plato defines justice as a virtue that establishes rational order1. The parties involved perform their appropriate roles while at the same time, not interfering with the functions of other parties. Aristotle contributes to this view by stating that justice is consistent and matches actions that are fair and lawful. He describes fairness as the equitable distribution of opportunities and correction of inequitable incidences. In Christian opinion, Augustine defines justice as a cardinal virtue that requires people to accord parties their due recognition. Aquinas’ definition of justice presents a rational result arising from proportional distribution of opportunities and rights that balances with reciprocal transactions2. The modern perception of justice seems to vary from the mentioned definitions. According to Hobbes, justice is only an artificial asset required by the civil society that stems from an agreement between differing social implications3. Hume seconds this by stating that justice protects the society by ultimately protecting properties. Kant, whose opinion is among the most recent definitions of justice, states that justice is achieved by respecting other people’s autonomy, freedom and dignity4. In this view, a just individual does not interfere with other people’s actions for as long as they do not undermine his personal rights. Mill defines justice as a term that encompasses the most vital social utilities that include enhancing human liberty and protecting it5. Kant’s philosophy is the most appropriate definition of justice because it does not only take into account the rightness of an action, it dwells deeper in aspects that constitute the social requirements of an individual that determines his well-being. Kant’s opinion on justice According to Rosen, Kant takes into account two scopes of human nature in defining justice and proposing its application. The two aspects include internal and external freedoms. He explains that justice has a moral stance and external point of perception. The internal freedom represents ethical values necessary for a just act and external freedom that determines whether an individual receives just treatment or not. According to Kant, justice is a broad subject that requires one to consider all aspects pertaining to any case. These include an absolute stand of justice based on the ethical concepts of involved parties and the judgment by external forces that determine a party that requires counter transaction to achieve justice. Weaknesses of other philosophers Plato According to Plato’s argument, justice is reduced to mere simplistic rules that require an individual to treat other people in accordance to how he feels about them. The argument fails to consider that individuals have oppressive or greedy tendencies towards others that make them perceive justice as a subject to satisfy their feelings. When compared to Kant’s argument, Plato’s argument does not incorporate the rule of relativism that Kant’s expresses by subdividing justice into contextual single incidences of probable justice or injustice. Plato’s argument is not universal meaning that he based his arguments on the social situation at the time6. According to him, certain people are justified in oppressing others depending on the situation. For instance, politicians and leaders are allowed to take actions they deem just despite the fact that they compromise justice. If a leader has to make a decision, he must ensure that he does not compromise the situation. Aristotle’s opinion Aristotle’s application of justice is very similar to Plato’s ideologies. While Plato objected inequality to women and supported slavery, Aristotle shunned slavery but supported oppression of women7. As discussed by Kant, justice is doing what is morally correct across all issues. Consequently, an individual must assess each topic and accord opportunities and rights accordingly. Aristotle argues that some individuals are superior to others. Their view of justice surpasses the other parties. According to his application of justice, men are superior to women. Therefore, regardless of what women may deem as rightfully their due, man’s interest always prevails. This is fundamentally inappropriate. Just like Plato, Aristotle puts more emphasis on a specific incidence making him fail to understand the broader subject of gender oppression that is a component of justice. Augustine and Aquinas Augustine’s argument is very similar to the earlier philosophies of justice. He looks at peace, love and establishes that war is just if it seeks to establish peace, order and equity among citizens. However, he acknowledges that war can be unjust as well. However, his arguments fall as prejudice in relation to Kant’s definition. He assumes that only Christian rule that can bring justice to people8. The application indicates that Augustine fails to understand that justice does not always satisfy a particular party but it also creates resentment from the other party. Christianity is only one party. Its actions towards other parties can easily compromise peace. This is tantamount to injustice by Christian community. Aquinas, whose ideology is based on Christianity, also fails in his definition of justice because he only supports proportional equity, which indicates that particular parties have a superior say in matters than the others. Hobbes In contrast to Aristotle, Plato, Augustine and Aquinas, Hobbes argues that an individual can only claim to know what he has experienced. Consequently, justice is not an absolute political or moral object. He explains that different people view the issue distinctively. According to IEP, Hobbes’ argument assumes that there is no natural sense of injustice or justice. According to his perception of nature, any moral value is relative to an individual’s desire. It appears that satisfies one’s desire is good. Therefore, the society sets out to establish what is good for itself, which by doing so institutes agreements that govern people in doing what is just. His argument fails because it incorporates materialism, egoism and moral relativity in establishing a just situation. He fails to address the fact that justice does not oppress people. If a society or a group arrives at an agreement, it only serves a majority but does not necessarily institute justice for everyone. Hume Like Hobbes, Hume perceives justice as a social institute relative to human interests and needs. He associates justice with need instead of reason. He further argues that justice is intertwined with protection of an individual’s property that allows him to state that social utility is the only foundation of justice9. Hume’s argument is insufficient because he portrays justice as a superficial entity without intrinsic ethical values. Hume’s application of justice portrays it as a train of reason that only seeks to ensure that people achieve their most desirable goals. Conclusion Justice is a controversial topic that draws differing definitions and applications. However, justice seeks to establish an appropriate ground that institutes order and peace among individuals or populations. While some philosophers perceive justice as a virtual phenomenon that establishes law and order, other philosophers perceive it as an actual object that not only establishes law and order but also has an absolution. The philosophies have transitioned through history with each category of philosophers basing their arguments on biased conceptions. The most recent philosophy by Kant represents a non-biased definition that incorporates all aspects and possibilities of justice or injustice. Works Cited IEP. Western Justice Philosophies. 14 March 2012. 27 February 2014 http://www.iep.utm.edu/justwest/ Plato. The Republic. New York: MobileReference, 2008. Rosen, D Allen. Kants Theory of Justice. New York: Cornell University Press, 1996. Read More