Equality doesn’t mean JusticeEquality Justice Sanjay Jagarwal
Moral Reasoning• Consequentialist locates morality in the consequences of an act• Categorical locate morality in certain duties and rights
Animals can tell right from wrong… Animals possess a sense of morality that allows them to tell the difference between right and wrong. Just as in humans, the moral nuances of a particular culture or group will be different from another, but they are certainly there. Moral codes are species specific. Recent neurology work has also revealed that distantly related mammals such as whales and dolphins have the same structures in their brains that are thought to be responsible for empathy in humans.
WOLVES:During play, dominant wolves will "handicap" themselves by engaging inroll reversal with lower ranking wolves, showing submission andallowing them to bite.without a moral code governing their actions, this kind of behaviourwould not be possible. If an animal bites too hard, it will initiate a"play bow" to ask forgiveness before play resumes.RODENTS:• Experiments with rats have shown that they will not take food if they know their actions will cause pain to another rat. In lab tests, rats were given food which then caused a second group of rats to receive an electric shock.• The rats with the food stopped eating rather than see another rat receive a shock. Similarly, mice react more strongly to pain when they have seen another mouse in pain.
BATS:Vampire bats need to drink blood every night but it is commonfor some not to find any food. Those who are successful inforaging for blood will share their meal with bats who are notsuccessful.WHALES:Whales have been found to have spindle cells in theirbrains. These very large and specialised cells were thoughtto be restricted to humans and other great apes and appearto play a role in empathy and understanding the feelings ofothers.
Contents• Definition• Understandings of justiceI. Justice as harmonyII. Justice as divine commandIII. Justice as natural lawIV. Justice as human creationV. Justice as a subordinate value• Types of justice• Problems and there solutions• References
Modified Definition of JustJustice is a concept of moral rightness based on ethics,rationality, law, natural law, religion, equity or fairness, as wellas the administration of the law, taking into account theinalienable and inborn rights of all human beings and citizens,the right of all people and individuals to equal protection beforethe law of their civil rights, without discrimination on the basisof race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, nationalorigin, color, ethnicity, religion, disability, age, or othercharacteristics, and is further regarded as being inclusive ofsocial justice.
the progress of any country depends on 4things: Idea, Liberty, Trust & Freedom. Abraham Lincoln
Understandings of justiceJustice differ in every culture, as cultures are usually dependentupon a shared history, mythology and/or religion.Each cultures ethics create values which influence the notion ofjustice.There can be found some justice principles that are one and thesame in all or most of the cultures, these are insufficient tocreate a unitary justice apprehension.
Justice as harmonyPlatos definition of justice is that justice is the having and doing ofwhat is ones own. A just man is a man in just the right place, doing hisbest and giving the precise equivalent of what he has received.This applies both at the individual level and at the universal level.Socrates uses the parable of the chariot to illustrate his point: a chariotworks as a whole because the two horses’ power is directed by thecharioteer. Lovers of wisdom philosophers, in one sense of the term shouldrule because only they understand what is good.If one is ill, one goes to a doctor rather than a psychologist, becausethe doctor is expert in the subject of health.The unjust city is like a ship in open ocean, crewed by a powerful butdrunken captain (the common people), a group of untrustworthyadvisors who try to manipulate the captain into giving them powerover the ships course (the politicians), and a navigator (thephilosopher) who is the only one who knows how to get the ship toport. For Socrates, the only way the ship will reach its destination – thegood – is if the navigator takes charge.
Justice as divine commandJustice as a divine law is commanding, and indeed the whole ofmorality, is the authoritative command.Killing is wrong and therefore must be punished and if not punishedwhat should be done?Euthyphro dilemma essentially asks: is something right because Godcommands it, or does God command it because its right?If the former, then justice is arbitrary; if the latter, then morality existson a higher order than God, who becomes little more than a passer-onof moral knowledge. The dilemma is however claimed to be false by some religiousapologists, who claim that goodness is the very nature of God and isnecessarily expressed in His commands. God embodies these laws andis therefore neither higher nor lower than the law. He sets anexample for the good people among men to follow His way and alsobecome an embodiment of the highest principles and morals
Justice as natural lawIt involves the system of consequences that naturally derivesfrom any action or choice.In this, it is similar to the laws of physics: in the same way as theThird of Newtons laws of Motion requires that for every actionthere must be an equal and opposite reaction. Justice requires according individuals or groups what theyactually deserve, merit, or are entitled to. Justice, on thisaccount, 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 natureof justice.
Justice as human creation:In contrast to the understandings canvassed so far, justice maybe understood as a human creation, rather than a discovery ofharmony, divine command, or natural law.This claim can be understood in a number of ways, with thefundamental division being between those who argue thatjustice is the creation of some humans, and those who arguethat it is the creation of all humans.Justice as mutual agreement:justice is derived from the mutual agreement of everyoneconcerned; or, in many versions, from what they would agree tounder hypothetical conditions including equality and absence ofbias. This account is considered further below, under ‘Justice asfairness’.
Justice as a subordinate valueJustice is not as fundamental as we often think. Rather, it is derivedfrom the more basic standard of rightness, consequentialism: whatis right is what has the best consequences. John Stuart MillThe proper principles of justice are those that tend to have the bestconsequences. These rules may turn out to be familiar ones such askeeping contracts; but equally, they may not, depending on the factsabout real consequences.
Either way, what is important is those consequences, and justiceis important, if at all, only as derived from that fundamentalstandard.Mill tries to explain our mistaken belief that justice isoverwhelmingly important by arguing that it derives from twonatural human tendencies:1.our desire to retaliate against those who hurt us2.our ability to put ourselves imaginatively in anothers place.So, when we see someone harmed, we project ourselves intoher situation and feel a desire to retaliate on her behalf. If thisprocess is the source of our feelings about justice, that ought toundermine our confidence in them.
Types of justiceDistributive justiceDistributive justice, also known as economic justice, is about fairness inwhat people receive, from goods to attention. Its roots are in socialorder and it is at the roots of Communism, where equality is afundamental principle.If people do not thing that they are getting their fair share ofsomething, they will seek first to gain what they believe they deserve.They may well also seek other forms of justice.Procedural justiceThe principle of fairness is also found in the idea of fair play (asopposed to the fair share of distributive justice).If people believe that a fair process was used in deciding what it to bedistributed, then they may well accept an imbalance in what theyreceive in comparison to others. If they see both procedural anddistributive injustice, they will likely seek restorative and/or retributivejustice.
Restorative justiceThe first thing that the betrayed person may seek from the betrayer issome form of restitution, putting things back as they should be.The simplest form of restitution is a straightforward apology.Restoration means putting things back as they were, so it may includesome act of contrition to demonstrate one is truly sorry. This mayinclude action and even extra payment to the offended party.Restorative justice is also known as corrective justice.Retributive justiceRestoration may well not be enough for the betrayed person and theymay seek revenge of some sort, whereby they can feel the satisfactionof seeing the other person suffer in the way that they have suffered.Revenge can be many times more severe than reparation as the hurtparty seeks to make the other person suffer in return.
Theories of distributive justiceneed to answer three questions:1.What goods are to be distributed? Is it to be wealth, power, respect, some combination of thesethings?2.Between what entities are they to be distributed? Humans (dead, living, future), sentient beings, the members of asingle society, nations?3.What is the proper distribution?Equal, meritocratic, according to social status, according to need,based on property rights and non-aggression?
Types of Distributive Norms1) Equity: Member’s outcomes should be based upon their inputs. Therefore,an individual who has invested a large amount of input (eg:, time, money,energy) should receive more from the group than someone who hascontributed very little2) Equality: Regardless of their inputs, all group members should be given anequal share of the rewards/costs. Equality supports that someone whocontributes 20% of the group’s resources should receive as much as someonewho contributes 60%. Women prefer equality more often than men do overequity, even when they are the outperforming party. This does not mean thatall women have this preference.3) Power: Those with more authority, status, or control over the group shouldreceive more than those in lower level positions.4) Need: Those in greatest needs should be provided with resources neededto meet those needs. These individuals should be given more resources thanthose who already possess them, regardless of their input.5) Responsibility: Group members who have the most should share theirresources with those who have less.
Theories of sentencingIn criminal law, a sentence forms the final explicit act of a judge-ruled process, and also the symbolic principal act connected tohis function.The sentence can generally involve a decree of imprisonment, afine and/or other punishments against a defendant convicted ofa crime. Laws may specify the range of penalties that can be imposed forvarious offenses, and sentencing guidelines sometimes regulatewhat punishment within those ranges can be imposed given acertain set of offense and offender characteristics.
Theory Aim of theory Suitable punishment Punishment imposed for no reason other 1.Tariff sentences than an offense being committed, on the 2.Sentence must be Retribution basis that if proportionate, punishment is proportionate to the crime morally acceptable as a response that satisfies the aggrieved party, their intimates and society. 1.To the individual - the individual is deterred 1.Prison Sentence Deterrence through fear of further punishment. 2.Heavy Fine 2.To the general public - Potential offenders 3.Long sentence as an warned as to likely punishment example to othersRehabilitation To reform the offenders behaviour 1.Individualized sentences 2.Community service ordersIncapacitation Offender is made incapable of committing 1.Long prison sentence further crime to protect society at large from 2.Electronic tagging crime 3.Banning ordersDenunciation Society expressing its disapproval reinforcing Reflects blameworthiness of moral boundaries offense
Theories of retributive justiceTheories of retributive justice are concerned with punishmentfor 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 theories lookforward to the future consequences of punishment, whileretributive theories look back to particular acts of wrongdoing, andattempt to balance them with deserved punishment.
UtilitarianismJustice requires the maximization of the total or average welfare across allrelevant individuals.Punishment is bad treatment of someone, and therefore cant be good initself, for the utilitarian.But punishment might be a necessary sacrifice that maximizes the overallgood in the long term.Deterrence: The credible threat of punishment might lead people to makedifferent choices; well-designed threats might lead people to makechoices that maximize welfare.Rehabilitation: Punishment might make bad people into better ones. Forthe utilitarian, all that bad person can mean is person whos likely tocause bad things (like suffering). So, utilitarianism could recommendpunishment that changes someone such that they are less likely to causebad things.Security/Incapacitation: Perhaps there are people who are irredeemablecausers of bad things. If so, imprisoning them might maximize welfare bylimiting their opportunities to cause harm and therefore the benefit lieswithin protecting society.
Means…So, the reason for punishment is the maximization of welfare,and punishment should be of whomever, and of whatever formand severity, are needed to meet that goal.Worryingly, this may sometimes justify punishing the innocent,or inflicting disproportionately severe punishments, when thatwill have the best consequences overall (perhaps executing a fewsuspected shoplifters live on television would be an effectivedeterrent to shoplifting, for instance).It also suggests that punishment might turn out never to beright, depending on the facts about what actual consequences ithas