Equality and justice are related but distinct concepts. Equality refers to treating all people the same, while justice considers fairness and individual circumstances and outcomes. True justice cannot be achieved through equality alone. Different cultures understand justice in varying ways based on their shared history and beliefs. Key debates around justice include whether it stems from divine commands, natural law, human design, or a balance of consequences. Theories of justice also consider how to distribute goods fairly in a society.

1. Equality doesn’t mean Justice
Equality Justice
Sanjay Jagarwal

2. Moral Reasoning
• Consequentialist
locates morality in the consequences
of an act
• Categorical
locate morality in certain duties and
rights

3. 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.

4. WOLVES:
During play, dominant wolves will "handicap" themselves by engaging in
roll reversal with lower ranking wolves, showing submission and
allowing them to bite.
without a moral code governing their actions, this kind of behaviour
would 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.

5. BATS:
Vampire bats need to drink blood every night but it is common
for some not to find any food. Those who are successful in
foraging for blood will share their meal with bats who are not
successful.
WHALES:
Whales have been found to have spindle cells in their
brains. These very large and specialised cells were thought
to be restricted to humans and other great apes and appear
to play a role in empathy and understanding the feelings of
others.

6. Emotions

7. Contents
• Definition
• Understandings of justice
I. Justice as harmony
II. Justice as divine command
III. Justice as natural law
IV. Justice as human creation
V. Justice as a subordinate value
• Types of justice
• Problems and there solutions
• References

9. FORD Pinto

12. Repairing the FORD Pinto
COST BENEFITS
$ 11 per part 180 deaths X $ 200,000
X12.5 million +180 injuries X $67,000
+2000 vehicles X $ 700
= $ 137 million
= $ 49.5 million

13. Justice
John Rawls

14. Modified Definition of Just
Justice is a concept of moral rightness based on ethics,
rationality, law, natural law, religion, equity or fairness, as well
as the administration of the law, taking into account the
inalienable and inborn rights of all human beings and citizens,
the right of all people and individuals to equal protection before
the law of their civil rights, without discrimination on the basis
of race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national
origin, color, ethnicity, religion, disability, age, or other
characteristics, and is further regarded as being inclusive of
social justice.

15. the progress of any
country depends on 4
things: Idea, Liberty, Trust
& Freedom.
Abraham Lincoln

16. Understandings of justice
Justice differ in every culture, as cultures are usually dependent
upon a shared history, mythology and/or religion.
Each culture's ethics create values which influence the notion of
justice.
There can be found some justice principles that are one and the
same in all or most of the cultures, these are insufficient to
create a unitary justice apprehension.

17. Justice as harmony
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.
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 doctor rather than a psychologist, because
the doctor is expert in the subject of health.
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.

18. Justice as divine command
Justice as a divine law is commanding, and indeed the whole of
morality, is the authoritative command.
Killing is wrong and therefore must be punished and if not punished
what should be done?
Euthyphro dilemma essentially asks: is something right because God
commands it, or does God command it because it's right?
If the former, then justice is arbitrary; if the latter, then morality exists
on a higher order than God, who becomes little more than a passer-on
of moral knowledge.
The dilemma is however claimed to be false by some religious
apologists, who claim that goodness is the very nature of God and is
necessarily expressed in His commands. God embodies these laws and
is therefore neither higher nor lower than the law. He sets an
example for the good people among men to follow His way and also
become an embodiment of the highest principles and morals

19. Justice as natural law
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. 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.

20. Justice as human creation:
In contrast to the understandings canvassed so far, justice may
be understood as a human creation, rather than a discovery of
harmony, divine command, or natural law.
This claim can be understood in a number of ways, with the
fundamental division being between those who argue that
justice is the creation of some humans, and those who argue
that it is the creation of all humans.
Justice as mutual agreement:
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 as
fairness’.

21. Justice as a subordinate value
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.
John Stuart Mill
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.

22. 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:
1.our desire to retaliate against those who hurt us
2.our ability to put ourselves imaginatively in another's place.
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.

23. Types of justice
Distributive justice
Distributive justice, also known as economic justice, is about fairness in
what people receive, from goods to attention. Its roots are in social
order and it is at the roots of Communism, where equality is a
fundamental principle.
If people do not thing that they are getting their fair share of
something, they will seek first to gain what they believe they deserve.
They may well also seek other forms of justice.
Procedural justice
The principle of fairness is also found in the idea of fair play (as
opposed to the fair share of distributive justice).
If people believe that a fair process was used in deciding what it to be
distributed, then they may well accept an imbalance in what they
receive in comparison to others. If they see both procedural and
distributive injustice, they will likely seek restorative and/or retributive
justice.

24. Restorative justice
The first thing that the betrayed person may seek from the betrayer is
some 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 include
some act of contrition to demonstrate one is truly sorry. This may
include action and even extra payment to the offended party.
Restorative justice is also known as corrective justice.
Retributive justice
Restoration may well not be enough for the betrayed person and they
may seek revenge of some sort, whereby they can feel the satisfaction
of seeing the other person suffer in the way that they have suffered.
Revenge can be many times more severe than reparation as the hurt
party seeks to make the other person suffer in return.

25. Theories of distributive justice
need to answer three questions:
1.What goods are to be distributed?
Is it to be wealth, power, respect, some combination of these
things?
2.Between what entities are they to be distributed?
Humans (dead, living, future), sentient beings, the members of a
single society, nations?
3.What is the proper distribution?
Equal, meritocratic, according to social status, according to need,
based on property rights and non-aggression?

26. Types of Distributive Norms
1) 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 has
contributed very little
2) Equality: Regardless of their inputs, all group members should be given an
equal share of the rewards/costs. Equality supports that someone who
contributes 20% of the group’s resources should receive as much as someone
who contributes 60%. Women prefer equality more often than men do over
equity, even when they are the outperforming party. This does not mean that
all women have this preference.
3) Power: Those with more authority, status, or control over the group should
receive more than those in lower level positions.
4) Need: Those in greatest needs should be provided with resources needed
to meet those needs. These individuals should be given more resources than
those who already possess them, regardless of their input.
5) Responsibility: Group members who have the most should share their
resources with those who have less.

27. Theories of sentencing
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.

28. 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 others
Rehabilitation To reform the offender's behaviour 1.Individualized sentences
2.Community service orders
Incapacitation Offender is made incapable of committing 1.Long prison sentence
further crime to protect society at large from 2.Electronic tagging
crime 3.Banning orders
Denunciation Society expressing its disapproval reinforcing Reflects blameworthiness of
moral boundaries offense

29. Theories of retributive justice
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 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.

30. Utilitarianism
Justice requires the maximization of the total or average welfare across all
relevant individuals.
Punishment is bad treatment of someone, and therefore can't be good in
itself, for the utilitarian.
But punishment might be a necessary sacrifice that maximizes the overall
good in the long term.
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.
Rehabilitation: 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.

31. Means…
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.
Worryingly, 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

32. Problems…
14.Kidnapping
1. Arson 15.Money Laundering
2. Assault 16.Murder
3. Burglary 17.Perjury
4. Child Abuse 18.Prostitution
5. Child Pornography 19.Public Intoxication
6. Computer Crime 20.Rape
7. Conspiracy 21.Robbery
8. Credit Card Fraud 22.Sexual Assault
9. Disorderly Conduct 23.Shoplifting
10.Disturbing the Peace 24.Solicitation
11.Domestic Violence 25.Stalking
12.Extortion 26.Statutory Rape
13.Forgery 27.Theft

33. References…
http://lilt.ilstu.edu/pefranc/default.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice
http://crime.about.com/od/Crime_101/a/Crimes-
A-To-Z.htm
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/tr
aining9chapter13en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/index_
en.htm