Justice And Injustice In Society

809 Words2 Pages

Do we have any reason to believe that some sort of Justice must balance out Injustice in the world? This question would seem to imply that perhaps through Justice there are some sort of Injustice in the world today. Therefore, some sort of judiciary system should be set in place to control the level of unjustness. In order for any individual to even approach the above question, the given terms Justice and Injustice must first be understood, as well as their relationship to society. Justice is the first virtue of Social institutions. Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. For this reason justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others. It does not allow that sacrifices imposed on a few are outweighed by the larger sum of advantages enjoyed by many. (Rawls, 1971) Rawls depicted to us that society is a self-sufficient association of persons who in their relations to one another recognize certain rules of conducts as binding and who for the most part act in accordance with them. He then added that these rules specify a system of cooperation designed to advance the good of those taking part in it. (Rawls, 1971) However, in a society like that, there would be a conflict of interests since persons are not indifferent as to how the greater benefits produced by their collaboration are distributed, for in order to pursue their ends they each prefer a larger to a lesser share. Rawls suggested that a set of principles is required for choosing among the various social arrangements which determine this division of advantages and for underwriting an agreement on the proper distributive shares. These principles are th... ... middle of paper ... ...ince, once again, every individual's worldview is based upon that individual's own set of experiences. Thus, any judgment by one individual of another's set of "data" will be subjective and skewed, which perverts any prospect for objective justice. That is, unless an objective framework such as one of "God, freedom, immortality" is used to evaluate a deed and not the person responsible, while properly rewarding or punishing the latter. A Kantian justice system would thus solely focus on what was done, rather than on the character of the person who did it. No excuses regarding a criminal's genome, upbringing, history of mental illness, or socioeconomic status can exonerate him from receiving punishment for the criminal act. The fact that a man was abused during his childhood does not justify his infliction of similar abuse on others later in life. (Kant, 1724-1804)

Open Document