WHAT IS JUSTICE?

Justice is one of those things that people talk about all the time, without really
being specific about what they mean.
Activists talk about Economic Justice.
Police and lawyers talk about Criminal Justice.

Parents, teachers, and students talk about justice a lot, too, though they may never
use that word.
When there’s a fight on the playground, or you get a grade you think you don’t
deserve, we find ourselves talking about what’s fair.
And that is talking about justice.
And we think we know what it is, but we probably don’t – or at least, we don’t agree.

Is justice about equality? Fairness? Getting what we deserve? Or getting what we

need?

Sometimes we talk about balancing the scales of justice.

This goes back to an ancient Greek understanding of justice as harmony.
In this view, a just society is one in which everyone fulfills their roles, so that society
runs smoothly.
In that case, violating your place in the social order – even if it’s a place you don’t
want to hold – is considered unjust.

Other times, justice has been understood in a more UTILITARIAN way, where a
just society is one that tries to increase the overall quality of life for its citizens.
And for a POLITICAL LIBERTARIAN, a just society is simply one that allows its
citizens to be maximally free.

So which is it?
Is justice buying a meal for someone in need?
Is it sending a criminal to jail?
Is it doling out rewards and punishments based on merit?

The reason people talk about justice all the time is that it’s one of the most
fundamental social, ethical, and moral principles we deal with every day.
And in the end, what justice means to you personally, pretty much defines how you
think society should work.

You might have already noticed this, but when people talk about justice, a lot of
the time, they’re really talking about stuff.
Like, who has more stuff – whether that’s money, food, or access to services like
healthcare and sanitation.
Who gets to decide who gets what?
And on what basis?
The area of moral philosophy that considers these questions is known as
DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE, and there are many different schools of thought here.

Justice as Equality
The Belief that everyone should get the same kind and amount of stuff.

For example, some people believe that everyone should get the same kind and
amount of stuff, no matter what. This concept is known as justice as equality.
It sounds totally fair. But, is everyone getting the same stuff really justice?
Because I need – or want – different kinds and amounts of stuff than you do.
So, there’s also the idea of NEED-BASED JUSTICE.

Need-Based Justice
Everyone shouldn’t get the same because our needs aren’t the same.

This says everyone shouldn’t get the same, because our needs aren’t the same.
By this logic, justice is getting based on what we need.
So those who need more, get more. And some say that this makes sense, while others
argue that it amounts to favoring some people over others, putting those who happen
to not be in need, at a disadvantage.

And if that’s how you look at things, then you probably espouse some kind of merit-
based justice, which says that justice actually means giving unequally, based on
what each person deserves.

Merit-Based Justice
Justice actually means giving unequally, based on what each person deserves.

And you deserve stuff – or don’t – based on what you’ve done. So this view rewards
hard work and punishes trouble-makers.

Finally, there’s the very simple-sounding approach advanced by twentieth century

American political philosopher John Rawls.
John Rawls
The Principles of Justice are chosen behind a veil of Ignorance
He argued that:
JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS
Any inequalities that exist in a social system, Rawls said, should favor the least
well-off, because this levels the playing field of society.
This is a form of need-based justice that focuses specifically on making sure that
everyone is actually in a position to achieve their basic needs.
Rawls reasoned that the world is full of natural inequalities. Think of all the things
we talked about when we discussed moral luck; a lot of factors that will shape your
life are totally out of your control.

So Rawls’ sense of justice means correcting for those disadvantages that are beyond
our control.
There are some who argue that JUSTICE-IS-FAIRNESS is actually unfair to
those who have gotten the most – either through hard work, or because they
happened to win life’s natural lottery.

20th century American philosopher Robert Nozick disagreed with Rawls’ idea that
justice-is-fairness.
Robert Nozick
From each as they choose, to each as they are chosen.
And to demonstrate why, he posed this thought experiment, about professional
basketball;
Wilt Chamberlain was a wildly popular basketball player when Nozick created this
example.
So Nozick said: What if Chamberlain – probably the most famous athlete of his day
– decided that he’d play only under certain conditions?
Suppose that Chamberlain decides that tickets for games he plays in should cost 25
cents more than games he doesn’t play in. And what’s more, Chamberlain will be
paid $100,000 more than the other players.
Now, Chamberlain is really popular, so everyone knows that more people will show
up to see a game he’s playing in, even if the tickets cost more.
Since he is the draw, isn’t he entitled to ask for more money than his teammates?
Nozick argued that we can’t – and shouldn’t – try to even out the naturally
uneven playing field here.
“Sure, we start out with unequal amounts of stuff.”
But Nozick said, we’re each entitled to the stuff we have, provided we
didn’t steal it or otherwise obtain it unjustly.
So, if you’re the world’s most famous basketball player, you are entitled to have, and
want, more stuff, even if others don’t have it.
If Chamberlain’s awesomeness at basketball lets him amass a bunch of wealth,
while other people go hungry, well, that’s not Wilt’s fault.

As you can see, there is a lot of disagreement about what it means to distribute justly.
And this is an incredibly important topic, because a lot of what we argue about
politically has to do exactly this with issue.

People who believe there are essential human rights, for example, argue that we’re
simply entitled to have our most basic needs fulfilled –things like having enough to
eat, and being able to go to the doctors when we’re sick.
But not everyone believes it’s the government’s job to provide us with those things,
if we’re not able to get them ourselves.

Those people might argue that your rights are negative.

A NEGATIVE RIGHT is the right not to be interfered with, not to be stopped from
pursuing the things you need.
So in this view, I can’t prevent you from trying to fulfill your needs, but I don’t have
to help you to fulfill them, either.
By contrast, you might believe in positive rights.
If you have a POSITIVE RIGHT to something, you are entitled to help in getting
it, if you can’t get it yourself.
So, if you can’t afford a doctor, you have a right to get assistance in affording one.
But notice that in this view, A RIGHT IMPLIES AN OBLIGATION.
Your rights – in this case, your right to see a doctor, even if you can’t afford one –
might make obligatory demands on me, because I might end up helping to pay for it.
Robert Nozick
Taxation of earnings from labor is on a par with forced labor.
Of course, someone like Nozick would ask, where would such a right come from?
How could I incur an obligation to help you, just because I’m better off than you are?
Sure, it might be nice if I helped, but it’s certainly not a duty, and no one should
compel me to do it.
But that’s exactly what the government does when it takes taxes from those who
have more in order to assist those who have less.
So you see what I mean: when people talk about taxes, and healthcare, and income
inequality, they’re really talking about JUSTICE.
But of course, a lot of the time, justice isn’t at all about stuff. It’s also about
punishment.
Like most subjects, philosophers disagree about the most appropriate way to
respond to wrongdoing.
One concept is known as RETRIBUTIVE JUSTICE.

RETRIBUTIVE JUSTICE
The only way for Justice to be satisfied is for a Wrongdoer to suffer in Proportion
to the way he's made others suffer.

This is your good old fashioned, Biblical, eye-for-an-eye justice.

And in this view, punishment is supposed to hurt; that’s the only way to “make
things right.”
Historically, this would mean things like, if you cause physical harm to someone,
your punisher must do the same thing to you.
Today, though, in the interest of being civilized, we tend to mete out the pain in
terms of incarceration and fines, rather than straight-up tit-for-tat.

But still, just retribution is one of the driving philosophical forces behind capital
punishment;
The idea that there’s simply no way to right the wrong of taking a life, other than
by taking the life of the life-taker.
But Utilitarians have other theories of punishment. Rather than making
wrongdoers suffer for suffering’s sake, these thinkers favor what’s known as:

WELFARE MAXIMIZATION
There’s no good to be found in vindictively causing pain to wrongdoers. But some
form of punishment is still in order.

So one option is:

REHABILITATION
The approach is to give wrongdoers help, so they can learn how to get along in
society and follow its rules.

The focus is often on education and, if needed, therapy.

This is sometimes criticized as being paternalistic, because it carries with it the
assumption that wrongdoers are in need of our help, that they don’t know any better,
and that they need to be “cured” of some social disease.

But another approach to just punishment is DETERRENCE.

For eons, people have assumed that punishment prevents a wrongdoer from
committing further crimes, while also discouraging others from breaking the rules.
So, rather than making a wrongdoer suffer for what they’ve done, supporters of
deterrence see punishment as being for the good of society as a whole.
Sometimes, we punish people to send a message to other people.
One more approach to just punishment is the concept of:

RESTORATIVE JUSTICE
The Focus is on making amends, rather than on making the Wrongdoer Suffer

Here, you must right your wrongs. The focus is on making amends, rather than
making the wrongdoer suffer.
So if you make a mess, you have to clean it up. And if you hurt someone, you need
to take steps to try and make it right. This is the logic behind assigning community
service to offenders.
The hope here is that the right approach to wrongdoing will lead to healing and
growth, both for the wrongdoer and for the wronged.
It’s about restoration and forgiveness – basically the polar opposite of the retributive
approach. So, take this advice: Give some thought to your own views on these topics.
Because what you see as the right answer should shape the way you vote, how you
spend your money, and the way you punish your kids.
You might discover that, upon reflection, you should change the way you’re doing
some things. Everyone talks about justice, but before you can, you really have to
decide what it means.
 Tarlac Agricultural University
College of Veterinary and Medicine
Camiling, Tarlac

ETHICS Sir Rommel Ibarra

Nicole Kate C. Cruz

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Doctor of Veterinary and Medicine