Justice In orienting oneself to the concept of justice, three perspectives must be examined: the individual perspective concerned primarily with personal rights; the group perspective concerned primarily with furthering the good of all through furthering the interests of the group; and the institutional or societal perspective concerned primarily with the establishment and maintenance of principles and rules of law which in turn allow for its (the society's or institution's) very origin and continued existence.
Most discussions of justice center on legal justice, where the concern is to explain and justify the rules and procedures as they apply to the rights of individuals, groups, and institutions. Equally important is the concern with justice as understood in moral terms. The trial of Seaman Holmes (United States v. Holmes, 1842), a crew member of the American ship William Brown, serves as an example of both views of justice (legal and moral).
The following is a brief summary of the accounts of the trial: The ship struck an iceberg and sank in the frigid waters of Newfoundland. Thirty-two passengers and nine crewmen crowded into a leaky lifeboat. Grossly overloaded and leaking, the lifeboat nevertheless held up throughout the night and into the next day, when it began to rain. The seas became progressively rougher and the rain heavier. Late that evening, it became apparent that something must be thrown overboard to lighten the load.
Crewman Holmes ordered the other crew members to throw some of the passengers overboard, which they did. The next morning several more passengers were thrown overboard despite their protests. Early in the morning of the third day the weather cleared, the lifeboat was picked up by the ship Crescent, and all the passengers who had not been thrown overboard were saved.
Once adrift in the leaky lifeboat, the ocean had thrown them back into the state of nature where lawlessness is the norm and adhering to morality would probably cost one's life. The moral duties that make sense when people live in a well-governed social state become meaningless. In a state of nature where the agreements of an established orderly society no longer existed, he did not violate his moral duties to the passengers.
Mr. Holmes' unsuccessful defense was based in part on Hobbes' (1651) social contract theory. The theory acknowledges that there are morally significant differences between living in an orderly society and living in a state of nature and that these differences have implications for what must be done to preserve one's life. In an orderly society, people have agreed to adhere to moral norms in their relationships with each other, and the agreement to abide by these norms is enforced by society.
At Holmes’ trail the prosecution argued: He had a duty to look after the well-being of the passengers Holmes argued: That in a state of eminent peril, all men are reduced to a state of nature and therefore there was no distinction between passengers and crew. The question is when doses morality in the state of nature allow or at least legitimize actions that are considered not okay??
Knowing that others will usually behave morally toward him or her, it is safe for him or her to act morally toward others. A state of nature is an uncivilized state because there are no agreements to keep people from harming or killing one another. Therefore, there is no morality in a state of nature and everyone legitimately can and will do whatever is necessary to preserve his or her own life. Once people move out of a state of nature and into a social state, a governing force has been created and the terms right and wrong all acquire a meaning based on the rules the society enforces.
However, if the agreement ever breaks down (e.g., war, revolution, or absence of government) and people are once again fighting each other for their lives, they have returned to a state of nature and can no longer be expected to act morally. In other words, morality makes sense only so long as a social contract exists and there is force sufficient to compel everyone to keep his or her agreements.
Act utilitarian - Consider that lying is not good but telling a lie may bring about the good for the greater number than not lying. Rule utilitarian - view that an act is right if the rule dictating the act maximizes happiness for the greatest good for the greatest number. Hence the rightness or the wrongness of an action is not directly determined by the consequences of the act rather by determining whether or not the act would be right according to established rules that maximize the happiness of the greatest number.
Justice It can be argued that we must have justice in order to preserve the community. With this in mind we can consider three perspectives put forth in our text book: The individual perspective concerned primarily with personal rights The group perspective concerned primarily with furthering the good of all via furthering interests of the group
The institutional or societal perspective concerned primarily with the establishment and maintenance of the principles and rules of law which allow us the society or institution to continue to exist.
In orienting oneself to the concept of justice, three perspectives must be examined : the individual perspective concerned primarily with personal rights; the group perspective concerned primarily with furthering the good of all through furthering the interests of the group; and the institutional or societal perspective concerned primarily with the establishment and maintenance of principles and rules of law which in turn allow for its (the society's or institution's) very origin and continued existence.
John Rawls in his theory of justice set forth two positions of social justice: each person in a society has an equal right to the maximum liberty compatible with the same amount of liberty for everyone else. [similar to All men are created equal] however, it is also permissible if it is reasonable that one can expect that or the advantage of the society that certain conditions can exist were inequality may exist. Consider the Social Contract that we have with our society and government.
Formal constraints of the concept of right moral principles should apply to classes or categories rather than specific individuals. principles must be universal in application and must hold for everyone by virtue of their being moral persons. moral obligations that come into conflict with other kinds of considerations our moral obligation should prevail [our self interest]
the function of these principles rule out egoism [ones self interest] publicity ie this is a public action…..
Can you come up examples that can support and not support Rawls theory of justice?