Theories of Justice - 3826 Words

THEORIES OF JUSTICE INTRODUCTION Justice is action in accordance with the requirements of law. It is suppose to ensure that all members of society receive fair treatment. Issues of justice arise in several different spheres and often play a significant role in causing, enabling, and addressing discord. The goal of the Justice System is to try to resolve and satisfy all these issues for the members of society. Injustice can lead to dissatisfaction, and/or rebellion. The different spheres express the principles of justice and fairness in their own way resulting in different types and concepts of justice. This paper will take a closer look at three justice theories based on our textbook Moral Issues in Business, by William H. Shaw and†¦show more content†¦Does this mean that their decision to vote for Bush was morally right, while those who voted for Kerry was morally wrong? The final question is, were the rights of those who voted for Kerry violated by the will of the majority? Utilitarian theory only states that what is moral is what will bring happiness to the majority. Thus, Utilitarian theory in my view is in direct opposition of individual rights. Libertarian Justice This form of justice promotes liberty, each person living as they please, free from interference of others. Libertarian justice totally rejects utilitarianisms concern for total social well-being. The Libertarian believes that as long as you are not doing something that interferes with anyone elses liberty, then no one including government should disturb you in living the life you choose, regardless of maximizing social happiness. Libertarian justice consists solely out of respect for ones individual liberty. Liberty takes priority over moral concerns. Its obvious from this that a libertarian world, with a complete commitment to individual liberty, would be a much different world then the one we currently live in. (Shaw, Barry, 2004) (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2003) One true libertarian was Robert Nozick a Harvard professor, who began with the premise that people have certain basic moral rights, which he referred to as Lockean Rights taken from political philosopher JohnShow MoreRelatedA Theory Of Justice By Rawls1569 Words   |  7 PagesIn Rawls’ book titled A Theory of Justice, Rawls aims to develop a theory of justice that brings new ideas and concepts to the traditional doctrines of philosophy. Rawls’ theory, justice as fairness, wishes to take the ideas of traditional social contract theories to a higher level of abstraction. His theory is thoroughly explained through a pre-societal position called the original position, the notion of the veil of ignorance, and the two principles of justice. Rawls starts out by describingRead MoreSummary Of A Theory Of Justice 1095 Words   |  5 PagesMurillo Philosophy Applied Ethics Professor Jennings 12/2/14 Rawl’s: A Theory of Justice In our modern society where economic resources are gained by paid labor, there is often room for an unequal distribution of wealth. Hence, a laissez fare or â€Å"hands off† approach to the distribution of such economic resources will often case produce problems and inefficiencies in a society. Rawls says in his writing excerpts, â€Å"A Theory of Justice† from the Ethics in Practice textbook that a state ought to enforceRead MoreRawls Theory Of Justice1598 Words   |  7 Pagesconception of justice that serves the social contract theory more generally and abstractly than such social contract theories provided by Locke, Rousseau, and Kant. In contrast to Locke, Rousseau, and Kant, Rawls’ conception of justice does not provide a specific layout for the intricacies and structure of each social institution. His abstract concept of justness, however, provides the foundation from which a just institution must derive. Within Rawls’ theory of justice, he presents the theory of justiceRead MoreUtilitarianism And Justice Theory1396 Words   |  6 Pages Utilitarianism and Justice Theory Jacob Holman Northern Arizona University July 27, 2017 In the history of philosophy and ethics there have been many great philosophers who have come up with theories to understand if a decision is ethical, what rules should be followed to make ethical decisions, and if the results of decisions determine whether the decision is ethical or not. A comparison of Consequentialist theory and Justice theory will show that each have different methods ofRead MoreQuestions On The Theories Of Justice2659 Words   |  11 PagesIn this chapter, I aim to review and survey Karen Lebacqz’s six theories of Justice. This is essential if, as I will show later, these theories of justice will necessarily be implied in the founding documents and covenants of major social institutions in western civilization. Justice: Utility In its most basic definition, utilitarianism argues, â€Å"The right thing to do is to produce the most good.† According to John Stuart Mill, â€Å"‘utility’ or the ‘greatest happiness principle’ requires that actionsRead More A Theory of Justice Essay3836 Words   |  16 PagesA Theory of Justice Communitarian critics of Rawls have argued that his A Theory of Justice provides an inadequate account of individuals in the original position. Michael Sandel, in Liberalism and the Limits of Justice argues that Rawls conception of the person divorces any constitutive attachments that persons might have to their ends. Hence, Sandel asserts that Rawls privileges the standpoint of self-interested individuals at the expense of communal interests. I do not find Sandels specificRead MoreRawls Theory Of Justice1905 Words   |  8 Pages Rawls Theory of Justice Ming Chi Wang 36979110 University of British Columbia John Rawls in his work, â€Å"A Theory of Justice,† aims to make up a theory that will rivals intuitionalists and utilitarianism, which seeks truth in morality that cause results in maximizing utility for the maximum number of people. Rawls’ theory of justice is a distribution theory that maximizes primary goods for the worst outcome an individual could be in. By primary goodsRead MoreA Theory Of Justice By Rawls1317 Words   |  6 PagesIn his book ‘A Theory of Justice’, Rawls was dissatisfied with the traditional philosophical arguments about what makes a social institution just and about what justifies political or social actions and policies. The utilitarian argument holds that societies should pursue the greatest good for the greatest number. This argument has a number of problems, including, especially, that it seems to be consistent with the idea of the tyranny of majorities over minorities. The intuitionist argument holdsRead MoreRawls Theory of J ustice1853 Words   |  8 PagesThe conventional accounts of Justice normally begin by stating a fundamental rule of Aristotle – Justice is to treat equals equally and unequals unequally, and that unequal treatment should be in proportion to the inequality. In everyday life though, justice is seen as an attribute of law, while all laws are not necessarily just. Many great socio- political movements of the world have focused from time to time on unjust laws eg Apartheid laws in South Africa and Caste laws in India. ImpartialityRead MoreA Theory Of Justice By John Rawls Essay909 Words   |  4 Pagesindividuals behind a veil of ignorance would assent to the two primary principles of justice found in Rawls’ ‘A theory of justice’. I will also analyse the extract, in particular debating whether various propositions made by Rawls in this extract are true. Initially it is important to situate the extract of discussion. Section 3 of ‘A theory of justice’ is the opening of Rawls’ argument in ‘A theory of justice’, where he introduces his ‘original position’, stating how rational individuals in a hypothetical

Separation of Power free essay sample

In this essay I shall attempt to analyse whether the separation of powers is respected in the attribution of competences within the European Union. The separation of powers In order to assess this question we first have to consider what the doctrine of separation of powers actually is. The idea was developed by the French jurist Montesquieu in the 18th Century. It is based on a division of power between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. Each institution have their distinct and largely exclusive domain. The legislative function involves the enactment of general rules determining the structure and powers of public authorities and regulating the conduct of citizens and private organisations. The executive’s main function is to carry out the law. It initiates legislation, maintains order, promotes social and economic welfare, administrates public services and conducts external relations of the state among other things. The primary judicial function is to determine disputed questions of fact and law in accordance with the law laid down by the legislature. The concept of â€Å"separation† may mean at least three different things: (i)that the same persons should not form part of more than one of the three organs of government, e. g. , that ministers should not sit in Parliament; (ii)that one organ of government should not control or interfere in judicial decisions; (iii)that one organ of government should not exercise the functions of another, e. g. , that ministers should not have legislative powers. The reason why there should be a separation of powers is so that each distinct institution can carry out its function independently and check the other two – a form of checks and balances. The doctrine is opposed to the concentration of state power in a single person or group, since that is a clear threat to democratic government and in the same sense it is important that the legislature is not only a rubber stamp for the executive. Even an independent judiciary is necessary if the rule of law is to have any substance. It is in the US’ constitution that this doctrine can best be seen. How then does the division of power look like within the European Union? The ain institutions within the Union are the Council of the EU (also known as the Council of Ministers), the European Commission, the European Parliament (the EP) and the European Court of Justice (the ECJ). In deep contrast to the doctrine of separation of powers, there is no independent legislature or executive within the EU. Almost all of the institutions are interrelated and there is no clear separation of competences. Only the judiciary (the ECJ) is more or less separated from the other institutions rega rding its judiciary powers. The Legislature In the EU, the legislative power is shared between the Council of EU and the European Parliament. The Council is the EU’s main decision-making institution and final legislative authority. However, it shares competence with the EP in respect to the legislative power. For a wide range of Community issues it exercises its legislative power in co-decision with the Parliament. The role of the Council as the main decision-making institution in the EU is defined in terms of three pillars set out in the Treaty of Maastricht. The first pillar covers a wide range of policies such as agriculture, environment, transport, energy and development. The Council may either adopt, amend or ignore the proposed law. However, a wide range of legislation is subject to a co-decision procedure. Depending on the individual legal basis, the EP takes part, to varying degrees, in the drafting of Community legislation. The role of the EP as co-legislator applies to a wide range of issues 39 legal bases in the EC Treaty. The co-decision procedure means that legislation has to be adopted by both the Council and the Parliament. This is a clear example of the mixture of competences that exists within the EU. For the two other pillars the Council is the sole decision-maker. Instead there is a consultation procedure, which requires consultation from the EP before the Council can adopt a legislative proposal. The Council is not required to accept the amendments listed in the opinion of the EP. The Council and the Parliament also constitute the budgetary authority adopting the Community’s budget and overseeing its implementation. The Executive Executive power in the EU is shared between the European Commission and the Council of EU. The Commission plays a major role in the EU’s policy-making process as EU laws are mainly enforced by Commission action. One of the distinct functions of the Commission is initiating proposals for legislation. The Commission is the main institution preparing proposals. However, concerning common foreign and security policy and co-operation on justice and home affairs, the Council is the promoter of initiatives and also the institution implementing the policies. But the Commission may submit a proposal. The Commission has also the budgetary initiative, drawing up the preliminary draft budget, which is put to the Council. Even the Parliament has a right of initiative. It has the possibility of asking the Commission to put forward a proposal and it is also involved in the budgetary procedure from the preparation stage, particularly in laying down the general guidelines and the type of spending. This is completely against the doctrine of separation of powers. Within this principle it is unthinkable that the same institution that is legislating is also the same body drafting the proposals for legislation. The Commission is also a negotiator of international trade and co-operation agreements with third countries, or groups of countries, which are put to the Council for conclusion. In an ordinary legal system, both the negotiating and the concluding of international agreements would be made by the executive, which would then have to be presented to the legislature. In the EU, in some cases, the Council cannot even conclude the agreements by itself, but has to consult the Parliament or even have its assent before being able to do so. The Judiciary The only function that has remained more or less distinct within the EU is the judicial function. The judiciary comprises of the European Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance. The Court of Justice is responsible for enhancing the effectiveness of EU law and integration. Its two main functions are to directly apply the law and a general responsibility for interpreting the provisions of the European Treaty. However, even here there is to some extent a mixture of power. The reason for this lies with the Commission, which is quasi-judicial. Under certain circumstances, the Commission can fine individuals, firms and organisations for infringing Treaty law. But its decisions can be appealed. The ECJ can be consulted by the Member States and enterprises when they want to appeal against fines imposed by the Commission. Checks and balances Even though the system of the institutions of the EU is not compatible with the doctrine of the separation of powers the most important function of the doctrine still exists – institutional balance. Despite the mixture of the allocation of powers, there still remains a form of â€Å"checks and balances†. Commission proposals, actions and decisions are in various ways scrutinised, checked and judged by the other institutions. For instance, the Commission is answerable to the EP, which has the power to dismiss it by vote of censure or no confidence. The Commission attends all the sessions of the EP and must explain and justify its policies if so requested by members of the house and it must reply to written or oral questions put by the MEPs. The Commission’s management of the EU budget is also scrutinised by the Court of Auditors which is responsible for examining the legality and regularity of revenue and expenditure and for ensuring the sound financial management of the EU budget. On the basis of the Court of Auditors’ reports, it is the EP which gives the final discharge for the execution of the annual budget. The EP also exercises control over the Council; its representatives appearing regularly before the Parliament. Conclusion It can clearly be seen that the doctrine of separation of powers is not respected in the attribution of competences within the EU. However, complete separation of powers is possible neither in theory nor in practice, if by this is meant that each function is exercised in isolation from the others. Even in the US there is no complete separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judicial functions. In fact, even Montesquieu did not mean that legislature and executive should not have any influence over the acts of each other, but only that neither should exercise the whole power of the other. Instead it can be argued that what is more important is that there is an elaborate system of checks and balances to enable control and influence to be exercised by each branch upon the others. The best example of this is the UK, where there is no clear separation of powers, but where we instead have a developed form of checks and balances to ensure that no arbitrary decisions are taken. Although it can be argued whether the checks and balances that exist in the EU is as effective and elaborate as the ones in the US and the UK. In conclusion, the separation of powers is not respected in the attribution of competences within the EU. However, the lack of a clear, threefold allocation of functions is not necessary as long as there is an effective form of checks and balances.