Theories Of Justice

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 Vincent Barry. I will then use these various theories to create an argument for a topic that will later be defined. (Shaw, Barry, 2004) (Beyond Intractability, 2003)

Utilitarian Justice

As suggested by philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.

The Utilitarian theory of justice promotes social well-being or happiness. It's a system that wants to bring more good to society than any other system. However, it depends on various social, economic, and political facts. A utilitarian must understand the various possibilities, then determine their consequences and assess what options may be available. (Shaw, Barry, 2004)

Utilitarianism is a moral theory which claims that the right action is whatever action brings about the most utility of all the possible actions. Utility is a measure of what is valuable, and John Stuart Mill claims that the only thing which has inherent value is the happiness of individuals. Happiness is defined by Mill as pleasure minus pain, but this is not limited to physical pleasure and pain. Every person's happiness counts equally. So, the right action in a situation is the action whose consequences contain the greatest sum of future happiness that it is possible to create from that situation. (Shaw, Barry, 2004) (Utilitarianism, 2005)

The utilitarian theory suggests that an action is just if it is in accord with the correct principles of justice. These principles will demand that people be given what they are due, and that they be treated equally. People are due what they have a moral right to, but these moral rights are ultimately determined by what set of rules would maximize utility if they were accepted and enforced by a given society. In other words, justice is respecting rights which are defined by their utility. A part of this will be treating people equally, where the type of equality is also determined by what maximizes utility. Nevertheless, an action which follows these principles and is just, may fail to maximize utility. (Shaw, Barry, 2004), (Utilitarianism, 2005)

The Utilitarian theory I believe presents numerous problems in its conception, most of which lie in the fact that the theory oversimplifies many aspects of human life. It would make life very easy and simple if all we had to worry about was causing the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people. However, this gives no protection to the rights of the minority or individual, nor does it allow for the ideal of Justice. (Shaw, Barry, 2004), (Utilitarianism, 2005)

The Utilitarian theory suggests that morality is nothing more than the attempt to bring about as much happiness as possible to as many people as possible. This means that every person's happiness is weighed evenly. However, if there are more people to be made happy by an event or decision, then those in the minority, no matter how many or how close in numbers to being the majority will have to suffer unhappiness. (Shaw, Barry, 2004)

I would like to use an example involving the recent Presidential election. There are two men running for President, John Kerry and George Bush. If those voting in favor of Kerry are fewer in number than those voting in favor of George Bush, then Bush will win. Those who supported Kerry will now be unhappy because their candidate did not win. However, since the majority voted for Bush, does that make them right? 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 utilitarianism's concern for total social well-being. The Libertarian believes that as long as you are not doing something that interferes with anyone else's 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. It's 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 John Locke, which Nozick seems to take a lot of his inspiration from. Nozick's theory of economic justice is explained in his "Entitlement Theory" which is summed up in the following manner. (Shaw, Barry, 2004) (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2003)

a. "A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in acquisition is entitled to that holding."

b. "A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in transfer, from someone else entitled to the holding, is entitled to the holding."

c. "No one is entitled to a holding except by (repeated) applications of (a) and (b)."

(Shaw, Barry, 2004) (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2003)

In summary, the distribution of goods in a society is just if all are