Understandings and Definition of Justice - Essay Example

Section/# The Controversy Surrounding an Understandings and Definition of Justice As with many broad and general terms, defining a concept such as “justice” is much more difficult than an individual might at first assume. Because of the fact that there are so many different interpretations of what justice can and should mean, the creation of an over-arching understanding and definition has been something that philosophers and scholars have long debated and argued concerning. As a function of this brief research piece, the author will present some of the greatest difficulties that exist relating to the determination of broad definitions of such a term as justice. It is the hope of this brief analysis that the reader will come to a more full and complete understanding of the way in which societal recognition of justice has come to be defined as well as some of the core drawbacks to the way in which this term impacts different individuals and points of view in different ways. Firstly, one of the core interpretations that were presented by Plato, and individuals before and after him, was that moral virtue is ultimately the definitive aspect of justice. Naturally, within such a definition, two distinct words stand in contrast with one another (Plant, 2011). First of these is “moral” and the second one is “virtue”. Unfortunately, these two are not mutually exclusive and necessarily involve compliments of one another as a function of their own definition; lending the reader to realize that a situation of philosophical analysis is somewhat adulterated by this reality (Rawls, 2011). Further identifications and definitions were predicated upon the fundamental or tacit/innate concept of justice and the belief that it was given by God/god/gods. Although this interpretation was useful in helping individuals to understand the natural rights and concepts of justice that helped to define a given political system, these also fell short due to the fact that they leveraged an understanding “justice” that was predicated upon a particular belief system or religion. Naturally, this was also fundamentally flawed as it promoted one particular set of ideals and interpretations over a litany of others (Ryan, 2009). A further issue that exists is the fact that even if it is understood in terms of a universal application of fairness and equality under the law, it will invariably place a particular worldview, ethnicity, or culture as a barometer for the way in which this concept should be defined and administered. Looking into the current exhibition of the justice system in most of the developed world, one can clearly see a very clear level of connection to the Roman and Greek systems of justice and the manner through which law is understood (Kukathas & Philips, 2010). Although this approach has worked well for many cultures and regions to develop their own justice systems, they invariably place one particular group above another and limit the level of social understanding that might otherwise exist. However, the problematic issue that is evidenced also has to do with the fact that even if justice is applied broadly, it invariably is predicated upon the constructs of a specific class or culture within society past or present (Walzer, 2011). Ultimately, this degenerates into a question of what and who defines moral virtues; and by extension justice. For much of the developed world, there is no quick and easy answer to this. Justice, at least within the nations of Western Europe and/or the United States, has come to be born out of religious interpretation, Roman law, Greek philosophy, and contemporary interpretation of all of these aspects (Avineri & de-Shalit, 2010). Although this has created one of the most effective exhibitions and interpretations of justice that have known to exist throughout history, the reader would be alarmed to come to the realization of the fact that each of the concept of justice is in fact an ever evolving concept that is predicated not upon moral absolutes but upon the interpretations of a given culture within a specific time (Solomon & Murphy, 2011). Another core difficulty in defining justice comes down to what and who defines moral virtue. As has briefly been referenced previously within this discussion, moral virtue has deep philosophical, religious, and cultural implications (Swift, 2012). However, within the current world, the juxtaposition of all of these elements is ultimately responsible for coalescing into a single determinant of what virtue and justice actually defined. Within such an understanding, it must further be appreciated that the role of executive judicial power, oftentimes represented within a small group of individuals, oftentimes provides a platform through which the justice is perpetrated and understood by the society at large. A further issue that can be seen regarding to the difficulty in defining justice is contingent upon the inescapable fact that the law operates disproportionately based upon culture, language, comprehension of the law, and socioeconomic status (Brock, 2011). Of course justice can be broadly defined as a belief and virtuous application of legal power as a means of maximizing the fairness and structure within a given society, the operational definition of justice is one that is inherently as flawed as the individuals who attempt to enact it (Wolff, 2009). As a direct result of this, seeking to expound upon a realistic explanation of justice creates a situation in which unreasonable pressure is placed upon the definition and an expectation of perfection exists within the mind of the individual who employ such a term. Naturally, a discussion of the term justice cannot truly take place without at least a reference to the impact that prejudice has with regards the application of this broad terminology. Whereas justice is most certainly a requirement of a society in order for it to develop and exhibit a degree of equal rights to individuals, the application of justice, regardless of the nation in question, is oftentimes far less perfect than individuals might wish to assume (Heywood, 2009). For instance, the core breakdown that occurs is not connected to the way in which the law itself is written. However, justice is not merely impact upon the legal representation; rather, it also encompasses the actual application of the law with respect to the various cases that present themselves within the system (Wolff, 2011). Accordingly, even a cursory overview of justice, within a variety of different countries, reveals the fact that individuals are judged differently under the law. In many cases, abject levels of corruption, bribery, and nepotism allow for certain individuals to escape the clutches of the law whereas others that might not necessarily face the full ramifications of justice had they been born rich, influential, or powerful, face it fully. In this context, the perfect application of justice is something that quite truly does not exist. As a direct function of the wide level of understanding that individuals within society have attributed this reality, justice is not a term that can broadly be defined; especially if it is to be understood in terms of overarching frameworks that apply equally to all individuals within society. Ultimately, the moral concepts and ideologies that represent justice, regardless of the culture or society in question, are multifaceted and nuanced. Whereas it is true that there is a level of commonality between definitions of justice that pervade within societies of the Western world, and interpretation of these same aspects cannot be seen globally. As a direct function of this, the universal level of understanding that “justice” is able to define is somewhat limited. Moreover, even within broad and overarching ideologies, such as Judeo-Christian ethics, there exists a massive level of disagreement and varying viewpoints with respect to the application through which justice should be administered and the role in which the stakeholder within society, and by extension the state, should seek to engage this precepts/concept. The point of the categorizations and classifications that have thus far been defined with respect to justice are not intended to encourage the reader to engage with a relativist view of the fact that justice truly has no core definition or meaning. Rather, the take away understanding that has been promoted is one that would encourage the stakeholder to engage with a broader understanding of the fact that justice is influenced by a great litany of different factors. First and foremost among these factors is ideology and religious interpretation. Similarly, societal understandings and the impact of disparity, class, says economics, and overall levels of prejudice also greatly influenced an understanding of what specifically justice defines and how it can exist; if it can exist at all. Perhaps the most important aspect of this entire discussion has to do with the fact that defining an understanding justice, from a societal standpoint, as well as with regards to the legal interpretation and ramifications that such a definition has, has to do with the fact that justice is only effective as long as a tacit belief in its possibility to exist is evidenced within society. At the moment in time in which individuals begin to lose faith in the process and believe that it is so fundamentally flawed that it can no longer reflect the best virtues and interests of the society in which it attempts to engage, the hope of furthering this specific dynamic fades as well. Bibliography Avineri, S. and de-Shalit, A. (eds.) 2010, Communitarianism and Individualism [chapters by Nozick, Rawls and Taylor] Brock, G. 2011, ‘Global justice’, in Catriona McKinnon (ed.), Issues in Political Theory Campbell, T., Justice Heywood, A. 2009, Political Theory, chapter 6 Kukathas, C. and Philips, P. (eds.) 2010, Rawls: a theory of justice and its critics Moller-Okin S., ‘Justice as fairness: for whom?’, in M. Shanley and C. Pateman (eds.), Feminist Interpretations and Political Theory Plant, R. 2011, Modern Political Thought, chapter 4 Rawls, J. 2011 A Theory of Justice (excerpt) in Farrelly, C. (e.d) (2011) Contemporary Political Theory: a reader, London: Sage, pp.13-21 Ryan, A. (ed.) 2009, Justice [contains useful extracts from Plato, Aristotle, Marx, Rawls, Nozick and Hayek] Soloman R. and Murphy M. 2011, What is Justice: Classic and Contemporary Readings  Swift, A. 2012, Political Philosophy, Part 1 Walzer, M. 2012, Spheres of Justice, chapters 1,2 Wolff, J. 2009, An introduction to political philosophy (1996), chapter 5  Wolff, J. 2011, ‘Social Justice’, in Catriona McKinnon (ed.), Issues in Political Theory Young, Iris Marion, Justice and the Politics of Difference Read More