Skip to Content

The Different Approaches to Philosophy Justice

There are many different approaches to philosophy justice. This article looks at Socrates’ answer, Rawls’ theory of justice, Nagel’s theory of justice, and the Principle of non-opposition. All three are important, but Socrates’ is perhaps the most interesting. Read on to find out what each of them says about justice. Hopefully, the article will help you decide which one best suits your personal philosophy. Afterward, you can move on to discuss other theories of justice.

Socrates’ answer to philosophy justice

Socrates addresses his question, “What is the answer to the philosophy question, justice?” with an analogy. A line is divided into two unequal parts. On the lower section, images/shadows are seen. In the upper section, truths and Forms are seen. Socrates explains that each of these sections corresponds to the capacities of the human soul. This analogy is especially interesting in light of the recent rise of feminism.

Socrates’ reply to the question “What is justice?” reflects the fact that he is philosophically neutral, even in the face of disagreement with his rival Thrasymachus. He also fails to relate his vulgar conception of justice to Platonic conceptions. In fact, he says, the two philosophers don’t discuss the same question; they are discussing different conceptions of it.

Socrates’ answer to philosophy justice starts by discussing the nature of justice. The definition of justice is “the right balance of temptations with opposite actions.” Socrates also argues that a just man is more effective in action than an unjust one. Thus, justice can only be found in the soul, and only if we have enough knowledge to see through the temptations of others. The idea of justice is the key to achieving the happiness that one seeks.

Socrates’ answer to philosophy justice discusses political matters such as education and political classes. In addition, he discusses the reasons for political strife and how to change regimes. Socrates also discusses the role of the city in society. It is a vital part of the city’s morality. But how does it relate to justice? It seems that Socrates is primarily interested in the individual, rather than the city.

Rawls’ theory of justice

John Rawls’ theory of justice seeks to define and describe the arrangement of the major liberal society’s institutions. These institutions include the political constitution, legal system, economy, and family. These basic structures distribute the main benefits and burdens of social life. Rawls’ theory of justice focuses on the social institutions that make a society “just” and create the basis for just political behavior. Although the theory does not directly address the problem of inequality, it does highlight some aspects of how these institutions work.

Related Topic:  Three Ultimate Questions Only God Can Answer

The basic idea behind Rawls’ theory of justice is that citizens have the right to resist oppressive government policies and to exercise their rights. However, many societies do not follow this ideal, and citizens may be unable to converge on a liberal political conception of justice. In those cases, liberal people will have to step in and pacify aggressive states or support struggling nations until they are self-sufficient. Ultimately, these principles are based on human rights and human dignity.

Rawls’ theory of justice is based on the idea that the basic structure of society is first the subject of justice. After that, it is up to social institutions to act according to these principles, distributing the primary goods to citizens according to their fundamental rights and responsibilities. To make a society a “just” one, society must first determine what its principles of justice are, and only then can it distribute the primary goods according to those principles.

Rawls’ theory of justice is based on the principle of political constructivism. A free society is a society of peoples with a diverse worldview, different conceptions of right and wrong, and varying commitments. No country can have a single law without regulating the economy, religion, and equality of women. However, a free society must also establish a national church and protect gay marriage.

Nagel’s theory of justice

Thomas Nagel’s theory of justice suggests that there is no such thing as justice without a state. Justice does not exist outside a state, and in his view, it cannot even exist in the form of bargaining. He goes on to suggest that for true justice to exist, a sovereign global authority must be present. Though his argument seems intuitively plausible, it is question-begging. Ultimately, it is a philosophical issue.

The theoretical basis for Nagel’s theory of justice lies in his responsibility thesis. He claims that inequalities are unjust if they arise between agents who are liable for their actions. Therefore, these agents have a responsibility to eliminate this unjust state of affairs. This thesis is inconsistent with the emergence of a universal right to justice. As such, it is a more eloquent approach to justice.

Related Topic:  Is Religion a Philosophy?

Although Thomas Nagel’s work is largely devoted to the philosophy of mind, he has also made substantial contributions to other areas of philosophy. In addition to discussing the nature of objective judgments, he has written on moral luck, moral dilemmas, war, and inequality. Nagel also co-founded the Colloquium in Legal, Political, and Social Philosophy at New York University in 1987 with fellow philosopher Ronald Dworkin. The Colloquium has become a centerpiece of an intellectual renaissance at NYU, and is still running today.

The theories of justice depend on the norms of co-operation between individuals. In societies with strong social bonds, the norms of cooperation may entail a collective sharing of fate. However, in societies that are not as closely knit, co-operation may be fleeting or instrumental. In either case, it is necessary to provide substantial help to the individual in question. This co-operation must be mutual. Then, the theory of justice as impartiality will exist.

Principle of non-opposition

Rawls’s original work, The Virtue of Self-Defense, has largely been ignored in favor of his own, more modern, approach. While his approach was more pragmatic, Rawls nevertheless assumed moral content in the motivations of the opposing parties, a claim he justified on openly moral grounds. His aim was still the same: to present an argument for the superiority of some principles of justice.

The overlapping consensus is a foundational concept in PL. It requires that citizens adopt a limited political conception of justice. It replaces the TJ’s description of wholehearted acceptance and reconciles it with reasonable pluralism. However, this distinction is not without its limitations. In the end, it is unclear whether or not the overlapping consensus is an effective means of determining the legal status of individuals or groups.

Rawls assumes that society is stable and congruent, while discussing the relative stability of the institutions. This assumption is incompatible with Rawls’ discussion of stability. It assumes that everyone is aware of and accepts relevant principles of justice, and that the basic social institutions of a society satisfy those principles. A society that is stable is one that is conducive to the flourishing of individuals. Rawls calls this congruence.

In addition to considering the underlying principles of justice, Rawls also developed the concept of fairness. In this theory, individual autonomy and freedom are compatible with a society in which people enjoy equal freedom and opportunity. The premise of non-opposition in his theory has been criticized by philosophers in recent decades. Nevertheless, this principle is one of the strongest foundations of justice. In other words, justice is based on the development of talent and autonomy. The relationship between justice and goodness is inextricably linked.

Related Topic:  The 7 Types of Ethics

Principle of same part

Philosophers of justice have a number of different theories. Some are comparative while others are non-comparative. Either way, they all require that all people receive the same benefits should be equally distributed. Although they do not necessarily mean the same amounts, these principles generally take the form of ‘A deserves X because of P.’ In other words, if a person is rich, he should receive as much money as a poor person.

While justice is concerned with the treatment of individuals, its scope also extends to situations where conflicting interests are involved. For justice to be meaningful, it must be both intrinsically valuable and desirable to its contingent consequences. Justice is often the most important of these values, but it often gives way to other values when people’s interests converge. It is, therefore, essential to pay attention to both the content and scope of justice when it comes to judging what is right and wrong.

Although most philosophers believe that animals are outside the scope of justice, there are a few who have defended the role of animals in our society. One of them is John Rawls. His theory of justice has been cited in numerous texts. But even so, it has been difficult to find an elaboration of his theory. In the end, no philosophical theory can provide a comprehensive theory of justice.

The first principle of justice calls for a greater degree of equality than the second. This view is problematic in a number of circumstances, such as when large inequalities exist to the benefit of the worst off. Large inequalities in social and economic circumstances undermine the value of political liberties and other measures for fair equality of opportunity. This is one of the reasons that the first principle is often more desirable. This principle is largely based on prudential reasons.