Justice

Justice, in its broadest context, includes both the attainment of that which is just and
the philosophical discussion of that which is just. The concept of justice is based on
numerous fields, and many differing viewpoints and perspectives including the
concepts of moral correctness based on ethics, rationality, law, religion, equity and
fairness. Often, the general discussion of justice is divided into the realm of social
justice as found in philosophy, theology and religion, and, procedural justice as
found in the study and application of the law
.

The concept of justice differs in every culture. Early theories of justice were set out
by the Ancient Greek philosophers Plato in his work The Republic, and Aristotle in
his Nicomachean Ethics. Throughout history various theories have been established.
Advocates of divine command theory argue that justice issues from God. In the
1600s, theorists like John Locke argued for the theory of natural law. Thinkers in the
social contract tradition argued that justice is derived from the mutual agreement of
everyone concerned. In the 1800s, utilitarian thinkers including John Stuart Mill
argued that justice is what has the best consequences. Theories of distributive justice
concern what is distributed, between whom they are to be distributed, and what is ‘’Justitia’’ by Maarten van
Heemskerk, 1556. ‘’Justitia’’carries
the proper distribution. Egalitarians argued that justice can only exist within the
symbolic items such as: a sword,
coordinates of equality. John Rawls used a social contract argument to show that
scales and a blindfold[1]
justice, and especially distributive justice, is a form of fairness. Property rights
theorists (like Robert Nozick) also take a consequentialist view of distributive justice
and argue that property rights-based justice maximizes the overall wealth of an
economic system. Theories of retributive justice are concerned with punishment for
wrongdoing. Restorative justice (also sometimes called "reparative justice") is an
approach to justice that focuses on the needs of victims and of
fenders.

Contents
Harmony
Divine command
Natural law
Despotism and skepticism
Mutual agreement
Subordinate value Justice, one of the four cardinal
virtues, by Vitruvio Alberi, 1589–
Theories of distributive justice 1590. Fresco, corner of the vault,
Social justice studiolo of the Madonna of Mercy,
Fairness Palazzo Altemps, Rome
Property rights
Welfare-maximization
Theories of retributive justice
Utilitarianism
Retributivism
Restorative justice
Mixed theories
 Theories
Rawls' theory of justice
Equality before the law
Classical liberalism
Religion and spirituality
Abrahamic justice
Theories of sentencing
Evolutionary perspectives
Reactions to fairness
Institutions and justice
See also
Other pages
Types of justice
References
Further reading
External links

Harmony
In his dialogue Republic, Plato uses Socrates to argue for justice that covers both the
just person and the just City State. Justice is a proper, harmonious relationship
between the warring parts of the person or city. Hence, Plato's definition of justice is
that justice is the having and doing of what is one's own. A just man is a man in just
the right place, doing his best and giving the precise equivalent of what he has
received. This applies both at the individual level and at the universal level. A
person's soul has three parts – reason, spirit and desire. Similarly, a city has three
parts – Socrates uses the parable of the chariot to illustrate his point: a chariot works
as a whole because the two horses' power is directed by the charioteer. Lovers of
wisdom – philosophers, in one sense of the term – should rule because only they
understand what is good. If one is ill, one goes to a medic rather than a farmer,
because the medic is expert in the subject of health. Similarly, one should trust one's
city to an expert in the subject of the good, not to a mere politician who tries to gain
power by giving people what they want, rather than what's good for them. Socrates
uses the parable of the ship to illustrate this point: the unjust city is like a ship in
open ocean, crewed by a powerful but drunken captain (the common people), a
Justice by Luca Giordano
group of untrustworthy advisors who try to manipulate the captain into giving them
power over the ship's course (the politicians), and a navigator (the philosopher) who
is the only one who knows how to get the ship to port. For Socrates, the only way the ship will reach its destination – the good – is if
the navigator takes charge.[2]

Divine command
Advocates of divine command theory argue that justice, and indeed the whole of morality, is the authoritative command of God.
Murder is wrong and must be punished, for instance, because God says it so. Some versions of the theory assert that God must be
obeyed because of the nature of his relationship with humanity, others assert that God must be obeyed because he is goodness itself,
and thus doing what he says would be best for everyone.

A meditation on the Divine command theory by Plato can be found in his dialogue, Euthyphro. Called the Euthyphro dilemma, it
goes as follows: "Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is
commanded by God?" The implication is that if the latter is true, then justice is arbitrary; if the former is true, then morality exists on
a higher order than God, who becomes little more than a passer-on of moral
knowledge. A response, popularized in two contexts by Immanuel Kant and C. S.
Lewis, is that it is deductively valid to argue that the existence of an objective
morality implies the existence of God and vice versa.

Natural law
For advocates of the theory that justice is part of natural law (e.g., John Locke), it Allegorical fresco cycle (cardinal
involves the system of consequences that naturally derives from any action or virtues) by Renaissance painter
choice. In this, it is similar to the laws of physics: in the same way as the Third of Domenico di Pace Beccafumifrom
Newton's laws of Motion requires that for every action there must be an equal and the Palazzo Pubblico in Siena,
scene: ’’Justitia’’
opposite reaction, justice requires according individuals or groups what they actually
deserve, merit, or are entitled to. Justice, on this account, is a universal and absolute
concept: laws, principles, religions, etc., are merely attempts to codify that concept,
sometimes with results that entirely contradict the true nature of justice.

Despotism and skepticism

In Republic by Plato, the character Thrasymachus argues that justice is the interest of
the strong – merely a name for what the powerful or cunning ruler has imposed on
the people.
Lex, justitia, pax (Latin for "Law,
justice, peace") on the pediment of
Mutual agreement the Supreme Court of Switzerland

Advocates of the social contract agree that justice is derived from the mutual
agreement of everyone concerned; or, in many versions, from what they would agree to under hypothetical conditions including
equality and absence of bias. This account is considered further below, under 'Justice as fairness'. The absence of bias refers to an
equal ground for all people concerned in a disagreement (or trial in some cases).

Subordinate value
According to utilitarian thinkers including John Stuart Mill, justice is not as fundamental as we often think. Rather, it is derived from
the more basic standard of rightness,consequentialism: what is right is what has the best consequences (usually measured by the total
or average welfare caused). So, the proper principles of justice are those that tend to have the best consequences. These rules may
turn out to be familiar ones such as keeping contracts; but equally, they may not, depending on the facts about real consequences.
Either way, what is important is those consequences, and justice is important, if at all, only as derived from that fundamental
standard. Mill tries to explain our mistaken belief that justice is overwhelmingly important by arguing that it derives from two natural
human tendencies: our desire to retaliate against those who hurt us, or the feeling of self-defense and our ability to put ourselves
imaginatively in another's place, sympathy. So, when we see someone harmed, we project ourselves into her situation and feel a
desire to retaliate on her behalf. If this process is the source of our feelings about justice, that ought to undermine our confidence in
them.[3]

Theories of distributive justice

Theories of distributive justice need to answer three questions:

1. What goods are to be distributed? Is it to bewealth, power, respect, opportunities or some combination of these
things?
2. Between what entities are they to be distributed? Humans (dead, living, future),sentient beings, the members of a
single society, nations?
 3. What is the proper distribution? Equal, meritocratic, according to social status, according to need, based on property
rights and non-aggression?
Distributive justice theorists generally do not answer questions of who has the right to enforce a particular favored distribution. On
the other hand, property rights theorists argue that there is no "favored distribution." Rather, distribution should be based simply on
whatever distribution results from lawful interactions or transactions (that is, transactions which are not illicit).

This section describes some widely held theories of distributive justice, and their attempts to answer these questions.

Social justice
Social justice is concerned with the just relationship between individuals and their society, often considering how privileges,
opportunities, and wealth ought to be distributed among individuals.[4] Social justice is also associated with social mobility,
especially the ease with which individuals and families may move between social strata.[5] Social justice is distinct from
cosmopolitanism, which is the idea that all people belong to a single global community with a shared morality.[6] Social justice is
also distinct from egalitarianism, which is the idea that all people are equal in terms of status, value, or rights, as social justice
theories do not all require equality.[7] For example, sociologist George C. Homans suggested that the root of the concept of justice is
that each person should receive rewards that are proportional to their contributions.[8][9] Economist Friedrich Hayek argued that the
concept of social justice was meaningless, saying that justice is a result of individual behavior and unpredictable market forces.[10]
Social justice is closely related to the concept of relational justice, which is concerned with the just relationship with individuals who
possess features in common such as nationality [11][12]
, or who are engaged in cooperation or negotiation.

Fairness
In his A Theory of Justice, John Rawls used a social contract argument to show that
justice, and especially distributive justice, is a form of fairness: an impartial
distribution of goods. Rawls asks us to imagine ourselves behind a veil of ignorance
that denies us all knowledge of our personalities, social statuses, moral characters,
wealth, talents and life plans, and then asks what theory of justice we would choose
to govern our society when the veil is lifted, if we wanted to do the best that we
could for ourselves. We don't know who in particular we are, and therefore can't bias
the decision in our own favour. So, the decision-in-ignorance models fairness,
because it excludes selfish bias. Rawls argues that each of us would reject the
utilitarian theory of justice that we should maximize welfare (see below) because of
the risk that we might turn out to be someone whose own good is sacrificed for
greater benefits for others. Instead, we would endorse Rawls's two principles of
justice:

Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system
of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all. J. L. Urban, statue of Lady Justice at
Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are court building in Olomouc, Czech
both Republic
to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the
just savings principle, and
.[13]
attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity

This imagined choice justifies these principles as the principles of justice for us, because we would agree to them in a fair decision
procedure. Rawls's theory distinguishes two kinds of goods – (1) the good of liberty rights and (2) social and economic goods, i.e.
wealth, income and power – and applies different distributions to them – equality between citizens for (1), equality unless inequality
improves the position of the worst off for (2).
In one sense, theories of distributive justice may assert that everyone should get what they deserve. Theories disagree on the meaning
of what is "deserved". The main distinction is between theories that argue the basis of just deserts ought to be held equally by
everyone, and therefore derive egalitarian accounts of distributive justice – and theories that argue the basis of just deserts is
unequally distributed on the basis of, for instance, hard work, and therefore derive accounts of distributive justice by which some
should have more than others.

According to meritocratic theories, goods, especially wealth and social status, should be distributed to match individual merit, which
is usually understood as some combination of talent and hard work. According to needs-based theories, goods, especially such basic
goods as food, shelter and medical care, should be distributed to meet individuals' basic needs for them. Marxism is a needs-based
theory, expressed succinctly in Marx's slogan "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".[14] According to
contribution-based theories, goods should be distributed to match an individual's contribution to the overall social good.

Property rights
In Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Robert Nozick argues that distributive justice is not a matter of the whole distribution matching an
ideal pattern, but of each individual entitlement having the right kind of history. It is just that a person has some good (especially,
some property right) if and only if they came to have it by a history made up entirely of events of two kinds:

Just acquisition, especially by working on unowned things; and

Just transfer, that is free gift, sale or other agreement, but nottheft (i.e. by force or fraud).
If the chain of events leading up to the person having something meets this criterion, they are entitled to it: that they possess it is just,
and what anyone else does or doesn't have or need is irrelevant.

On the basis of this theory of distributive justice, Nozick argues that all attempts to redistribute goods according to an ideal pattern,
without the consent of their owners, are theft. In particular
, redistributive taxation is theft.

Some property rights theorists (like Nozick) also take a consequentialist view of distributive justice and argue that property rights
based justice also has the effect of maximizing the overall wealth of an economic system. They explain that voluntary (non-coerced)
transactions always have a property called Pareto efficiency. The result is that the world is better off in an absolute sense and no one
is worse off. Such consequentialist property rights theorists argue that respecting property rights maximizes the number of Pareto
efficient transactions in the world and minimized the number of non-Pareto efficient transactions in the world (i.e. transactions where
someone is made worse off). The result is that the world will have generated the greatest total benefit from the limited, scarce
resources available in the world.Further, this will have been accomplished without taking anything away from anyone unlawfully
.

Welfare-maximization
According to the utilitarian, justice requires the maximization of the total or average welfare across all relevant individuals. This may
require sacrifice of some for the good of others, so long as everyone's good is taken impartially into account. Utilitarianism, in
general, argues that the standard of justification for actions, institutions, or the whole world, is impartial welfare consequentialism,
and only indirectly, if at all, to do with rights, property, need, or any other non-utilitarian criterion. These other criteria might be
indirectly important, to the extent that human welfare involves them. But even then, such demands as human rights would only be
elements in the calculation of overall welfare, not uncrossable barriers to action.

Theories of retributive justice

Theories of retributive justice are concerned withpunishment for wrongdoing, and need to answer three questions:

1. why punish?
2. who should be punished?
3. what punishment should they receive?
This section considers the two major accounts of retributive justice, and their
answers to these questions. Utilitarian theories look forward to the future
consequences of punishment, while retributive theories look back to particular acts
of wrongdoing, and attempt to balance them with deserved punishment.

Utilitarianism
According to the utilitarian, justice requires the maximization of the total or average
welfare across all relevant individuals. Punishment fights crime in three ways:

1. Deterrence. The credible threat of punishment might lead people to

make different choices; well-designed threatsmight lead people to make
choices that maximize welfare. This matches some strongintuitions
about just punishment: that it should generally be proportional to the
crime.
2. Rehabilitation. Punishment might make bad people into better ones. For
the utilitarian, all that 'bad person' can mean is 'person who's likely to
cause bad things (like suffering)'. So, utilitarianism could recommend
punishment that changes someone such that they are less likely to
cause bad things.
Walter Seymour Allward's Justitia
3. Security/Incapacitation. Perhaps there are people who are irredeemable
causers of bad things. If so,imprisoning them might maximize welfare (Justice), outside Supreme Court of
by limiting their opportunities to cause harm and therefore the benefit Canada, Ottawa, Ontario Canada
lies within protecting society.
So, the reason for punishment is the maximization of welfare, and punishment
should be of whomever, and of whatever form and severity, are needed to meet that goal. This may sometimes justify punishing the
innocent, or inflicting disproportionately severe punishments, when that will have the best consequences overall (perhaps executing a
few suspected shoplifters live on television would be an effective deterrent to shoplifting, for instance). It also suggests that
[15]
punishment might turn outnever to be right, depending on the facts about what actual consequences it has.

Retributivism
The retributivist will think consequentialism is mistaken. If someone does something wrong we must respond by punishing for the
committed action itself, regardless of what outcomes punishment produces. Wrongdoing must be balanced or made good in some
way, and so the criminal deserves to be punished. It says that all guilty people, and only guilty people, deserve appropriate
punishment. This matches some strongintuitions about just punishment: that it should be proportional to the crime, and that it should
be of only and all of the guilty. However, it is sometimes argued that retributivism is merely revenge in disguise.[16] However, there
are differences between retribution and revenge: the former is impartial and has a scale of appropriateness, whereas the latter is
personal and potentially unlimited in scale.

Restorative justice
Restorative justice (also sometimes called "reparative justice") is an approach to justice that focuses on the needs of victims and
offenders, instead of satisfying abstract legal principles or punishing the offender. Victims take an active role in the process, while
offenders are encouraged to take responsibility for their actions, "to repair the harm they've done – by apologizing, returning stolen
money, or community service". It is based on a theory of justice that considers crime and wrongdoing to be an offense against an
individual or community rather than the state. Restorative justice that fosters dialogue between victim and offender shows the highest
rates of victim satisfaction and offender accountability.[17]

Mixed theories
Some modern philosophers have argued that Utilitarian and Retributive theories are not mutually exclusive. For example, Andrew
von Hirsch, in his 1976 book Doing Justice, suggested that we have a moral obligation to punish greater crimes more than lesser
ones. However, so long as we adhere to that constraint then utilitarian ideals would play a significa
nt secondary role.

Theories

Rawls' theory of justice

It has been argued[18] that 'systematic' or 'programmatic' political and moral philosophy in the West begins, in Plato's Republic, with
the question, 'What is Justice?'[19] According to most contemporary theories of justice, justice is overwhelmingly important: John
Rawls claims that "Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought."[20] In classical approaches,
evident from Plato through to Rawls, the concept of 'justice' is always construed in logical or 'etymological' opposition to the concept
of injustice. Such approaches cite various examples of injustice, as problems which a theory of justice must overcome. A number of
post-World War II approaches do, however, challenge that seemingly obvious dualism between those two concepts.[21] Justice can be
thought of as distinct from benevolence, charity, prudence, mercy, generosity, or compassion, although these dimensions are
regularly understood to also be interlinked. Justice is the concept ofcardinal virtues, of which it is one. Metaphysical justice has often
been associated with concepts of fate, reincarnation or Divine Providence, i.e., with a life in accordance with a cosmic plan. The
[22]
association of justice with fairness is thus historically and culturally inalienable.

Equality before the law

Law raises important and complex issues concerning equality, fairness, and justice. There is an old saying that 'All are equal before
the law'. The belief in equality before the law is called legal egalitarianism. In criticism of this belief, the author Anatole France said
in 1894, "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of
bread."[23] With this saying, France illustrated the fundamental shortcoming of a theory of legal equality that remains blind to social
inequality; the same law applied to all may have disproportionately harmful fects
ef on the least powerful.

Classical liberalism
Equality before the law is one of the basic principles of classical liberalism.[24][25] Classical liberalism calls for equality before the
law, not for equality of outcome.[24] Classical liberalism opposes pursuinggroup rights at the expense of individual rights.[25]

Religion and spirituality

Abrahamic justice
Jews, Muslims and Christians traditionally believe that justice is a present, real, right, and, specifically, governing concept along with
mercy, and that justice is ultimately derived from and held by God. According to the Bible, such institutions as the Mosaic Law were
created by God to require theIsraelites to live by and apply His standards of justice.

The Hebrew Bible describes God as saying about the Judeo-Christian patriarch Abraham: "No, for I have chosen him, that he may
charge his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice;...." (Genesis 18:19,
NRSV). The Psalmist describes God as having "Righteousness and justice [as] the foundation of [His] throne;...." (Psalms 89:14,
NRSV).

The New Testament also describes God and Jesus Christ as having and displaying justice, often in comparison with God displaying
and supporting mercy (Matthew 5:7).

Theories of sentencing
In criminal law, a sentence forms the final explicit act of a judge-ruled process, and
also the symbolic principal act connected to his function. The sentence can generally
involve a decree of imprisonment, a fine and/or other punishments against a
defendant convicted of a crime. Laws may specify the range of penalties that can be
imposed for various offenses, and sentencing guidelines sometimes regulate what
punishment within those ranges can be imposed given a certain set of offense and
offender characteristics. The most common purposes of sentencing in legal theory
are:

Suitable
Theory Aim of theory
punishment
Punishment imposed for no
reason other than an offense
being committed, on the basis Tariff sentences
that if proportionate, punishment
Retribution Sentence must
is morally acceptable as a
be proportionate
response that satisfies the Moses with the Tablets of Law, by
to the crime
aggrieved party, their intimates Rembrandt van Rijn
and society.

To the individual – the Prison Sentence

individual is deterred through
fear of further punishment. Heavy Fine
Deterrence
To the general public – Long sentence
Potential offenders warned as an example
as to likely punishment to others

Individualized
sentences
To reform the offender's Community
Rehabilitation service orders
behavior
moral education
vocational
education

Offender is made incapable of Long prison

committing further crime to sentence
Incapacitation Electronic
protect society at large from
crime tagging
Banning orders

Compensation
Repayment to victim(s) or to Unpaid work
Reparation
community
Reparation
Schemes

Reflects
blameworthiness
Society expressing its of offense
Denunciation disapproval reinforcing moral punishment in
boundaries public
punishment
reported to
public

In civil cases the decision is usually known as a verdict, or judgment, rather than a sentence. Civil cases are settled primarily by
means of monetary compensation for harm done ("damages") and orders intended to prevent future harm (for example injunctions).
Under some legal systems an award of damages involves some scope for retribution, denunciation and deterrence, by means of
additional categories of damages beyond simple compensation, covering a punitive effect, social disapprobation, and potentially,
deterrence, and occasionally disgorgement (forfeit of any gain, even if no loss was caused to the other party).

Evolutionary perspectives
Evolutionary ethics and an argued evolution of morality suggest evolutionary bases
for the concept of justice. Biosocial criminology research argues that human
perceptions of what is appropriate criminal justice are based on how to respond to
crimes in the ancestral small-group environment and that these responses may not
always be appropriate for today's societies.

Reactions to fairness
Studies at UCLA in 2008 have indicated that reactions to fairness are "wired" into
the brain and that, "Fairness is activating the same part of the brain that responds to
food in rats... This is consistent with the notion that being treated fairly satisfies a
basic need".[26] Research conducted in 2003 at Emory University involving
capuchin monkeys demonstrated that other cooperative animals also possess such a
sense and that "inequity aversion may not be uniquely human".[27]

Institutions and justice "Justice as a naked woman with a

In a world where people are interconnected but they disagree, institutions are sword and balance" by Lucas
required to instantiate ideals of justice. These institutions may be justified by their Cranach the Elder, 1537
approximate instantiation of justice, or they may be deeply unjust when compared
with ideal standards – consider the institution ofslavery. Justice is an ideal the world
fails to live up to, sometimes due to deliberate opposition to justice despite
understanding, which could be disastrous. The question of institutive justice raises
issues of legitimacy, procedure, codification and interpretation, which are considered
by legal theorists and byphilosophers of law.

See also

Other pages
Adl (Arabic for Justice in Islam)
Criminal justice
Ethics
Global justice ‘’Justitia’’, copper engraving byJost
International Court of Justice Amman, made between 1539 and
International Criminal Court 1591
Just war theory
Just-world hypothesis
Justice (economics)
Morality
Napoleonic Code
Rationality
Rule according to higher law
Sociology of law
A Theory of Justice by John Rawls
Types of justice
Distributive justice
Environmental justice
Injustice
Occupational injustice
Open justice
Organizational justice
Poetic justice
Social justice
Spatial justice

References
1. Cuban Law's Blindfold, 23.
2. Plato, Republic trans. Robin Waterfield (Oxford: Oxford University
Painted Coat of Arms of Pope Paul
Press, 1984).
V, ceiling of the room of the
3. John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism in On Liberty and Other Essaysed. John geographical maps, Vatican City
Gray (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), Chapter 5.
4. "social justice | Definition of social justice in English by Oxford
Dictionaries" (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/social_justice)
.
Oxford Dictionaries | English. Retrieved 2018-11-13.
5. Ornstein, Allan C. (2017-12-01). "Social Justice: History
, Purpose and
Meaning". Society. 54 (6): 541–548. doi:10.1007/s12115-017-0188-8(ht
tps://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs12115-017-0188-8) . ISSN 1936-4725 (https://
www.worldcat.org/issn/1936-4725).
6. Kleingeld, Pauline; Brown, Eric (2014),Zalta, Edward N., ed.,
"Cosmopolitanism" (https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/c
osmopolitanism/), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy(Fall 2014
ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University , retrieved
2018-12-14
7. "egalitarianism | Definition of egalitarianism in English by Oxford
Dictionaries" (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/egalitarianism)
.
Oxford Dictionaries | English. Retrieved 2018-11-13.
8. Rubinstein, David (1988). "The Concept of Justice in Sociology".Theory
and Society. 17 (4): 527–550. JSTOR 657654 (https://www.jstor.org/stab
le/657654).
9. Homans, George Caspar (1974).Social behavior; its elementary forms
(Rev. ed.). New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich. pp. 246–249. Stained glass of the Saint-Paul
ISBN 978-0-15-581417-2. OCLC 2668194 (https://www.worldcat.org/ocl church in Montluçon France
c/2668194).
10. 1899-1992., Hayek, F.A. (Friedrich August) (1976). Law, legislation and
liberty : a new statement of the liberal principles of justice and political
economy. Routledge & Kegan Paul. p. 78.ISBN 978-0-7100-8403-3.
OCLC 769281087 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/769281087).
11. Poblet, Marta; Casanovas, Pompeu (2008),"Concepts and Fields of
Relational Justice" (http://ddd.uab.cat/record/143902), Computable
Models of the Law, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer ,
Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 323–339,doi:10.1007/978-3-540-85569-9_21(ht
tps://doi.org/10.1007%2F978-3-540-85569-9_21) , ISBN 978-3-540-
85568-2
12. Nagel, Thomas (2005). "The Problem of Global Justice".Philosophy &
Public Affairs. 33 (2): 113–147. doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.2005.00027.x
(https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1088-4963.2005.00027.x) . ISSN 1088-
4963 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1088-4963).
13. John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (revised edition, Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1999), p. 266.
14. Karl Marx, 'Critique of the Gotha Program' inKarl Marx: Selected
writings ed. David McLellan (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977):
564–70 [569].
15. C.L. Ten, 'Crime and Punishment' in Peter Singer ed., A Companion to
Ethics (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 1993): 366–372.
16. Ted Honderich, Punishment: The supposed justifications(London:
Hutchinson & Co., 1969), Chapter 1.
Allegory of Justice. Ceiling of galleria
17. Michael Braswell, and John Fuller, Corrections, Peacemaking and del Poccetti in the Palazzo Pitti
Restorative Justice: Transforming Individualsand Institutions (Florence)
(Routledge, 2014).
18. See, e.g., Eric Heinze,The Concept of Injustice(Routledge, 2013), pp.
4–10, 50–60.
19. Plato, The Republic, Book I, 331b–c.
20. John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (revised edn, Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1999), p. 3

21. See, e.g., Eric Heinze,The Concept of Injustice(Routledge, 2013).

Clive Barnett The Priority of Injustice: Locating Democracy in Critical
Theory
22. Daston, Lorraine (2008). "Life, Chance and Life Chances".Daedalus.
137: 5–14. doi:10.1162/daed.2008.137.1.5(https://doi.org/10.1162%2Fd
aed.2008.137.1.5).
23. (France, The Red Lily, Chapter VII (http://www.online-literature.com/anat
ole-france/red-lily/8/)).
24. Chandran Kukathas, "Ethical Pluralism from a Classical Liberal
Perspective," in The Many and the One: Religious and Secular
Perspectives on Ethical Pluralism in the Modern World, ed. Richard
Madsen and Tracy B. Strong, Ethikon Seriesin Comparative Ethics
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003), 61ISBN
( 0-691-
09993-6).
25. Mark Evans, ed., Edinburgh Companion to Contemporary Liberalism:
Evidence and Experience(London: Routledge, 2001), 55 I(SBN 1-
57958-339-3).
26. "Brain reacts to fairness as it does to money and chocolate, study
shows" (http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/brain-reacts-to-fairness-as
-it-49042.aspx?link_page_rss=49042). UCLA Newsroom. UCLA. April
21, 2008. Retrieved January 15, 2015.
27. Nature 425, 297–299 (18 September 2003)

Further reading
Clive Barnett, The Priority of Injustice: Locating Democracy in Critical Theory(Athens, GA: University of Georgia
Press, 2017), ISBN 978-0-8203-5152-0
Brian Barry, Theories of Justice (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989)
Harry Brighouse, Justice (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2004)
Anthony Duff & David Garland eds,A Reader on Punishment(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994)
Colin Farrelly, An Introduction to Contemporary Political Theory(London: Sage, 2004)
 Barzilai Gad, Communities and Law: Politics and Cultures of Legal Identities(Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press, 2003)
David Gauthier, Morals By Agreement (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986)
Robert E. Goodin & Philip Pettit eds,Contemporary Political Philosophy: An anthology(2nd edition, Malden,
Massachusetts: Blackwell, 2006), Part III
Serge Guinchard, La justice et ses institutions(Judicial institutions), Dalloz editor, 12 edition, 2013
Eric Heinze, The Concept of Injustice(Routledge, 2013)
Ted Honderich, Punishment: The supposed justifications(London: Hutchinson & Co., 1969)
James Konow (2003) "Which Is the Fairest One of All? A Positive Analysis of Justice Theories", Journal of Economic
Literature, 41(4)pp. 1188–1239
Will Kymlicka, Contemporary Political Philosophy: An introduction(2nd edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2002)
Nicola Lacey, State Punishment (London: Routledge, 1988)
John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism in On Liberty and Other Essaysed. John Gray (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1991)
Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia (Oxford: Blackwell, 1974)
Amartya Sen (2011). The Idea of Justice. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.ISBN 978-0-674-
06047-0.
C.L. Ten, Crime, Guilt, and Punishment: A philosophical introduction(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987)
Plato, Republic trans. Robin Waterfield (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994)
John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (revised edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999)
David Schmidtz, Elements of Justice (New York: Columbia University Press, 2006)
Peter Singer ed., A Companion to Ethics(Oxford: Blackwell, 1993), Part IV
Reinhold Zippelius, Rechtsphilosophie, §§ 11–22(6th edition, Munich: C.H. Beck, 2011), ISBN 978-3-406-61191-9

External links
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy entries:

Distributive Justice, by Michael Allingham

Punishment, by Kevin Murtagh
Western Theories of Justice, by Wayne P. Pomerleau
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entries:

"Justice" by David Miller

"Distributive Justice" by Julian Lamont
"Justice as a Virtue" by Michael Slote
"Punishment" by Hugo Adam Bedau and Erin Kelly
United Nations Rule of Law: Informal Justice, on the relationship between informal/community justice, therule of law
and the United Nations
Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do?, a series of 12 videos on the subject of justice by Harvard University's
Michael Sandel, with reading materials and comments from participants.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Justice&oldid=879547920

"

This page was last edited on 21 January 2019, at 22:45(UTC).

Text is available under theCreative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License ; additional terms may apply. By using this
site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of theWikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.