Social Contract, — invicta
Both of these are intended to serve a need: to satisfy both the abstract concept and the instinctive desire of social animals for some rational balance between individual actions and group stability; an atavistic sense of fairness.man made laws — invicta
On a case-by-case basis. There is no single motivation or condition or degree of culpability for all killings of one human by another. That is why even the most simplistic legal system differentiates different categories, even of what is, for convenience, classified as "murder" - i.e. the illegal killing of one human by another - comes in degrees.How should retribution be applied through court of law in secular society for punishable crimes such as murder? — invicta
The purpose of a justice system in an Aboriginal society is to restore the peace and equilibrium within the community, and to reconcile the accused with his or her own conscience and with the individual or family who has been wronged
What is merely an egalitarian ideal?But that is merely an egalitarian ideal whose actualisation is an ongoing process where social mobility is still a factor holding it back due to hidden nepotisms still pervading a meritocratic society. — invicta
In this thread I will aim to distill in this broad topic of what constitutes justice, its basic operation in society, implications and its deliverance by laws.
1. Is Justice part of Natural Law (John Locke), Divine Command, Social Contract, or Utilitarian Agreement (John Stuart Mill) or combination of all four of these ?
2. Is justice karmic in nature or does injustice highlight a discrepancy in man made laws?
3. How should retribution be applied through court of law in secular society for punishable crimes such as murder? Would capital punishment be fitting for the most serious of crimes? (Genocide, serial killers etc)
The above principles are the main points for which most justice systems are based upon including international courts of law with the added ambiguity of remaining neutral in regards to the sovereignty and claims of state actors.
In the eyes of the philosopher is the existence of a perfect justice system possible or are all such systems unable to provide the deliverance of perfect justice either because of technicalities or other factors? — invicta
In that sense then there exist in society nuanced forms of unfairness such as unmeritocratic achievements when it comes to job access or a good environment to live in. — invicta
Treating everyone as equals is not possible, over disagreements of what equal means in such respect. Even if that difficulty could be overcome, it might not be socially efficient to do so and sometimes efficiency concerns trump concerns of justice. — Tobias
Therefore, justice does not equate with a system of law. — Tobias
Justice and fairness require that persons be classified into groups and judged according to a uniform standard for each group. A child, or adult with the mental capacity of a child, would be judged according one set of criteria; fully competent adults by a stricter one; the mentally ill, differently again.
It doesn't require that people within a legal category be equal in any other way; only that they be treated the same under the law: accorded the same rights and burdened by the same degree of responsibility for their actions - which also mean, being tried by the same legal process, by the same rules of evidence, and given the same amount of leeway for mitigating circumstances if they're found guilty. — Vera Mont
You would think this should be obvious, but it isn't, even to some lawyers. O.W. Holmes, Jr. famously noted that we have courts of law, not courts of justice. — Ciceronianus
Besides, in the long run oblivion renders "in/justice" moot. — 180 Proof
Yes, but there is always some kind of arbitrariness in group classification. — Tobias
Is it than fair that those 17 yos cannot vote? — Tobias
Even people in the same legal category get treated in different ways. — Tobias
Would you think that criminal law is fair or just? — Tobias
Yes. In large populations, that can't be helped. In small ones, each person can be considered individually, as can each situation. But even in a systemic procedural, the prosecutor has a degree of autonomy in considering each case on its merits and some flexibility is accorded to the jury in its deliberations and to the judge in sentencing. In a very large, unwieldy, badly designed and corruptible justice system, people of good will can still apply the law more fairly than people with axes to grind. — Vera Mont
No, and that can be helped. As immigrants need to take a fitness test for citizenship, so could all prospective voters. Unfortunately, that, too, is corruptible. Of course, civics should be a standard subject in school anyway. — Vera Mont
That's nothing to do with meritocracy or equality under the law. — Vera Mont
As stated earlier, I don't think punishment is the correct answer at all. I'm in favour of putting a lot more effort into preventing the causes and occasions of crime before damage is done. — Vera Mont
Justice and fairness require that persons be classified into groups and judged according to a uniform standard for each group. A child, or adult with the mental capacity of a child, would be judged according one set of criteria; fully competent adults by a stricter one; the mentally ill, differently again. — Vera Mont
You held that equal treatment according to a certain category is What justice and fairness meant. — Tobias
It is not 'anything goes'. That is why philosophy of law is a mature philosophical subject. — Tobias
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.