Skip to main content

Theory of Justice

 From my point of view, justice is nothing but being fair. Okay, what is justice from a law point of view?-Being justified. But what is being justified? It is the process of using laws to judge and punish crimes and criminals fairly.


What is a theory of justice?

John Rawls, a political philosopher and an American moral, wrote A Theory of Justice in 1971. It tried to address the issue of societal distributive fairness. Traditional philosophical arguments on what defines a fair institution and the basis for social acts and policies were rejected by Rawls.


The utilitarian argument states that society should seek the greatest good for the most significant number of people, which aligns with the tyranny of the majority over the minority. According to John Rawls, justice is defined as fairness, and social justice is the primary feature of social organizations.


Rawls is a moral and political philosopher from the United States who wrote A Theory of Justice in 1971, "Political Liberalism" in 1993, and Justice as Fairness: A Restatement in 2002, among other works. He's been dubbed the twentieth century's most influential ethical and political philosopher. For his academic and political spaces contributions, then-US President Bill Clinton awarded Rawls the National Humanities Medal in 1999.


ORIGINAL POSITION :

When he established the Principles of Justice theory, Rawls introduced the Original Position as an artificial artifice. The invention established a hypothetical circumstance in which population members can reach a contractual agreement on resource distribution without one side seeming to be better off than the other.


Behind a veil of ignorance, the thought experiment would establish the desired condition of affairs among members of the population. The veil was a situation where people were blinded to their traits, such as age, race, sex, and economic level, typically leading to bias. Individuals might align the principle of advantage.


The Two Justice Principles:

When divided by the veil of ignorance, John Rawls proposed two principles of justice that self-interested and rational persons might pick. The following are the guiding principles:


Equal Liberty Principle

The first concept of justice to emerge from the initial stance is the principle of equal liberty. According to Rawls, it asserts that all citizens have an equal right to essential freedoms, which include freedom of conscience, speech, association, and democratic rights. According to Rawls, personal property is one of the fundamental rights that individuals should enjoy and that the government cannot violate or modify. However, he did not include an absolute right to limitless personal property as part of the fundamental rights that individuals should enjoy.


Principle of Equality:

According to the equality principle, economic concepts should be organized so that they satisfy two conditions. The poorest members of society should be given more advantages. Second, economic disparities should be structured such that no person, regardless of race, gender, or socioeconomic background, is barred from holding any job or office. Rawls stated that everyone in society should be afforded the same opportunities and chances as everyone else of equivalent natural aptitude.


Types of Justice:

Social Justice:

The state is restricted from discriminating against citizens based on their birth, caste, race, creed, sex, faith, title or position, or any combination of these factors. Apartheid and untouchability are antithetical to the spirit of social justice. The lack of favored social classes is a crucial feature of social justice.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more