How to define the word "justice" Forum

[Campagnolo]

Rawls got it right. Aristotle got it horribly wrong. Proportional justice just rewards people who are born with the desirable natural endowments at the time. Maybe because old school philosophers thought god played a big role in who we are, but it's a crock of shit now.

"Our government, in the pursuit of its role in administering justice, should not favor those who win the natural lottery at the expense of those who do not. Instead, justice should require men to 'agree to share one another’s fate' because any result in the natural lottery 'could have been us.'"

/idealism

Law may prescribe that the male nipples be made equal to the female ones, but they still will not give milk.

[beach_terror]

Rawls got it right. Aristotle got it horribly wrong. Proportional justice just rewards people who are born with the desirable natural endowments at the time. Maybe because old school philosophers thought god played a big role in who we are, but it's a crock of shit now.

"Our government, in the pursuit of its role in administering justice, should not favor those who win the natural lottery at the expense of those who do not. Instead, justice should require men to 'agree to share one another’s fate' because any result in the natural lottery 'could have been us.'"

/idealism

Law may prescribe that the male nipples be made equal to the female ones, but they still will not give milk.

You don't seem to be familiar with Rawls. Total equality and accounting for inequality as a form of justice our government distributes are different.

[mjd]

Rawls got it right. Aristotle got it horribly wrong. Proportional justice just rewards people who are born with the desirable natural endowments at the time. Maybe because old school philosophers thought god played a big role in who we are, but it's a crock of shit now

.

Rawls would disagree not only with your claim about opposition between the two theories of justice, but also with your caricature of Aristotle, who did not rely on his idea of the Prime Mover in developing his account of justice.

"Aristotle's definition [of justice] clearly presupposes, however, an account of what properly belongs to a person and of what is due to him. Now such entitlements are, I believe, very often derived from social institutions and the legitimate expectations to which they give rise. There is no reason to think that Aristotle would disagree with this, and certainly he has a conception of social justice to account for these claims. The definition I adopt is designed to apply directly to the most important case, the justice of the basic structure. There is no conflict with [Aristotle's] notion."

John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, rev. ed., p. 10.

[Campagnolo]

Rawls got it right. Aristotle got it horribly wrong. Proportional justice just rewards people who are born with the desirable natural endowments at the time. Maybe because old school philosophers thought god played a big role in who we are, but it's a crock of shit now.

"Our government, in the pursuit of its role in administering justice, should not favor those who win the natural lottery at the expense of those who do not. Instead, justice should require men to 'agree to share one another’s fate' because any result in the natural lottery 'could have been us.'"

/idealism

Law may prescribe that the male nipples be made equal to the female ones, but they still will not give milk.

You don't seem to be familiar with Rawls. Total equality and accounting for inequality as a form of justice our government distributes are different.

Oh I'm familiar. It just depends on whether you view the aim of the state as producing virtue in its citizens, or in producing peace. If you want to produce peace, then Rawls is fine. Not very exciting, but fine.

On the other hand, if you want absolute justice, then there is no room for any other working definitions than that of Aristotle. I'm not saying that I'm ready to live in a society that conforms with Aristotle's vision, but I am saying that I am willing to suffer injustice for the chance to be best.

[beach_terror]

Rawls got it right. Aristotle got it horribly wrong. Proportional justice just rewards people who are born with the desirable natural endowments at the time. Maybe because old school philosophers thought god played a big role in who we are, but it's a crock of shit now

.

Rawls would disagree not only with your claim about opposition between the two theories of justice, but also with your caricature of Aristotle, who did not rely on his idea of the Prime Mover in developing his account of justice.

"Aristotle's definition [of justice] clearly presupposes, however, an account of what properly belongs to a person and of what is due to him. Now such entitlements are, I believe, very often derived from social institutions and the legitimate expectations to which they give rise. There is no reason to think that Aristotle would disagree with this, and certainly he has a conception of social justice to account for these claims. The definition I adopt is designed to apply directly to the most important case, the justice of the basic structure. There is no conflict with [Aristotle's] notion."

John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, rev. ed., p. 10.

My claim that Rawls got it right was directed narrowly at his two principles from A Theory of Justice. It's been awhile since I've looked at the text, but Rawls argues that natural inequalities are "Not only pervasive, but they affect men’s initial chances in life; yet they cannot possibly be justified by an appeal to the notions of merit or desert."

Aristotle said: In defining its role as a distributor of justice, the legislature will follow Aristotle’s conception of proportional justice as "the just [since it requires equal shares for equal people] is in some way proportionate.". Also, Aristotle contends that "if something is capable of rational foresight, it is a natural ruler and master, whereas whatever can use its body to labor is ruled and is a natural slave." Maybe I'm missing something, but I certainly sense some tension between the two. Aristotle's government seems to exacerbate something Rawls seeks to rectify.

[Borhas]

Do what you are good at, whatever that may be, and we'll all be better off.

I don't see the tension you're seeing

It's the fulfillment of the role that is justice (on an individual level), rewards, honors, are for the fulfillment, not for the role

[Green Crayons]

Justice is a cold beer on a warm summer afternoon.



You guys don't know how to answer questions at all.

[I.P. Daly]

Justice is a cold beer on a warm summer afternoon.

Perfect. Thanks, man.

[morris248]

You get all the justice that you can afford.