How would you define justice?
551407
A eye for a eye, a tooth for a tooth.
926493
Justice implies an even hand, \nthat there exisist a real standard that applies to all.\n\nthis is obviously not the case in city to city in state to state.\nthere is the impression of justice, when a high profile case on tv gets played over and over.\nbut as for the poor who everyday enter our legal system,\n\nit is not the same for them.\nThe rich have resources and connections we can not even imagine....
200211
Depends highly on where you arer in the world! Your answer should follow the lines of the different legal instruments that the law system uses(in Scotland - we use both Legislation and common law) to implemet the idea of Justice i.e. consistancy via cases and intrepretation by the courts in the application of the law. Natural justice is another area. Just get any law book and read the first chapter - usually its all in there or if your really lazy - just ready the summaries the chapters provide! Good luck
1116597
We began this chapter's investigation of distributive justice in order to consider the claim that a state more extensive than the minimal state could be Justified on the grounds that it was necessary, or the most appropriate instrument, to achieve distributive justice. According to the entitlement conception of justice in holdings that we have presented, there is no argument based upon the first two principles of distributive justice, the principles of acquisition and of transfer, for such a more extensive state. If the set of holdings is properly generated, there is no argument for a more extensive state based upon distributive justice. (Nor, we have claimed, will the Lockean proviso actually provide occasion for a more extensive state.) If, however, these principles are violated, the principle of rectification comes into play. Perhaps it is best to view some patterned principles of distributive justice as rough rules of thumb meant to approximate the general results of applying the principle of rectification of injustice. For example, lacking much historical information, and assuming (i) that victims of injustice generally do worse than they otherwise would and (2) that those from the least well-off group in the society have the highest probabilities of being the (descendants of) victims of the most serious injustice who are owed compensation by those who benefited from the injustices (assumed to be those better off, though sometimes the perpetrators will be others in the worst-off group), then a rough rule of thumb for rectifying injustices might seem to be the following: organize society so as to maximize the position of whatever group ends up least well-off in the society. This particular example may well be implausible, but an important question for each society will be the following: given its particular history, what operable rule of thumb best approximates the results of a detailed application in that society of the principle of rectification? These issues are very complex and are best left to a full treatment of the principle of rectification. In the absence of such a treatment applied to a particular society, one cannot use the analysis and theory presented here to condemn any particular scheme of transfer payments, unless it is clear that no considerations of rectification of injustice could apply to justify it. Although to introduce socialism as the punishment for our sins would be to go too far, past injustices might be so great as to make necessary in the short run a more extensive state in order to rectify them.
522714
this is one of those trick questions huh...i mean let's fact it, its never that black and white is it...okay YES! but of course the real answer is that there are varying degrees of justice and sovereignty depends on circumstance...you know what's good for society vs what is good for the individual, etc.
777307
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that, but I'll give it a shot. \nJames 2:10-11 tells us that "if we shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, we are guilty of all" and thus we become a trangressor of the law. The bible teaches if we would not have injustice done to us, than we should not commit injustice. But we're imperfect sinners, we make mistakes from time to time like everyone else, however we try hard to become more perfect through Christ, to follow His example of perfect righteousness!
1104859
Equality. If all people are equal, then there would be nothing to fight about.
901238
Justice is reserved for those who acquire power in central or state government. It is for them who have lot of money white or black... no body can touch them... even if you are a gangster you can rule the land from behind the bars and enjoy the services of jail personnel as your bodyguards... \n\nForget about justice for common people.
500907
That's more than fair, that is JUSTICE
530634
Justice, respect and love for humanity.\nBe true to others as you want others to be with you.
107838
Yes, justice is always ethical
1056538
I believe in the law of retribution.  I've lived to see that what goes around comes around and what you sow, sooner or later you'll reap.  Sure, a lot of people have unfair things happen to them and it's not their fault.  But there's a kind of justice and equity in the universe too.  Many times people get exactly what they deserve, but we don't always have the satisfaction of knowing it.  For instance someone who's done you wrong will eventually have it done to them by someone else, but you won't know so you keep on thinking that they got away scott free.
1077556
Actually, the phrase is not literally referring to the eyes.  The phrase "justice is blind"  refers to the idea that judges and juries should look only at the evidence presented in court when making their decisions.  The term "blind" is a reference to the ideal of those making decisions ignoring what they know about the defendants reputation, personal history, local gossip, news articles, appearance, personal relationship to the judge and/or individual jury members, etc.  \n\nIt dates back to when most people lived in small towns where everyone knew everybody else.  When juries were selected the defendant might often have neighbors, friends, or even relatives who were serving on the Jury.  Even the judge might have been related to the defendant in some way at that time.
883223
Unless morality is based on the Law of God, the definition of "morally right" simply becomes "whatever I think is morally right", and "morally wrong" becomes "whatever I think is morally wrong". Of course, that would only define my own personal subjective morality, since there would be no such thing as objective morality. Your definition of "morally right" would be "whatever YOU happen to think is right", which might be completely opposite to my definition of "morally right". If morality is completely subjective, why even speak in terms of morality? Morality would consist of "you do whatever you feel like doing, and I'll do whatever I feel like doing". I couldn't judge any action of yours to be immoral, nor could you judge any action of mine, or of terrorists, or of governments, to be immoral. "What's right for you may not be right for me" would be the foundation of morality, whether we werespeaking of murder, rape, child molestation, or any other act. All acts would be morally neutral, and would become "right" or "wrong" only in the minds of individuals. Morality is meaningful only when there is an objective standard against which to compare subjective ideas of morality. An act is objectively moral when it fits the objective standard of morality.
204031
Freedom, and justice.
635039
Wow, that's tough.  Is your assignment to argue that retribution is socially cohesive, or did you come up with this yourself?\n\nThis is what I can think of:\n\nRetributive justice is based on the idea that criminals should be punished for undermining social "harmony" or "balance."  Therefore, we can't dole out retributive punishment before we first have a definition of what is social harmony or balance.  Social harmony and balance can be defined through laws, custom, or religion.  The PROCESS of defining social harmony and balance is socailly cohesive because, to some extent, we must generally agree on what the definition of social order is.  In other words, the PROCESS of accepting and agreeing on laws/customs/religion is socially cohesive.\n\nThe rehabilitation theory of punishment is probably the most socially cohesive because it is based on rehabiliting the criminal so that he can successfully reenter society.
1011819
Justice and reasons are in God's hands. Not in yours or mine