Justice And The Good Society
Abstract
The concept of justice has been discussed for a number of years and it is mainly in involved in enhancing order in a societal setting. In that line, many theories of justice have proclaimed its relevance in maintaining order in the society. Plato’s justice definition brings out justice as having as well as doing what is ones own.Society on the other hand is a term that has many meanings depending on the perspective an individual looks at the term. In its simplest form, society is where we live. The major characteristic of a society is the presence of relationship patterns among people who sharing various institutions. Further a society can be said to be a human society if it is a constellation of people whose interaction is informed by the various roles they play in their relationship with one another.A good society in that respect can be taken to mean that society that contains conflict as well as competing interests within the boundaries of a peaceful coexistence, culture and harmony.
Introduction
The concept or issue of justice comes up when we have two or more individuals and a situation with regards to the interaction between them arises. With that in mind, the question of justice can only arise in a societal setting. In this text, I will discuss the concept of justice in relation to the good society.I will look at the various aspects of the society and which of these aspects makes it a just society and what aspects of the society makes it unjust. I will also look at the need for government and justice as well as the origin of justice and social contract. Lastly, I will discuss several principles of justice for a broader understanding of the concept of justice in a free society.
The nature of society
Thousands of years ago, Aristotle noted that man was a social animal (Ellwood 2008). Since time immemorial, people have preferred living in groups whether it is in a family setting, a tribal setting or in the modern world in communities forming cities and towns. With that in mind, it is good to note that no matter the size of the grouping, some kind of organization is mandatory for the sake of maintaining order and decency in this grouping or societal setting. In addition to an organizational model each society also has its own identity in terms of history and or culture.From the native agrarian cultures, the nature of society has grown t5o the present day cities that are relatively fast paced and mobile unlike the societies in the native agrarian age. Various societies regard member’s in terms of their societal class. That is, members view each other as members of a given family or their respective undertakings interns of functions. However, some societies take an individualistic view of a person independent of birth or functional affiliations.Sandel, (2009) defines the good society as a society that maintains a balance between social order as well as its anatomy. He argues that for a society to be good, more emphasis must be placed on the reliance of not the law but the moral voice. The reasoning behind this is that the enhanced respect for self is in tandem with the moral voice. In good society therefore, law is taken to complement morality and hence a good society cannot be built on law alone but on a platform of both law and morality.
The need for government and justice
One school of thought advocates for a free society where things should run on their own course. There has been suggestions that the governments tinkering with things ends up making things worse and not better as was intended. According to Lippmann et al. (2004), the ancient china Tao te ching advances that any interference to reform things ends up making them in no better state as they were in the first place, it hence advocates that those in leadership positions should not be engaged in the daily undertakings of the state. But it follows that letting people do as they please would and has the potential to result to a state of anarchy.Lippmann et al. (2004) defines anarchy as a situation of social confusion as well as disorder. The absence of a government would hence create a situation characterized by the absence of organization. The government is hence a vital component for the existence of order within the society and hence justice.It is true that there can be an organized society without a government in place. For instance, it is possible for there to be an agreement for enhancing road safety and it is most likely some members of the society will obey these rules.However, it is highly likely that not every individual will obey these rules and hence it makes great sense to have authorities charged with enforcing such agreements.
These authorities include traffic police and the courts. Hence it is quite clear that the society needs a government to enforce rules hence enhance justice as well as an orderly society.Another very powerful argument in our modern world claims that the government should not be involved in the organization of the society when it comes to economic issues or affairs. This argument is known as the free markets idea.As Sandel (2009) puts it, the gist of this idea is that no law or government is needed to force people to do what they need to do. If the society requires some goods and services, entrepreneurs will provide them whilst influenced by their self interests and profit. Concerning some form of agreements that may need to be made for the betterment of the society, it is assumed that we will do it ourselves without the influence of any form of authority.This argument however does not take into consideration the need rules as well as regulations to enhance fair play in the markets. The free markets argument has also not demonstrated their ability to provide solutions to some urgent social issues of concern.
The origin of justice and social contract
We might want to ask our selves where justice comes from and why it should have a binding effect on all the members of the society. While we still try to find answers to these questions today, it might be good to note that early thinkers from the 18th as well as 17thcentury offered to answer some or all of this questions and the answers they came up with are still applicable in the modern day. The most notable of these thinkers included Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau (Etzioni 2001).According to Lippmann et al. (2004), these great thinkers argued that the concept of justice is a result of a social contract. The individual members of society agree to be bound by rules of justice as well as the authorities charged with enforcing them because in one way or the other, these individual members of the society agreed to do so in the first place. The individual members of the society therefore bound by the social contract between them and the government and in some sense between themselves to coexist together under the guidance of some well laid down rules for the societies own betterment.
Locke argued that naturally, man is a hardworking creature who built structures and cultivated the land and hence as time passed became convinced that what he had put his efforts into belonged to him. The sense of ownership of one’s own piece of labor was not the problem.What was a big problem was protecting what one had worked to acquire. Man therefore saw the need for coming up with an orderly and just society with rules and regulations as well as a working government to enforce these rules and regulations. Man saw this as the only way to protect his property (Etzioni 2001). The concept of justice could also have been necessitated by the need to protect individual rights and freedoms of people.However, what has been largely debated about rights is their scope as well as nature. One can advance that the right not to be subjected to any kind of torture is inherently a global human right. With that in mind, what can we say about the right of an individual to retain what he has no matter how he or she got it? With regard to these questions, several arguments have been offered in an attempt to answer them. These arguments include communitarianism, libertarianism as well as liberalism.
The principles of justice
To understand the concept of justice in the societal setting requires a broad understanding of the various principles of justice. According to Lippmann et al. (2004), there is need to come up with a distinction between metanomative justice which involves the enforcement of order between members of the society and normative justice which is also referred to as justice as a component of an individuals own personal wellbeing. Normative justice is more personal that metanomative justice. It concerns itself with how individual members of a society are supposed to act as opposed to metanomative justice which deals with the question of how to come up with the structures of a society.It is important to note that the principles of justice I discuss in this text concerns themselves with metanomative justice rather than normative justice. It is also important to keep in mind that while there are a good number of principles of justice, it this text I will look at only three principles. According to Lippmann et al. (2004), some of these principles of justice (in the metanomative sense) include;
Nature has its own imperatives
It can be argued that worldwide, there exist principles of law that come up with guidelines on how the societies structure should look like just as we have such laws as the law of gravity which influence the way we carry out construction projects and other such undertakings. Therefore, keeping in mind the very nature of man, to enhance peaceful as well as orderly coexistence between individuals in the society, structures must be put in place and these str4actures should ensure that each member of the society enjoys a moral space with the right to work within that space without the interference of other members of the society.This moral space should be defined by the natural rights idea. With that in mind, an individual’s free choice should be therefore supported. However the individual concerned should act within the defined moral space. Hence a society that stifles freedom of choice interferes with the basic principle of justice. With this freedom however comes responsibility and an individual should hence be liable for his or her actions.
Both justice and injustice does not depend on positive law
Natural rights go hand in hand with a just law which also acts as their basis and man made laws are provided for by justice. Examples of injustice include rape, theft, murder, assault etc. and it is basically concerned with the violation of natural rights. Unjust behaviors are those that involve the sourcing of income or wealth that has an element of theft, fraud or use of force. If any acquisition of wealth or income involves individuals exchanging something freely with one another, then it can be said to be just.
The use of self defense permits the use of reasonable force on those bent on violating an individuals rights
The use of normal self defense is permissible where a violation of an individual’s right is impending. The use of extended self defense is permissible when an individual has indicated by his past record or actions to be a risk in violating rights in future. These two concepts are often invoked when it comes to the determination of the fate of convicted murderers. Those relying on extended self defense might call for a life sentences for convicted murderers.
The aspects of a just society
The term social justice is used in reference to a more socially just society. Several arguments have been advanced as to what constitutes a just society. Most notable arguments according to Sandel (2009) have been advanced by the Catholic Church and John Rawls who was a political philosopher.Rawls came up with some basic liberties which for the attainment of a just society, each individual was supposed to observe. One of the liberties Rawls proposed includes freedoms promoting the integrity as well as the dignity of a person as constituent member of a society. This includes freedom from slavery as well as freedom of movement. Other basic liberties Rawls proposed are freedom of association as well as thought, conscience liberty; liberties militate against political interference and suppression (i.e. formation of democratic institutions that are a representative of the people, freedom of assembly as well as speech).However, Rawls proposals have been criticized by a number of authors who question the existence of a definite social justice standard.
Others claim the whole concept of a just society is not logical or useful and that any attempt to enhance a completely just society will inevitably lead to the destruction of all liberty (Etzioni 2001).The Catholic Church has also come up with an attempt to explain the concept or components of a just society. For there to be a just society, the Catholic Church advances two concepts. One, the life as well as dignity of a human being must be upheld above any other consideration. This concept seeks to sanctify human life and uphold it above all other material items.Two, the poor and most vulnerable members of the society must be given preferential treatment. According to this concept, all the members of the society must show compassion to those who are most vulnerable. However this approach has been criticized for its focus on one group of the society, that is, the poorest members of the society. According to this approach, the ultimate test of a just society lies on how it treats its ‘voiceless’ members (Newman et al. 2008).
The aspects of an unjust society
According to Lippmann et al. (2004), an unjust society is characterized by such things as unfair social stratification, an oppressive and strict system of political leadership as well as failure of societal order which boil down to anarchy. In an unjust society, every individual is suspicious of the other. Other aspects of an unjust society include the suppression of the minority by the dominant as well as denial of basic rights and freedoms.Newman et al. (2008) attempts to explain how unjust societies come into being and he states that a culture of disregard of laid down rules and procedures for the coordination as well as maintenance of order lays ground for an unjust society.
Justice and its significance in a good society
In a good society, justice facilitates the protection of the basic freedoms and rights of the individual members of the society. Taking into consideration the inherent nature of the human person, the establishment of rules of conduct to be observed by all members of the society ensures that people ensure they respect the basic rights and freedoms of others.As we saw earlier in this discussion, a free society where people regulate their own interaction and conduct of behavior will most possibly result to a state of anarchy because some members of the society will inevitably disregard the agreement.There is hence a need for an authority that enforces rules and hence ensuring there is justice for all members of the society. Justice also ensures the maintenance of a working social structure supported by rules and regulations. This is important as it ensures that the society is coordinated and that order is maintained in all the societal undertakings
Conclusion
It is highly probable that there has never been and there never will be a fully just society. Rather than seek a perfectly just society, it might seem appropriate to let the issue of justice and the good society act as a reminder of what we as individual members of the society stand for as well as believe in.
References
Ellwood, C.A (2008). An Introduction to Social Psychology. BiblioBazaar LLC
Etzioni, A. (2001). Next: the road to the good society. Basic Books
Lippmann, W & Best, G. (2004). The good society. Transaction Publishers
Newman, J. & Yeates, N. (2008). Social Justice. Open University Press
Sandel, M.J. (2009). Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? Straus and Giroux
Is this your assignment or some part of it?
We can do it for you! Click to Order!
