Equality doesn’t mean JusticeEquality Justice

Sanjay Jagarwal

Moral Reasoning

• Consequentialist locates morality in the consequences of an act

• Categorical locate morality in certain duties and rights

Animals can tell right from wrong…Animals possess a sense of morality that allows them to tell the difference between right and wrong.

Just as in humans, the moral nuances of a particular culture or group will be different from another, but they are certainly there.

Moral codes are species specific.

Recent neurology work has also revealed that distantly related mammals such as whales and dolphins have the same structures in their brains that are thought to be responsible for empathy in humans.

WOLVES:During play, dominant wolves will "handicap" themselves by engaging in roll reversal with lower ranking wolves, showing submission and allowing them to bite.without a moral code governing their actions, this kind of behaviour would not be possible. If an animal bites too hard, it will initiate a "play bow" to ask forgiveness before play resumes.

RODENTS:• Experiments with rats have shown that they will not take food if

they know their actions will cause pain to another rat. In lab tests, rats were given food which then caused a second group of rats to receive an electric shock.

• The rats with the food stopped eating rather than see another rat receive a shock. Similarly, mice react more strongly to pain when they have seen another mouse in pain.

BATS:Vampire bats need to drink blood every night but it is common for some not to find any food. Those who are successful in foraging for blood will share their meal with bats who are not successful.

WHALES:Whales have been found to have spindle cells in their brains. These very large and specialised cells were thought to be restricted to humans and other great apes and appear to play a role in empathy and understanding the feelings of others.

Emotions

Contents• Definition• Understandings of justiceI. Justice as harmonyII. Justice as divine commandIII. Justice as natural lawIV. Justice as human creationV. Justice as a subordinate value

• Types of justice• Problems and there solutions• References

FORD Pinto

Repairing the FORD Pinto

COST $ 11 per partX12.5 million

= $ 137 million

BENEFITS 180 deaths X $ 200,000+180 injuries X $67,000+2000 vehicles X $ 700

= $ 49.5 million

Justice

Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is to systems of thought. A theory however elegant and economical must be rejected or revised if it is untrue; likewise laws and institutions no matter how efficient and well-arranged must be reformed if they are unjust. John Rawls

Modified Definition of Just

Justice is a concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, equity or fairness, as well as the administration of the law, taking into account the inalienable and inborn rights of all human beings and citizens, the right of all people and individuals to equal protection before the law of their civil rights, without discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, color, ethnicity, religion, disability, age, or other characteristics, and is further regarded as being inclusive of social justice.

Abraham Lincoln

the progress of any country depends on 4 things: Idea, Liberty, Trust & Freedom.

Understandings of justice

Justice differ in every culture, as cultures are usually dependent upon a shared history, mythology and/or religion.

Each culture's ethics create values which influence the notion of justice.

There can be found some justice principles that are one and the same in all or most of the cultures, these are insufficient to create a unitary justice apprehension.

Justice as harmonyPlato's definition of justice is that justice is the having and doing of what is one's own. A just man is a man in just the right place, doing his best and giving the precise equivalent of what he has received.This applies both at the individual level and at the universal level.

Socrates uses the parable of the chariot to illustrate his point: a chariot works as a whole because the two horses’ power is directed by the charioteer. Lovers of wisdom philosophers, in one sense of the term should rule because only they understand what is good. If one is ill, one goes to a doctor rather than a psychologist, because the doctor is expert in the subject of health. The unjust city is like a ship in open ocean, crewed by a powerful but drunken captain (the common people), a group of untrustworthy advisors who try to manipulate the captain into giving them power over the ship's course (the politicians), and a navigator (the philosopher) who is the only one who knows how to get the ship to port. For Socrates, the only way the ship will reach its destination – the good – is if the navigator takes charge.

Justice as divine commandJustice as a divine law is commanding, and indeed the whole of morality, is the authoritative command.

Killing is wrong and therefore must be punished and if not punished what should be done? Euthyphro dilemma essentially asks: is something right because God commands it, or does God command it because it's right?

If the former, then justice is arbitrary; if the latter, then morality exists on a higher order than God, who becomes little more than a passer-on of moral knowledge. The dilemma is however claimed to be false by some religious apologists, who claim that goodness is the very nature of God and is necessarily expressed in His commands. God embodies these laws and is therefore neither higher nor lower than the law. He sets an example for the good people among men to follow His way and also become an embodiment of the highest principles and morals

Justice as natural lawIt involves the system of consequences that naturally derives from any action or choice.

In this, it is similar to the laws of physics: in the same way as the Third of Newton's laws of Motion requires that for every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction.

Justice requires according individuals or groups what they actually deserve, merit, or are entitled to. Justice, on this account, is a universal and absolute concept: laws, principles, religions, etc., are merely attempts to codify that concept, sometimes with results that entirely contradict the true nature of justice.

Justice as human creation:In contrast to the understandings canvassed so far, justice may be understood as a human creation, rather than a discovery of harmony, divine command, or natural law. This claim can be understood in a number of ways, with the fundamental division being between those who argue that justice is the creation of some humans, and those who argue that it is the creation of all humans.

Justice as mutual agreement:justice is derived from the mutual agreement of everyone concerned; or, in many versions, from what they would agree to under hypothetical conditions including equality and absence of bias. This account is considered further below, under ‘Justice as fairness’.

Justice as a subordinate valueJustice is not as fundamental as we often think. Rather, it is derived from the more basic standard of rightness, consequentialism: what is right is what has the best consequences. John Stuart Mill

The proper principles of justice are those that tend to have the best consequences. These rules may turn out to be familiar ones such as keeping contracts; but equally, they may not, depending on the facts about real consequences.

Either way, what is important is those consequences, and justice is important, if at all, only as derived from that fundamental standard. Mill tries to explain our mistaken belief that justice is overwhelmingly important by arguing that it derives from two natural human tendencies: 1.our desire to retaliate against those who hurt us2.our ability to put ourselves imaginatively in another's place.

So, when we see someone harmed, we project ourselves into her situation and feel a desire to retaliate on her behalf. If this process is the source of our feelings about justice, that ought to undermine our confidence in them.

Types of justice

Distributive justiceDistributive justice, also known as economic justice, is about fairness in what people receive, from goods to attention. Its roots are in social order and it is at the roots of Communism, where equality is a fundamental principle.If people do not thing that they are getting their fair share of something, they will seek first to gain what they believe they deserve. They may well also seek other forms of justice.

Procedural justiceThe principle of fairness is also found in the idea of fair play (as opposed to the fair share of distributive justice).If people believe that a fair process was used in deciding what it to be distributed, then they may well accept an imbalance in what they receive in comparison to others. If they see both procedural and distributive injustice, they will likely seek restorative and/or retributive justice.

Restorative justiceThe first thing that the betrayed person may seek from the betrayer is some form of restitution, putting things back as they should be.The simplest form of restitution is a straightforward apology. Restoration means putting things back as they were, so it may include some act of contrition to demonstrate one is truly sorry. This may include action and even extra payment to the offended party.Restorative justice is also known as corrective justice.

Retributive justiceRestoration may well not be enough for the betrayed person and they may seek revenge of some sort, whereby they can feel the satisfaction of seeing the other person suffer in the way that they have suffered.Revenge can be many times more severe than reparation as the hurt party seeks to make the other person suffer in return.

Theories of distributive justiceneed to answer three questions:1.What goods are to be distributed? Is it to be wealth, power, respect, some combination of these things?

2.Between what entities are they to be distributed? Humans (dead, living, future), sentient beings, the members of a single society, nations?

3.What is the proper distribution? Equal, meritocratic, according to social status, according to need, based on property rights and non-aggression?

Types of Distributive Norms1) Equity: Member’s outcomes should be based upon their inputs. Therefore, an individual who has invested a large amount of input (eg:, time, money, energy) should receive more from the group than someone who has contributed very little

2) Equality: Regardless of their inputs, all group members should be given an equal share of the rewards/costs. Equality supports that someone who contributes 20% of the group’s resources should receive as much as someone who contributes 60%. Women prefer equality more often than men do over equity, even when they are the outperforming party. This does not mean that all women have this preference.

3) Power: Those with more authority, status, or control over the group should receive more than those in lower level positions.

4) Need: Those in greatest needs should be provided with resources needed to meet those needs. These individuals should be given more resources than those who already possess them, regardless of their input.5) Responsibility: Group members who have the most should share their resources with those who have less.

Theories of sentencing

In criminal law, a sentence forms the final explicit act of a judge-ruled process, and also the symbolic principal act connected to his function.

The sentence can generally involve a decree of imprisonment, a fine and/or other punishments against a defendant convicted of a crime.

Laws may specify the range of penalties that can be imposed for various offenses, and sentencing guidelines sometimes regulate what punishment within those ranges can be imposed given a certain set of offense and offender characteristics.

Theory Aim of theory Suitable punishment

Retribution

Punishment imposed for no reason other than an offense being committed, on the basis that if proportionate, punishment is morally acceptable as a response that satisfies the aggrieved party, their intimates and society.

1.Tariff sentences2.Sentence must be proportionate to the crime

Deterrence1.To the individual - the individual is deterred through fear of further punishment.2.To the general public - Potential offenders warned as to likely punishment

1.Prison Sentence2.Heavy Fine3.Long sentence as an example to others

Rehabilitation To reform the offender's behaviour 1.Individualized sentences2.Community service orders

Incapacitation Offender is made incapable of committing further crime to protect society at large from crime

1.Long prison sentence2.Electronic tagging3.Banning orders

Denunciation Society expressing its disapproval reinforcing moral boundaries

Reflects blameworthiness of offense

Theories of retributive justice

Theories of retributive justice are concerned with punishment for wrongdoing, and need to answer three questions: why punish? who should be punished? what punishment should they receive?

This section considers the two major accounts of retributive justice, and their answers to these questions. Utilitarian theories look forward to the future consequences of punishment, while retributive theories look back to particular acts of wrongdoing, and attempt to balance them with deserved punishment.

UtilitarianismJustice requires the maximization of the total or average welfare across all relevant individuals. Punishment is bad treatment of someone, and therefore can't be good in itself, for the utilitarian.But punishment might be a necessary sacrifice that maximizes the overall good in the long term.Deterrence: The credible threat of punishment might lead people to make different choices; well-designed threats might lead people to make choices that maximize welfare.Rehabilitation: Punishment might make bad people into better ones. For the utilitarian, all that 'bad person' can mean is 'person who's likely to cause bad things (like suffering)'. So, utilitarianism could recommend punishment that changes someone such that they are less likely to cause bad things.Security/Incapacitation: Perhaps there are people who are irredeemable causers of bad things. If so, imprisoning them might maximize welfare by limiting their opportunities to cause harm and therefore the benefit lies within protecting society.

Means…So, the reason for punishment is the maximization of welfare, and punishment should be of whomever, and of whatever form and severity, are needed to meet that goal.

Worryingly, this may sometimes justify punishing the innocent, or inflicting disproportionately severe punishments, when that will have the best consequences overall (perhaps executing a few suspected shoplifters live on television would be an effective deterrent to shoplifting, for instance).

It also suggests that punishment might turn out never to be right, depending on the facts about what actual consequences it has

Problems…

1. Arson2. Assault3. Burglary4. Child Abuse5. Child Pornography6. Computer Crime7. Conspiracy8. Credit Card Fraud9. Disorderly Conduct10.Disturbing the Peace11.Domestic Violence12.Extortion13.Forgery

14.Kidnapping15.Money Laundering16.Murder17.Perjury18.Prostitution19.Public Intoxication20.Rape21.Robbery22.Sexual Assault23.Shoplifting24.Solicitation25.Stalking26.Statutory Rape27.Theft

References…

http://lilt.ilstu.edu/pefranc/default.htmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justicehttp://crime.about.com/od/Crime_101/a/Crimes-A-To-Z.htmhttp://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/training9chapter13en.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/index_en.htm