Hot answers tagged

10

Plato has Socrates make the argument that punishment, when it is just anyway, actually improves the individual. So if you’ve done wrong you should want to be punished so you can improve. To say the least this doesn’t track with a common understanding of human nature — but nevertheless the theory of virtue has been very influential. For something more modern ...


7

This is an English translation of the Latin motto suum cuique, alternatively translated as "to each their own" or "may all get their due". The phrase was popularized by Cicero in De Natura Deorum ("iustitia suum cuique distribuit", justice renders to everyone his due) and later codified in the Justinian Corpus of Civil Law:"...


7

There are 2 main justifications for punishment used in modern philosophy. Consequentialism The idea is that punishing criminals deters them and others from doing crimes in the future. One of the strongest proponents of this stance was the utilitarian Bentham, who did a lot for prison and legal reforms in his own society. Retributivism 'What goes around comes ...


6

The original position is Rawls replacement of the (hypothetical) originary state of Mankind theorised in social contract theory - the state of nature, as by Hobbes; the principles that govern society are to be chosen behind a veil of ignorance; in the original position one does not know what talents, what gender what race or intelligence one will be endowed ...


6

Approaching the issue of fairness requires a process of definition in which each stage could lead to a different outcome. As with most issues in philosophy, there is no answer, so I will attempt to outline the defining process. Firstly is the question of whether fairness is judged by the outcome of the distribution or by the rights of the individuals among ...


6

The title describes what is known as the doctrine of ancestral fault, with blood vengeance as an extreme manifestation. It was common in archaic societies, but was pushed out with the establishment of civic morality and law since antiquity. "The guiltless will pay for the deeds later: either the man's children, or his descendants thereafter" we still hear ...


6

One can make the case for the need to compensate the injustice of the wrong-doer having an advantageous position with respect to the victim of the harm if no punishment is applied. A possible justification rooted on human psychology can be based on the additional harm caused by the unsatisfied revenge feeling that can be assumed to bother the victims or ...


4

First of all, there are many forms of equality: Racial equality, gender equality, equal opportunity, economic equality, etc...you seem to be mostly concerned with economic equality. Second, based on your wording, you are conflating equality and fairness, which are not the same. In fact many would argue that fairness and equality can be contradictory: Is it ...


4

Aristotle is well aware that one can act justly towards those with whom one is not friends, even to one's worst enemies. But why should friends not need justice ? Surely I can cheat a friend ? Don't I need justice to check my bad tendencies even towards friends ? ▻ KINDS OF FRIENDSHIP We need to make two moves to understand Aristotle's views on justice ...


4

There's at least one other angle to consider -- but here I have to assume what you mean by "libertarian" is still a realm governed by some manner of law but with consent as its highest value. If you're willing to accept that, then I would suggest one reason to oppose such arrangements or possibly even prohibit them is epistemological. In much of the ...


3

I think one cannot derive the veil of ignorance from Kant's Categorical Imperative. Both do not contradict, but they follow different aims. Rawl's veil of ignorance is a means to generate fair decisions in case of a conflict of interests. It can be used for all votings where the consequences of the result affect at least some of the voting people. Kant's ...


3

One quick thought here is that there is another sense to the stratification in the Republic; it is a principle of responsibility-separation not just used to ordain life-tasks to individuals, but also to ensure the separation of duties and scope for different governmental institutions. This is basically the sense of the Platonic critique of democracy; that ...


3

A "zero-sum" game is one where everything that the winner or winners gain is exactly the same as what the loser or losers lose. Obviously a zero-sum game can be very unjust. If I steal $100 from your pocket, I win $100 and you lose $100, so it's a zero-sum game. If I steal $100 from your pocket by slitting open your pocket, I win $100 and you lose $100 plus ...


3

Natural justice is technical terminology for the rule against bias (nemo iudex in causa sua) and the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem). Yes, natural justice is used in practice when setting the framework for almost all modern laws, which would by extension indirectly force the overseeing judge or legal power in any legal matter to follow this “...


3

▻ Quotations are from the J.A.K. Thomson, H. Tredennick, J. Barnes translation listed under Reading. In Nicomachean Ethics ('NE') V, Aristotle first distinguishes what is usually translated as universal justice. This equates justice with complete virtue but not absolutely, only 'in relation to somebody else' (NE, V, 1129b27-8). The just person is the holos ...


3

There's several interlocking questions you're raising. First, there are three major theories of why we punish crime as a society. You've identified two: Reform - that the punishment is about rehabilitating the criminal (a view largely associated with Mill) Deterrence - that by having punishments we decrease crime Retribution - that crime requires punishment ...


3

The logical flaw in justifying someone's accidental death in view of their troubled past is the non-sequitur. It's like saying they deserved to die because penguins live in the Antarctic; there is no logical connection between the two events.


2

I think this is called "Whingeing". If the premise is that workers currently earn x amount (all the same) but there is a suggestion that working more hours is credited with a reward of more pay .. Your 40-hour person does not work extra hours, and is earning the same as before the suggestion. They are no better or worse off. They are neither being ...


2

I'm going to try and answer this "side-on", there are lots of different possible interpretations so I'll try and give a "tour" of them. I will begin with utility, as I think your colleague's claim stems from thinking in these terms. When talking about anything in terms of utility the same question always rears its head: in the public sphere it arises when ...


2

There are many interpretations of the phrase "libertarian philosophy" and it's helpful to be clear which you're using. By "libertarian", I get the impression you broadly mean the Rothbard-kind, rather than the Chomsky-kind. I am finding it difficult to make a case for the punishment of Person B You were right this far. I quote from David Gordon's review ...


2

The language you're using seems like it is quasi-Aristotelian. In Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle speaks of virtues as the mean between two extremes. In that context, he calls the ideal position "the Golden mean." For this model, he suggests courage which is somewhere between brashness and cowardice (EN 3.7). And for the person who knows their ...


2

The quote from your book refers to [...] and when men are friends they have no need of justice, while when they are just they need friendship as well, and the truest form of justice is thought to be a friendly quality. (Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics, VIII1155a26f) Aristotle conceives that citizens can become friends (philoi) of each other, hence live ...


2

Perhaps it helps to keep in mind that behind the veil of ignorance, you never know what position in the society you may get. So there is a motivational drive to weigh the respective gains and losses for every position and overall, but especially the ones with the least power to influence anything later on: the powerless and least well-off. You will not ...


2

The two "golden rules" are very similar, but Kant's is strictly deontic and nonconsequentialist. It may even be arguable that its deontic, theological perspective could mandate actions that are not necessarily "good" for a given society or even for "humanity" per se. It is notoriously ill-suited to a complex division of labor in civil society and hence ...


2

A categorical imperative is: Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law. If we compare the categorical imperative to the original position and the veil of ignorance, we can identify the use of the categorical imperative in Rawls's theory. When deciding which principles that will ...


2

I think what the quote is trying to say is this. Imagine two people arguing about the moral status of vegetarianism and then someone else comes along who denies that vegetarianism is a moral issue in the first place. The rather obvious point that I believe Denton is trying to make here is that for people to become politically motivated about something they ...


2

The egalitarian intuition, put in general terms by GA Cohen is that there is something that justice requires people to have equal amounts of, no matter what, but to whatever extent is allowed by other values that compete with distributive justice According to Allan Marx, egalitarians hold that equality should be valued for its own sake, or to promote ...


2

I believe Cicero has said/written "justice renders to everyone his due" but Justinian comes closer having said/written "to give to each his own". In short, both argued that this leads to a "just" society. Whether that conclusion is true or not is, of course, a matter of debate. Assuming one takes these two as saying the same thing, Cicero (Roman ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible