Justice – Render to each their due…

Justice is a concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, equity and fairness. 

It can be thought of as distinct from benevolence, charity, prudence, mercy, generosity, or compassion, although these dimensions are regularly understood to also be interlinked.

Justice 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, sexual orientation, gender, identity, national origin, color, ethnicity, religion, disability, age, wealth, or other characteristics.

The idea of justice occupies centre stage in ethics, and in legal and political philosophy. It’s applied to individual actions, to laws, and to public policies, and if they are unjust or wrong, it is a strong, maybe even conclusive, reason to reject them. 

Classically, justice was counted as one of the four cardinal virtues (and sometimes as the most important of the four). In modern times, John Rawls famously described it as the first virtue of social institutions. 

Justice has sometimes been used in a way that makes it virtually indistinguishable from rightness in general. Aristotle, for example, distinguished between universal justice that corresponded to virtue as a whole, and particular justice which had a narrower scope. 

Aristotle noted that when justice was identified with complete virtue, this was always in relation to another person. Meaning, if justice is to be identified with morality as such, it must be morality in the sense of ‘what we owe to each other’ (Scanlon 1998). 

At the level of individual ethics, justice is often contrasted with charity on the one hand, and mercy on the other, and these too are other-regarding virtues. At the level of public policy, reasons of justice are distinct from, and often compete with, reasons of other kinds, for example economic efficiency or environmental value.

Justice takes on different meanings in different practical contexts, and to understand it fully is to  first grapple with diversity. 

The most plausible candidate for a core definition comes from the Institutes of Justinian, a codification of Roman Law from the 6th century AD, where justice is defined as the constant and perpetual will to render to each his due. 

This abstracted definition, throws light upon four important aspects of justice:

First, it shows that justice has to do with how individual people are treated (to each his due). Issues of justice arise in circumstances in which people can advance claims – to freedom, opportunities, resources, and so forth – that are potentially conflicting, and one appeals to justice to resolve such conflicts by determining what each person is properly entitled to have.

Hume pointed out that in a hypothetical state of abundance where every individual finds himself fully provided with whatever his most voracious appetites can want, the cautious, jealous virtue of justice would never once have been dreamed of (Hume, An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals). 

Second, Justinian’s definition underlines that just treatment is something due to each person, meaning, justice is a matter of claims that can be rightfully made against the agent dispensing justice, whether a person or an institution. 

Here there is a contrast with other virtues: one demands justice, but beg for charity or forgiveness. This also means that justice is a matter of obligation for the agent dispensing it, and that the agent wrongs the recipient if the latter is denied what is due to them. 

The obligations justice creates should be enforceable: one can be made to deliver what is due to others as a matter of justice, either by the recipients themselves or by third parties. 

Third – to which Justinian’s definition draws attention, is the connection between justice and the impartial and consistent application of rules (constant and perpetual will).

Justice is the opposite of arbitrariness. It requires that, where two cases are relevantly alike, they should be treated in the same way. 

Fourth – the definition reminds that justice requires an agent whose will alters the circumstances of its objects. The agent might be an individual person, or it might be a group of people, or an institution such as the state. 

So you cannot, except metaphorically, describe as unjust states of affairs that no agent has contributed to bringing about.

Justice requires a substantially equal distribution of advantages – there are no grounds on which some can claim greater shares of benefit than others.

Why justice is important to learn and understand…

Justice is overwhelmingly important, as John Rawls claims, “Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought.”

Because humans have the desire for equality and fairness, the assurance of justice is usually a prerequisite for a good society. But it’s surely not easy to simply justify all social behaviour as being just.

For a country leader to have legitimacy among their constituents, they must find ways to ensure that the laws of the land are just and administered justly. 

Of course, history is littered with examples of governments and societies that were unjust to some citizen groups. For example slavery in Europe, USA, Africa and other parts of the world. Until recently, black people weren’t afforded the same rights as white people, gays were alienated, women were overpressed, and rich people were treated better than the poor.

Justice is difficult to pinpoint exactly, as it is supposed to be blind, (Greek statue for justice, wearing a blindfold so as not to treat friends differently from strangers), meaning neutral, impartial and objective. 

People often disagree over what they deserve and whether they’re receiving it. In such disagreements, everybody wants a reasonable and impartial decision made, which is only possible with deep insight and understanding everyone’s point of view.

Others want straight forward blind justice, which is not always possible when taking an integral view of society. And when large groups feel they aren’t getting their due, then society becomes unstable.

Crimes Against Future Generations…

Decisions taken by politicians today will have a major influence on the world of tomorrow. 

The World Future Council seeks to bring intergenerational justice and protection of long-term interests into the heart of policy-making to pass on a healthy planet and just societies to our children and grandchildren

The World Future Council recognises crimes against future generations as acts or threats of acts in the present that could cause serious, widespread and long-term harm to the health, safety, or survival of future generations. 

These acts or threats may consist of individual, family, social, political, military, economic, cultural or scientific activities.

Decades of pledges and statements on sustainable development have promised to balance current needs with the obligation to avoid impoverishing the future, yet the legal enforcement of these agreements is still very limited and very slow. 

By creating incentives, and by spreading best policy solutions, the hope is that individuals, governments and corporate companies will think differently about their sustainability obligations with human rights at its centre.

We the people…