Justice, differentiate the correct thing from the wrong
It is not exaggerated to say that Socrates spent his whole life investigating the meaning of justice. During his research on the nature of justice, Socrates was a real motivation to solve a problem that he considered too important for academic game. For Socrates, justice was worrying about their own affairs. The day before the execution of Socrates, his friends offered him help to escape prison. There were people willing to help Socrates out of jail without any risk or cost, but Socrates refused to escape prison. He chose to accept death, refusing to abandon the principles in which he lived. He valued the law rather than illegal survival, which symbolized the platonic idea of justice, and one of the most important preconceived methodologies of him focused on imitating social relations on the basis of the idea of the rule of law. Therefore, Socrates was sure that the decision to impose the death penalty was incorrect; However, it was a legal decision, and he firmly believed that his duty was not to violate the law and legal decision, otherwise he firmly believed that social relations could not be organized by the rule of law.
At the end of the 19th century, the case of Dudley and Stephens presented a serious justice problem. Thomas Dudley, Edward Stevens and Richard Parker, a seventeen -year -old boy, were in a lifeboat floating in the ocean. Finally they were saved on the 24th at sea. For eleven days they remained in two cans of small turnips and a small turtle trapped on the fourth day. For seven days they were without food for five days without water. On the nineteenth day, Dudley proposed a raffle that decided who would kill to save others. Finally, they rejected the idea of a raffle and decided to kill Parker, since they believed that he was soon starving. On the 20th they killed the boy, ate his meat and drank their blood. After being saved, they were taken to trial for murder.
They affirmed that the act of killing was forced by the need to save their lives; otherwise they will also die of hunger. One of the judges believed that the defendants were not guilty of murder, because the commission was made under conditions of inevitable need. But most judges found the defendants in the murder and issued a death sentence. However, Aleppo’s codex froze its sentences for six months. In the context of the socratic victim and the Dudley case, this article will analyze in depth the fundamental concept of justice in evaluating the ideas of several key thinkers, some key theories of justice and some fundamental measures of justice with some practical examples of all the world.
The idea of justice, from early history to the present, has held an important place in the socioeconomic and political structure at the local level, and in international friendship and cooperation. Traditionally, justice is often limited to explaining socio -economic and political dynamics at the local level, separated from its greatest importance in the configuration of international relations. However, in recent days, justice has gained importance in the design and establishment of international standards that are the most important for the development of international relations. Historically, justice has always attracted the deep interests of politicians, economists, sociologists and jurists, among others.
Despite its important role in the institutionalization of social institutions and in the planning of the distribution system, the question of justice is always the problem of conceptual disputes and still requires conceptual concepts and interpretations. Until recently, socialist and capitalist countries presented completely contradictory roadmap on the central issues of justice: equality, property rights, political rights and human rights, among others. Now it seems that the distribution has decreased significantly;However, to some extent there is still.
With the fundamental change of this strong division after the 1990s, at least in some of the common places the world, and especially in poor countries, before the establishment of peace and harmony, were swept by steps bound by perceptionsEthnic justice, violent ethnic conflicts. Somehow, the idea of justice has always been captured by political ideology, religion, cultural intolerance, poverty and discrimination, gender discrimination, human rights abuse and inequality, among other social disabilities.
For example, if tax rates for the rich should be increased or decreased, it became one of the most important discussion issues in the United States, especially during the Obama administration. The concept that justice is an important issue for the individual, society, the State and the international community.
Once, when the Danish legal philosopher, Alf Ross, noticed that when justice is defined with ideology, it leads to intolerance and conflict, because, on the one hand, it encourages to believe that a demand is not just an expression of a certainInterest in the conflict with resistance, but has a higher and more absolute validity;And, on the other hand, avoid all rational arguments and order discussions. Does this observation certainly raise a matter of how to deal with incompatible normative obsessions in a consistent and harmonious way? . According to Sandal, justice is the only thing that can be done ‘. Sandal’s idea invites a possible question, how to know what is right and, when it comes to inevitable human options, they are obliged to choose one of them and decide how he knows that the decision was made.
Only some of the main thinkers (nine of them) are discussed here. The concepts of justice of Buddha, Confucius, Plato, Aristotle, Bentham, Kant, John Rawls, Michael Sandal and Amartya Sen are briefly described here. An omission is clearly visible, namely, the theories of justice of Hans Kelsen and H. Hart, which is equally important to understand the concept of justice;However, they are excluded from this review, with the exception of some useful recommendations in other parts of this article.
The perception of justice by Buddha is not only limited to the law, but also justifies a revolutionary conception of disobedience or opposition to the law. If the law is bad, Buddha clearly instructs to follow the law of virtue and not to act under the law of sin. Buddha answers the question in a logical way is to follow the law if the law is moral. The right thing is to violate the law if the law is bad. This explanation seems not only logical but also provocative. However, these Buddha ideas are not immune to critical evaluation.
If the definition and choice of virtues and evil arise through individual perception or ideological observation, perhaps this normative orientation can lead to human relations to a state of uncertainty, conflict and chaos that bring all the expectations of theBuddhism itself. In summary, it can be said that the Buddhist idea of justice is significant in terms of determining the right things to do when making provisions of the law. However, Buddha deeply links the concept of law with the normative concepts of morality, evil and sin that are problematic to produce positive standards.
As a result, the idea of ‘what needs to be done’ can be influenced by the fascinating elections of normative standards. In summary, the doctrine of the Justice of Buddha is mainly more than positive in its epistemology.
The idea of the measures found in Buddha’s philosophy is also found in the philosophical traditions of Confucius, Socrates and Plato, among others. Like Buddha, Confucius saw morality and morality as standards of justice, which could transform a personal and social life in peace, harmony. Confucio saw justice in the form of a justified duty that would lead to the welfare of the individual and the state. Confucio linked the idea of justice with reason. He argued that ‘those who understand thoughts against justice will act against reason’. The idea of justice also reminds us of the Buddhist idea of justice, in which both law and justice are connected. Jupiter was the standard to punish evil. The most important thing, justice was the level of confucio government.
The Platonic idea of justice is expressed in Socrates ideas, which is Plato’s interlocutor. In his dialogues, Plato speaks constantly through his teacher Socrates, who takes the main character in almost all Platonic dialogues. Plato was particularly right about one of his dialogues in the name of the Republic. Book I and II of the Republic elaborates the Platonic concept of justice. At the end of the first book, Socrates says: “The result of all the discussion was that I don’t know anything, because I don’t know what justice is, so I can’t know whether or not, and I can say if the right person is happyor no ”F. This observation of Socrates arises from the long debate among a large number of high profile people trying to define justice mainly from three broad perspectives. First, justice was discussed as an act of duty. The example taken was a debt payment. Socrates reveals exceptions to this idea of justice.
The virtue of a country is a reflection of the creation of a well -being system, including the establishment of a constitution in which individual and social requirements may appear in the supply process. In light of the need to institutionalize demand and supply, the State, the power and duty of a government also derive from the very basis of this need. In explicit expansion in harmony with well -being, personal virtue can prosper through the specialization of skill and knowledge in relation to the supply and demand mechanism. The Platonic idea of justice, therefore, is the synthesis of socioeconomic analysis and political perceptions such as well -being, demand and supply. Relative advantage, specialization in production, and regulation of a state.
Unlike Buddha, Confucius, Socrates and Plato;The Aristotelian idea of Justice further blooms the idea of virtue as the standard of basic justice. In this sense, all virtue, as a characteristic of character, is summarized correctly. As noted, there are significant differences between Buddha, Confucius and Plato. Apart from some similarities, there are prominent differences between Plato and Aristotle’s philosophies, in particular. The philosophical divisions between Plato (Aristotle’s teacher and the disciple of Socrates) and Aristotle (one of Plato’s smartest students) divided the philosophical world, whose influence could still be reflected again in the idea of justice, among other things.
Leave feedback