Law and Justice
Law and Justice
Abstract
Justice is the quality of being fair or just. This is not an exhaustive definition of justice. Different philosophers have defined justice in different ways. Justice is a concept that provides balance between law and morality. Rawls proposition for law and justice has been accepted by world judicial fraternity as a landmark vision to understand the system. Similarly it has earned a good amount of criticism which shows the basic strength of the thought. As such: Rawls theories of Justice has to be checked and rechecked not because it is best but because it will provide us a starting point to understand this whole world of law and justice. In this paper an attempt has been made to understand and analyze Rawls theory of justice. This work has been done to distinguish the concept of justice as propounded by utilitarian’s (Aristotle[1] and Benthem[2]) vis-a-vis Rawls. Finally an analysis is done to examine how well the concept of justice given by Rawls is relevant in India, a multilayered pluralistic society.
Introduction:
Justice is defined as the quality of being just or fair. Justice is used to mean what is appropriate, deserved, right, fair , justice is said to be achieved when an unjust act is redressed and the victim feels whole again.[3] Justice also means the wrongdoer is held liable for his behavior. Aristotle puts forward that in its general sense justice is an inclusive term equivalent to righteousness. According to Aristotle justice with which we are concerned has two branches: distributive and corrective[4].
Distributive justice takes into consideration the merits of the parties; corrective justice is concerned only with restoring a balance which has been disturbed[5]. The distribution is a question not of equality, but of right proportion; and this applies to retribution[6]. The situation of bringing back to original position is corrective form of justice whereas distributive principle refers to share of that equal number of
Abstract
Justice is the quality of being fair or just. This is not an exhaustive definition of justice. Different philosophers have defined justice in different ways. Justice is a concept that provides balance between law and morality. Rawls proposition for law and justice has been accepted by world judicial fraternity as a landmark vision to understand the system. Similarly it has earned a good amount of criticism which shows the basic strength of the thought. As such: Rawls theories of Justice has to be checked and rechecked not because it is best but because it will provide us a starting point to understand this whole world of law and justice. In this paper an attempt has been made to understand and analyze Rawls theory of justice. This work has been done to distinguish the concept of justice as propounded by utilitarian’s (Aristotle[1] and Benthem[2]) vis-a-vis Rawls. Finally an analysis is done to examine how well the concept of justice given by Rawls is relevant in India, a multilayered pluralistic society.
Introduction:
Justice is defined as the quality of being just or fair. Justice is used to mean what is appropriate, deserved, right, fair , justice is said to be achieved when an unjust act is redressed and the victim feels whole again.[3] Justice also means the wrongdoer is held liable for his behavior. Aristotle puts forward that in its general sense justice is an inclusive term equivalent to righteousness. According to Aristotle justice with which we are concerned has two branches: distributive and corrective[4].
Distributive justice takes into consideration the merits of the parties; corrective justice is concerned only with restoring a balance which has been disturbed[5]. The distribution is a question not of equality, but of right proportion; and this applies to retribution[6]. The situation of bringing back to original position is corrective form of justice whereas distributive principle refers to share of that equal number of