Justice as a foundation of the moral framework and ethics

Justice as a foundation of the moral framework and ethics

Forward

Justice is a broad idea that is usually related to the interactions one makes with the society. Whereas it manifests itself in many ways, this paper conceptualizes justice as the basis of a moral framework, and in the context of John Rawls’ ethical theory. Let’s define truth from the onset.

What does justice mean?

Justice is the basis of philosophy, law, and ethics. (“Justice (Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy),” n.d.). It’s the concept of the rule of law, equal opportunities, and freedoms. Besides, justice is the concept of moral rightness based ethics, rationality, and religion. (“Justice, western theories of,” n.d.). Therefore, in my view, the foundation of justice is the fair distribution of social and economic opportunities to all people regardless of their social status, luck, and personal motivation. These relate to Rawls’ theory of justice, as shown below.

How I relate to Rawls’ foundation of justice

Rawl stated two principles to be the foundation of fairness. The first principle states that all people have equal, compatible, and permanent rights to liberty. These rights can only be limited if they can harm the freedom of others. His second principle focuses on equality and states that social and economic inequalities must meet certain two conditions. The first condition is that the opportunities must be attached to offices and positions that are reasonably and equally available to all. The second condition is that the openings must be to the most significant benefit to the most disadvantaged members of society. (“Constitutional Rights Foundation,” n.d.).

To a large extent, Rawls’ theory of justice is in tandem with what I believe to be the foundation of fairness is, especially his second principle. In any society, social and economic inequalities are inevitable, but they shouldn’t arise due to the unfair distribution of social and economic opportunities. Rawl is right in suggesting that the social and economic opportunities should favor the most disadvantaged members of society; it’s fair enough. For example, a percentage of government tenders should be set aside for the youth, women, the physically challenged, and the poverty-stricken. On a global scale, there are issues with the application of social and economic equality.

Features of global economic justice.

Economic justice is the concept that an economy is more successful if it’s fairer. The behavior of economic and financial markets impact poverty, environmental degradation, economic gaps among states, and migration patterns, among others. (Jesuit General Curia in Rome, n.d.). The global economy should, therefore, be impartial. In a fairer global trade and economic justice system, both bilateral and multilateral trade agreements between and among states focus on free and fair trade among nations, values workers’ rights, and environmental protection. For instance, according to Rawls’ theory of justice, global trade should favor third world countries and the underprivileged in society for all nations.

Issues in the social justice system

Social justice issues are happening on a worldwide scale. Instances of inequality arise from prejudices or government legislations. The prejudices arise from bias related to age, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and nationality, among others. Also, an example of government legislation that can be biased is health care laws about insurance eligibility criteria. (“Social justice issues,” n.d.).

These issues cause inequality and exclusion that are detrimental to economic growth, social cohesion, and human progress. It’s essential to address these issues, pursue fair globalization, and make the world a better place. (“need for social justice,” n.d.).

The golden mean and eudemonia scenario

In 1924, a group of activists in Chicago led by Carl took to the streets for a demonstration. Their leader and a few others were arrested and arraigned in court. During the court proceedings, Carl’s defense team tabled evidence to prove that their activities were legal, but the police denied having given them the go-ahead. After many hours of a legal battle, Carl and his counterparts earned a six months jail term.

Carl believed that the purpose of life is to pursue happiness, and he had a moral obligation to help many achieve it. The state government had passed a law abolishing the use of cannabis, and his religious group believed that marijuana gave them the greatest joy; they asserted their right to hold religious views. Their efforts to air contrary views landed on deaf ears. From what he believed, a good deed is what brings happiness, and he knew that whatever he would do to help his team would be the right thing to do. He considered giving up but knew they’d lose the more. Also, he thought to disobey the orders blatantly but knew they’d confuse. Carl, finally, decided to apply the golden mean rule; to demonstrate but seek authorization. Nobody accessed court documents to explain why the court didn’t admit his evidence of police authorization; nonetheless, they served a sentence.

Questions:

1. Does the use of cannabis for happiness fulfill eudemonia theory?

No. Whereas marijuana gives short-term pleasure, it can lead to a negative health impact in the long run. Eudemonia theory applies where the outcome is real and lasting happiness

2. Were Carl’s actions of mobilizing and conducting a demonstration morally right?

No. Although it’s ethically right to act for the bliss of others, it’s right when what is perceived to bring joy indeed does. Besides, their actions were not within the confines of the law

3. Why do you think Carl lost the case?

Carl’s argument could have been about his ethical beliefs as opposed to the law. Besides, the subject of the case, cannabis, was an illegality that made both their moral and legal arguments null and void. Lastly, the denial by the police of having issued a permit was a blow to their case.

References

Constitutional Rights Foundation. (n.d.). Home. https://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-23-3-c-justice-as-fairness-john-rawls-and-his-theory-of-justice

(n.d.). The Jesuit General Curia in Rome. https://www.sjweb.info/documents/sjs/pj/docs_pdf/pj_121_eng.pdf

Justice (Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy). (n.d.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice/

Justice, western theories of. (n.d.). Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy | An encyclopedia of philosophy articles written by professional philosophers. https://www.iep.utm.edu/justwest/

The need for social justice. (n.d.). International Labour Organization. https://www.ilo.org/global/standards/introduction-to-international-labour-standards/need-for-social-justice/lang–en/index.htm

Social justice issues. (n.d.). The Pachamama Alliance – Bridging the Indigenous and Modern Worlds. https://www.pachamama.org/social-justice/social-justice-issues