is j. rawls' book "a theory of justice" a social contract and why?
370638
yes, it's a great work in the tradition of social contract theory. you should also read his book Political Liberalism.
432479
I define justice as when someone is caught and convicted of the crimes in which they commited to society.
19417
Review from Amazon dot com:\n\n"Gottfredson and Hirschi's theory of crime commission rests upon basic mostly unstated assumptions about human nature that people are essentially born selfish and with the desires to seek out pleasure and avoid pain. It is only through socialization that we learn how to control these impulses and delay gratification, so we can seek pleasure through society's legitimate means and avoid harming others. It is no surprise that they develop their definition of crime around this idea: "acts of force or fraud undertaken in the pursuit of self-interest." (p. 15).\n\n"There are, of course, several things wrong with this definition. They examine in their book behavior that does not meet this definition, such as drug use (not an act of force or fraud, although it fits the normally-conceived definition of a "crime" as being "illegal"). Furthermore, not all crimes are undertaken in the pursuit of self-interest (or at least ONLY in self-interest), for example, altruistic crimes and civil disobedience.\n\n"While studies that have actually tested it show it to be an important theory, many use behavioral measures lack external validity: they measure low self-control with the dependent variable itself by saying we can recognize people who have low self-control by their crimes and vise versa. This is a circular argument. Other studies question whether self-control is truly stable throughout the life course, which is one of the major premises of the book.\n\n"It's an interesting conceptual idea, but the theory as laid out in this book alone is hardly the "general theory of crime."\n\nReviewer:\nK. Hefley "ksuzy" (Oklahoma City, OK United States)
790281
Yes, based on polling data, civil unrest, interpersonal moods, etc.\n\nSomeone wrote a scholarly work on that, just a few months ago. I don't remember the person's name, but they were interviewed on the Daily Show. The book had a big "J" on the cover, and dealt with the ways to measure the stability of a society, relative to its current political and social climate.
758715
Suppose that once upon a time there was a country where in good deeds were rewarded by a free market system with wealth, status, and power. Suppose that there was a contest between families to determine whose family could do the most good. Suppose after about 400 years most of the wealth, status and power was concentrated into the hands of those families who won this contest presumably by doing the most good. Suppose that after reviewing 400 years of history the vast majority of the inhabitants of this country realized that this contest was unfair to certain families because of their ethnic background or simply because of the colour of their skin. Suppose that for almost 300 years certain families were never compensated for the good deeds they had done because their labor was stolen from them by institutionalized slavery. Suppose that for about 100 years after that these same families were discriminated against; were denied fair and equal access to wealth, status and power; and continued to be denied the opportunity to compete fairly in the this contest to do good. Suppose that members of these very same families volunteered to serve their country in times of war and died for their country. Would you as an inhabitant of this country wish to do something to address this social injustice? Would you as an inhabitant of this country wish to win this contest to do good fair and square or would you be satisfied with being from a family that cheated by having a 400 year head start? As I understand it, Affirmative Action is doing something to address 400 years of social injustice suffered by certain families due to institutionalized slavery and or the denial of fair and equal access to wealth, status and power.
64494
Yes, I read it. Objectivism is absurd, we live in a society and depend on society for our substistence, we can not turn our back to society as she proposes.
46968
It's very close.  I mean, by definition people in a society are not 'free'.  They all agree through social contracts and constructs to limit their behavior to the de facto 'rules'.  People can't be allowed to go running around doing just whatever they want.
863000
Well, that is the ultimate goal of a true libertarian.\n\nI think not.\n\nLaws were created in part to define the culture and provide an environment wherein the humans can work together even though they have their own, sometimes contradictory objections.\n\nLaws are often created to help the society flourish, and are a compromise between absolute freedom and a workable social structure.\n\n\nNamaste.
826821
It depends on your point of view. \n\nIf you believe the ends justify the means, then yes -  it would be an ideal solution. There's some correlation to some laws today. Terrorism laws in general. Most Americans accept or tolerate their emails/phone calls being recorded in the hopes of catching the .001% who might do harm.\n\nThere's a bigger philosophical issue, though. Is it truly a society free of crime or merely free of expression? The above scenario removes free-will from the equasion. People are forcibly prevented from thinking/doing what is deemed illegal. Without the ability to make mistakes, you elimate the ability to learn from your mistakes. If you can't even consider doing something, you can't weigh the consequences.\n\nAdd to that a lot of our laws and moral absolutes have exceptions. Would you steal bread to feed your starving family? Your example does not address the grey area of law. By criminalizing thought, you make everybody a criminal even if they haven't actually harmed another.\n\nHope that adds something,\nOdd
694651
Justice is a public good in the interests of the whole of society, the costs should be borne by society as a whole until wrong-doing is proved, at which point the costs should be put to the account of the wrong-doer.  The onus must always be on the prosecution to prove wrong-doing, not on the accused to prove innocence.
657072
Sort of speaks for it's self.\nPierre-Joseph Proudhon is commonly regarded as the first self-proclaimed anarchist, a label he adopted in his ground breaking work What is Property?, published in 1840. It is for this reason that some claim Proudhon as the founder of modern anarchist theory.[citation needed] Although his work was preceded by that of Josiah Warren, William Godwin, and others, none of them had identified themselves as anarchists. In What is Property? Proudhon answers with the famous accusation "Property is theft." In this work he opposed the institution of decreed "property" (propriété), where owners have complete rights to "use and abuse" their property as they wish, such as exploiting workers for profit.[12] At first, Proudhon starkly contrasted what he called 'possession' - limited rights to use resources, capital and goods in accordance with principles of equality and justice - with existing forms of 'property.'\n\nHis opposition He apposed capitalism, the state and organised religion inspired subsequent anarchists and made him one of the leading socialist thinkers of his time.
447264
The adverserial legal system is governed by rules of conduct and engagement imposed on both parties. In that sense it is ethical as it provides a structure for "fair play". However, a lawyer's job is to win a case hor his/her client. Taking advantage of loopholes in the law is one way to beat the otherside. In some cases, this may not be ethical. Nevertheless, the legal process that we have provides the best way to redress a wrong since a party that feels its claim was not handled well/fairly within the scope of the law, can in some cases seek further action through the appelate courts. This is as good as it gets folks! The alternative would be Hamurarbbi's Sheria/Law, where justice is meted out in the form of chopping off body parts.
416759
It becomes an issue of public priority. There is an underlying American opinion that your supposed to be able to make it on your own if you work hard enough (even though this is some times a very silly theory in praxis). So theres a general discontent for things which some people see as freerider type things. You could argue there is probably a lack of empathy as many people favor as little government as possible by cutting social safety net programs for the poor. When people keep blaming the victim, these type of injustices occur. Not to mention there are quite a few government expenses that are on the board right now, so people who see us in a defecit think, well now certainly isnt the time to help these people out. It is certainly frusterating and sad but its a part of the american psyche and probably wont change any time soon.
563931
www.millenniumpromise.org\n\nAlso, I highly recommend reading "The End of Poverty," by Jeffrey Sachs.  He's an economist and a big wheel at the UN and also a professor at Columbia University.  I got the book out of the library just to have something to read.  I wasn't expecting much.  I stayed up until 4:00 a.m. reading, got a little sleep and finished the book at midnight.
467072
i've only read the handmaid's tale.  that is a futuristic tale where the united states has become controlled by religious fundamentalists.  women become the property of men because if you interpret the bible literally it is a quite sexist document where women are literally the property of men.\n\none idea from that novel might be that men use the bible and religion as a way to subjugate women.  or that the bible was written at a time when women were treated badly and that it is absurd to use that book as a way to guide behavior between men and women today.\n\nche was a socialist of course.  a socialist believes that the state should control all means of production (i.e. all the factories).  whatever wealth is generated by the means of production should be distributed equally among all people.\n\nin the united states we are a capitalist country where private citizens (i.e. bill gates) own factories and whatever they sell they make profits from and they keep all the profits themselves.\n\nso the big philosophy that che had would be:  the state should create all goods and distribute the profits among everyone equally.\n\nhe would also believe that all people are equal and should ahve equal rights and that everyone deserves a good and free education and free medical care.\n\nyou might want to just google: che philosophy for more...
678400
The upholding of the rights of criminals is the paradox of justice. Perhaps if people just adhered to the lex talionis we should not have so many ciminals and terrorists now. The lex talionis says "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." But some philosophers injected the idea that "The law of an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind." \n\nSo here we are gripped by man's inability to see the distinction between real justice and justice denied.
151258
war theory deals with the justification of how and why wars are fought. The justification can be either theoretical or historical. The theoretical aspect is concerned with ethically justifying war and forms of warfare. The historical aspect, or the “just war tradition” deals with the historical body of rules or agreements applied (or at least existing) in various wars across the ages. For instance international agreements such as the Geneva and Hague conventions are historical rules aimed at limiting certain kinds of warfare. It is the role of ethics to examine these institutional agreements for their philosophical coherence as well as to inquire into whether aspects of the conventions ought to be changed.