Justice Study Guide

📖 Core Concepts Justice – fair treatment of individuals; “render to each his due.” Distributive Justice – concerns what is allocated, to whom, and how (goods, burdens, opportunities). Retributive Justice – backward‑looking; punishment matches the offender’s moral desert. Restorative Justice – forward‑looking; repairs harms for victims, offenders, and community. Utilitarian Justice – evaluates actions by their consequences; aims to maximize overall welfare. Natural Law – universal moral principles discoverable by reason; contrast with Positive Law (human‑made rules). Social Contract – justice arises from a mutually agreed set of rules among members of society. Rawlsian “Justice as Fairness” – two principles: (1) equal basic liberties; (2) inequalities benefit the least‑advantaged (difference principle). Proportionality – rewards/punishments correspond to the merit or gravity of actions. Equality vs. Equity – equality = same treatment; equity = fairness accounting for differing needs/starting points. --- 📌 Must Remember Classical Definition (Justinian): “the constant and perpetual will to render to each his due.” Rawls’s Two Principles: Equal basic liberties for all. Social/economic inequalities permissible only if they improve the position of the worst‑off and attach to offices open to all. Nozick’s Property‑Rights Criterion: A distribution is just iff every holding results from just acquisition and just transfer. Proportionality Principle: Punishment ∝ seriousness of wrongdoing (ancient & modern legal doctrine). Big Two Model of Justice: Perceived justice = Agency (control over outcomes) + Communion (sense of belonging). Euthyophro Dilemma: Is something good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good? “Justice delayed is justice denied.” – Timely legal processes are a core justice requirement. --- 🔄 Key Processes Rawls’s Veil of Ignorance Thought Experiment Imagine original position behind a veil that hides personal attributes. Choose principles of justice that are fair to all because you could be anyone. Utilitarian Cost‑Benefit Evaluation List possible actions → estimate total welfare impact → select action that maximizes overall utility. Restorative Justice Cycle Victim‑offender dialogue → acknowledgment of harm → agreement on restitution/reintegration → follow‑up support. Proportional Sentencing Framework Assess gravity of offense → match with severity of sanction → consider mitigating/aggravating factors. --- 🔍 Key Comparisons Distributive vs. Retributive Justice Distributive: forward‑looking, allocation of resources. Retributive: backward‑looking, punishment for past wrongdoing. Rawls (Equality of Opportunity) vs. Nozick (Entitlement Theory) Rawls: emphasizes fairness, may justify redistribution. Nozick: focuses on historical acquisition, rejects redistribution as theft. Utilitarian Justice vs. Deontological (Natural Law) Justice Utilitarian: ends justify means; measures success by overall welfare. Natural Law: certain rights are inviolable regardless of consequences. Agency vs. Communion (Big Two Model) Agency: personal control, autonomy. Communion: relational belonging, shared values. --- ⚠️ Common Misunderstandings “Justice = Equality” – Equality (same treatment) is not always just; equity may require different treatment to achieve fairness. “Utilitarian = No Moral Constraints” – Utilitarianism still respects rights when they affect overall welfare; it is not “anything goes.” “Retribution = Revenge” – Retribution is a principled, proportionate response, not arbitrary vengeance. “Natural Law = Religious Doctrine” – Natural law is grounded in reason and universal human nature, not necessarily tied to a specific faith. --- 🧠 Mental Models / Intuition “Scale Model” – Imagine a balance scale: distributive adds weights (goods) to each side; retributive adds counterweights (punishment) matching the tilt caused by the wrongdoing. “Veil of Ignorance” – Pretend you are blindfolded to your own status; any principle you pick must be safe for the worst‑off because you could be them. “Agency‑Communion Lens” – When assessing a justice claim, ask: Does the victim feel control is restored? Does the community feel a sense of shared values? --- 🚩 Exceptions & Edge Cases Positive Law Override – In emergencies, positive law may temporarily suspend certain natural‑law rights (e.g., wartime curfews). Nozick’s “Lockean Proviso” – Acquisition is just only if “enough and as good” is left for others; otherwise it violates entitlement. Rawls’s Difference Principle – Only applies to social and economic inequalities, not to political or civil rights. --- 📍 When to Use Which Choose Rawlsian analysis when the question asks about fair principles for a society or distribution under uncertainty. Apply Nozick’s theory when evaluating property‑rights claims or legitimacy of redistribution. Use Utilitarian calculus for policy‑level decisions focusing on overall welfare (e.g., sentencing for deterrence). Employ Restorative Justice steps when the problem highlights victim needs and community healing. Invoke Proportionality when assessing punishment severity or reward allocation. --- 👀 Patterns to Recognize “Who gets what & why?” → Distributive justice question. “Past wrong → future penalty?” → Retributive focus. “Maximize net benefit?” → Utilitarian framing. “Victim empowerment & community repair?” → Restorative approach. “Equality of outcome vs. opportunity?” → Spot equity vs. equality debates. “Agency + Communion missing?” → Likely a Big Two model critique. --- 🗂️ Exam Traps Distractor: “Justice is only about equal outcomes.” – Wrong; justice often requires equitable processes or opportunities. Distractor: “Utilitarian justice ignores rights.” – Misleading; rights are incorporated if they affect total welfare. Distractor: “Nozick supports any redistribution if it benefits the poor.” – Incorrect; Nozick rejects redistribution that isn’t the result of voluntary transfer. Distractor: “Retribution equals revenge.” – Confuses moral proportionality with emotional retaliation. Distractor: “Natural law always aligns with positive law.” – False; they can diverge, especially when human statutes conflict with moral principles. ---