The theory of justice theory research--essay代写范文

51Due论文代写平台essay代写范文:“The theory of justice theory research”，这篇论文主要描述的是正义是一个正面的概念，贯穿在社会的各个部分中，如社会的公正、互相利益分配的公正、人们所享受权利的公正等等，想要真正的达到公正就需要正确的看到理论的基础和在不同阶段的适用性，本文通过对税收政策的公正性研究来进行更深层次的探讨。

Do you think that a theory of justice should focus on the actual behavior of individuals or on ideal institutions. Explain your response with Reference to the principles of justice required? in both the case of: a) tax policy and b) murder for self-defense.'

Firstly, I will give an overview of the Theories of justice proposed by Bentham, Rawls and Sen, along with Sen's critique of Bentham and Rawls and I also look at the shortcomings of Sen's approach. Thereafter, I will use the capability framework of Sen to explain Tax policy and murder in self-defense.

社会公平理论-Theories of Social Justice

There are a number of theories regarding social justice and distributions of benefits, rights and opportunities. However, to understand them fully, we need to look at their foundation, advantages and applicability.

Jeremy Bentham's theory of Utilitarianism believed in fulfilling the utility of a person. By this he means, maximum happiness for the majority of the people. So, this theory is only concerned with the happiness of an individual and considers it as the goal, and other things are used to achieve happiness. Thus the society, government and laws are as good as the utility they produce. Mills suggests that if our actions produce pleasure then they are valid otherwise they are incorrect. One of the major shortcomings of this concept is that it does not take into account the implementation of human rights. Apart from this the significant focus is on attainment of highest utility. Due to it, actions or institutions are judged by the aggregate of the utilities produced. Consequently, inequality or poverty in a community is seen as sum total loss of utilities in comparison to the utilities which could have been created, due to which the citizens find themselves in a less pleasurable state, taken as an aggregate, than they might have been.

Sen supports this theory to the extent that it considers the outcomes of social organization when critiquing them, and also looks after the comfort of each person when critiquing social frame up. In addition, he says the theory is limited by its myopic approach, of taking utility as the sole aim in deciding the well-being of the society. As utility is not enough to help us understand destitution, and also does take into account into rights and entitlements, which are necessary to people to live the life they envision and find their existence meaningful. Sen further points out that this theory based on utility does not take in account of unfairness in the distribution of pleasure. As the emphasis is on aggregate utility, the allotment of this utility to individuals is excluded. Lastly, Sen feels that the sole focus on the psychological trait of people's happiness, is a very limited approach to fair justice, bylooking at happiness from the perspective to people who are different in their earnings, tradition, education, culture, religion etc, due to certain stereotypes are forced onto individuals to accommodate happiness, by limiting their desire, wants and needs, especially under adverse conditions.

罗尔斯的正义理论-Rawls Theory of Justice

The work of John Rawls is widely used in theories of justice, and through it, he suggested that there is a better way of looking at justice than utilitarian philosophy. His theory is based on the concept of justice as fairness. He does away with the idea of merit or deservingness as the just institutions will not be able to measure them, and therefore they are irrelevant to justice. He rather used social contract, which considers justice in various societal settings as way of arriving at consent between the various members of the society. The notion of contract is to suggest an ethical idea about the affinity between the individuals of a community and all of them are independent individuals who are obliged to share their independence with others. Rawls suggests that this social contract is built on an idea which assumes that a team of self concerned and logical administrators who act in an original position and from the veil of ignorance, which helps them to cover or not take into account their inherent benefits and position in the society, and make decisions keeping in mind the general well-being of the society and not particularly theirs, as once this veil is taken away, they are not sure of the difficulties or the riches which might come to them. The original position ensures impartiality and neutrality in all aspects of justice as fairness.

Rawls further says, that the individuals in the original position would decide on two conventions. The first law of justice is to be given preference over all other laws, is based on the premise that the equal fundamental rights is the prerogative of each member of the society. The second law of justice is about the equal allocation of social primary goods, also that any aberration in this law from equal distribution should be towards the betterment of the most poor in the society (difference principle). As per the Rawlsian framework of justice distribution is administered depending on the need and keeping in mind the equality of all citizens. Here the focus is on social primary goods of right to security, free speech, practice any religion, equal access to income and wealth etc, rather than the utilities. Here, the primary goods are those goods which every logical person would like to have, in order to live a better and a fulfilling life. Rawls also argued to have a preferential order of social goods, based on his first law of justice, and as per that, liberty is to be first, followed by need and then utility.

For Sen, the central shortcoming of Rawls approach is his sole concentration on the preferential order of social goods, and critiques the primary position given to liberty over rights and needs. He feels that this ranking where in liberty is the primary position and needs at the end, has to relooked, because at times fulfilling of certain needs (economic or social) can make a world of a difference to the people living in extreme poverty.

Therefore the point of contention for Sen is that Rawls is looking only on the fair allocation of the means and resources, and he is totallyoverlooking the fact that people have different abilities in using the same set of means. For e.g. my friends mother who is blind, is so restricted by her disability that even though she has the means and resources at her disposal, but is unable to realize her freedom through them.

森的正义理论-Sen's Theory of Justice

His approach at the theory of justice looks at only the access to the resources in fair share, but more importantly how people are able to use these to meet the objectives of their lives. In this model, called the capability approach, he looks at the personal traits which help people to convert primary goods to live their lives with dignity. So the aim is not just to take note of the ways in which people function, but also to examine the amount of liberty people have at their disposal and to nurture an environment where people are able to enlarge their freedom and relish equal competence. By studying capabilities we can learn more about the choices in hand to accomplish a life worth living. For eg. I have a car but still decide to walk to office compared to my maid who has no choice but to daily walk to several homes. The difference is that I have not only the access to have a car but also the freedom to whether use it or not, so therefore I have a better capability to live life and achieve my goals. Hence, it is not enough to have the primary goods or rights (in a Rawlsian sense) without the requisite freedom and capability to use them in a way that is meaningful to the person. The individual chooses this meaningful life out of his own free will and without any external coercion.

Sen, also points out to the connection between private and public domains of communities. Earlier the impacts of private disadvantages and gender inequalities in the formation of social justice were overlooked. The Rawlsian theory of justice ignores the allocation issues involving women, like the issues of distribution and fairness in a family. His work has immensely contributed to not only raising awareness about gender issues but forming indicators to measure gender imparities. The Gender Related Development Index and Gender Empowerment Measure are built using Sen's approach to justice and adopted by the United Nations Development Programme in resolving gender inequalities.

In spite of the great insight offered by Sen into social justice, his approach suffers from a number of anomalies as given below -

He does not give a specific list of the vital capabilities as he thinks how such a list would be decided upon and such a universal list may be inappropriate for a particular time and region. I agree here with Sen for the need to have a context specific list of capabilities.

Sen's focus of freedom of individuals is good, but I think that this freedom should not be at the cost of causing discomfort to others. For eg. I am free to speak, but if I am speaking too loudly or using obscene language, then such freedom has to be curbed. Our freedom should not limit the freedom of other individuals.

After looking at the above mentioned theories of justice and their advantages and disadvantages, I personally feel that the theory of justice should focus on the actual behavior of the individuals. The institutions are important but finally the institutions are not an end in themselves. It is finally the people who run the institutions. Also, in this dynamic world the equations of power are always in state of flux. The new world comprising of private corporations dictate the kind of life people are going to live and if people don't understand their time and space and its economic configuration, they will not be able to make proper decisions for the life they will value.

By the time a person is born, his / her access to nutrition, health, physical and emotional well-being etc, have already influenced his capabilities. In many states of India, especially the ones which have been successful with Green Revolution show a total disdain to the value of a girl's life, and therefore the girls have a very unfair opportunity to life due to undermined capabilities. In this respect, it is clear that every human on the face of this earth deserves a set of capabilities in the form of rights, freedom, entitlements and fulfillment of needs. Therefore it is a collective human obligation to look after one another. But at the same time things just can't be left to individuals, as there will be a lot of confusion if each person has his own way of deciding. Therefore it is efficient to have an institutional setup wherein individuals dispose their ethical responsibility of building capability through the institution.

I will elaborate my comments on the principles of justice required in the tax policy with the help of capabilities framework by using The Henry Tax Review, Australia which accepts the standard tax efficiency argument that 'all taxes and transfers affect the choices people and businesses make by altering their incentives to work, save, invest or consume'. It argues, therefore, that 'the tax and transfer system should raise and redistribute revenue at the least

possible cost to economic efficiency' by minimizing the effect on these choices (Treasury 2009b: Part 1 Box 2.1, 17)

This new taxation system in Australia tries to take care of the tax policy keeping in mind the capabilities approach, by proposing a certain fundamental income for all citizens and the function of society in guiding individuals to better capabilities. The taxation policy should be such that fosters better skills and thereby promoting the long term well beings of the society as a whole. The Review's final report states (Treasury 2009b: Part 1,19):5

In framing policies to alleviate disadvantage, a simple focus on the adequacy of income a€| has been replaced by broader goals that focus on lifetime income and the capacity of people to engage in work and other social activities. In particular,

there is greater awareness that assistance should not encourage short-term choices which compromise the development of capabilities that offer potential medium to long-term improvements in a person's wellbeing.

Therefore the principles of justice in tax policy formulation should concentrate on building the gender/age specific capabilities (shelter, employment, control of assets) of individuals, look at the long term wellbeing, ensure a fair allocation of cost and care for the disadvantaged and the elderly across the community. The tax policy can be fair and just by examining its impact on the working women, elderly and the poor and their capability to save. For example - In India the tax policy tries to promote gender equity by taxing women on a larger income earned compared to men. Similarly senior citizens are also exempt from paying higher rates of taxes.

The principles of justice required in the murder for self-defense has to look at the actual behavior of the individuals and under what circumstances the murder took place. Because I believe that we should use aggression to protect ourselves from a fanatic aggressor who is hell bent on killing us. For example - When the suicide bombers were at the Taj hotel in Mumbai looking for people whom they can gun down, the only way to stop them was to kill them. Capturing them is highly dangerous as they will detonate the bombs packed in their bodies. Therefore murder for self-defense is a right of not tolerating aggression and harm. Also taking the right of self-preservation, one has every authority to protect oneself against a deadly attack, even if it means murder. It comes from a moral right to protection from the state. Another example I would like to quote is the woman who is a victim of domestic violence, and marital rape, and the perpetrator in this case is the alcoholic husband, who has no reason to believe otherwise. In this the woman is not getting any protection or help from the state or the institutions and she is finally forced to protect herself by retaliation and due to which the husband loses his life. This was just the case of an individual what about the state when it retaliates to Maoists or intrusion of Pakistani army into Kargil. How is it that the state has complete authority on violence and what should individuals do in a situation where the state is non-existent or does not protect the individual ? When we have a right to kill an animal in self-defense, why should this be not the case when it comes to humans ?

51Due原创版权郑重声明：原创范文源自编辑创作，未经官方许可，网站谢绝转载。对于侵权行为，未经同意的情况下，51Due有权追究法律责任。

51due为留学生提供最好的服务，想获取更多essay代写范文，亲们可以进入主页 www.51due.com  为留学生提供essay代写服务，了解详情可以咨询我们的客服QQ:800020041哟。-xz