Justice Essay: Example and Tips

Examples of topics for justice essay

  • Comparison of the concept of justice in Plato and Aristotle
  • What is justice?
  • How to achieve justice for all?
  • Does justice exist in the world?
  • Justice and “social justice” – our example

Template of justice essay. Justice and “social justice”

Introduction

Justice is one of the values ​​that people consider important when doing economic activities. Justice refers exclusively to the interaction of a person with another person, and not to an aggregate value. Whatever agreements are voluntarily committed by two people who are motivated by their individual goals and tasks that operate on the basis of their knowledge, their implementation is fair.

Justice is a recognition of the fact that one can not forge the character of a person, nor can the nature be forged. People should be judged (form opinions about them) in the same way as about objects of inanimate nature. We must respect the truth, use the rational process of identification. Every person should be judged for what he is and treated accordingly. In the market, you do not pay for cheese with expiring shelf life as much as for a first-class one. You do not put a scoundrel above the hero. Your moral assessment is the coin that you pay people for their virtue and vice. This fee requires you to the same honesty of decency, which is required for financial transactions. To hide one’s contempt for the vices of others is to be a moral counterfeiter, and to hide one’s admiration for their virtue is to be a moral thief. The act of moral bankruptcy is to punish people for their virtues and reward vices. This is a drop leading to complete decay.

Main part

The ability to create is a person’s acceptance of morality. It is a recognition that the choice is life, that work is a process through which a person’s consciousness governs his existence, the process of constant processing of knowledge. A mutually beneficial, voluntary exchange of values ​​(each participant of the process himself determines his own profit based on his priorities and information) – this is fair, this represents justice. The implementation of agreements is fair. Recognition of the truth is just.

Problems for economists arise when they talk about social justice. In fact, there is no such thing in nature. This is only a verbal metaphor, which has a certain meaning. “Social justice” is used as a moral cover for various forms of state interventionism: progressive taxation, licensing, quoting, price regulation, subsidies, etc. Interventionists talk about a “just society”, while everyone puts something of their own into this notion. Bureaucrats compete for the right to define this concept and legitimize its content of the notion of “social justice”.

The most famous manifestation of a just society is the concept of positivist rights: the right to housing, rest, education, medical care, etc. The provision of these services can certainly be the goal of economic policy, but it is extremely difficult to justify their existence on the basis of justice. The problem is that the achievement of these rights requires the commission of unjust actions against others. The only way to guarantee a minimum level of certain services or goods is to tax others. Taxation is the source of a huge number of unjust actions. Why are people who, for moral or religious reasons, are opponents of abortion, have to pay taxes in order for someone to do them? Pension insurance is also a typical example of unfair social and economic relations. Taxation of existing businesses in the name of creating additional workers’ pest by the state is another manifestation of injustice.

Social justice is filled with content that contradicts individual justice. Legislation on labor, consumer protection, on antimonopoly legislation, on numerous social programs, not to mention the crude form of interventionism in the form of inflation and devaluation – all these are examples of laws and regulations that are unfair, from the point of view of an individual person.

Let us consider law and right as a source of injustice and inequality. The concept of rights is originally a legal concept. In most European languages, the term “law” is identical to the term “right” and “justice”. The Latin jus, the French droit, the Italian diritto, the Spanish derecho, the German Recht denote as a legal right, which binds each person and the legal right of man as such. Law and Right are two sides of the same coin. All rights to private property flow from the legal order. The legal order is the sum of all rights and laws. When a person talks about his right, he talks about the demand for something. The very concept of the legal right of one person implies an obligation for the other. If the creditor is entitled to a certain amount of money, the borrower has an obligation to pay it. If you have the right to freedom of speech or property at home, everyone has an obligation to respect it. The legal right for me means a legal obligation for others not to violate it. Among almost universally recognized rights, one can cite the example of the right to defend against arbitrary arrest, from attack, from intrusion into an apartment, the right of ownership, the right to compensation for damages inflicted by another person, the right to fulfill contractual obligations, and many others.

Neither legally nor morally can one oppose property rights and human rights (property rights, strictly speaking, are exactly the same human rights.) Relations and interactions can only be between people. The right of ownership of a car or a piece of land is given to me. This means not only that the seller has made a personal commitment to sell you these things, but that each person is obliged to recognize these things by my.

Conclusion

During the 20th century, the concept of “natural rights” and human rights expanded. An example of the extension of rights are the proposals of T. Roosevelt in 1941: “freedom from want in the whole world” (freedom from want) and “freedom from fear in the whole world.” Freedom of speech and religion is the freedom to do something. And Roosevelt’s proposed rights are freedom from something. They mean that someone must provide them. The most basic question: “WHO should provide them?”

Another example of demand for rights is the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948. It states that “everyone has the right to rest, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic paid holidays.” The same can be said with regard to “the right to a minimum standard of living”, “the right to decent wages”, “to work”, “to education”, even to comfortable living, the right to a satisfactory job (right to satisfactory job), the right to good education. These rights are called pseudo-rights, because they assume someone’s duty to satisfy them. The adoption of such a concept of rights as a legal framework leads to the restriction of personal freedom and is unfair.