Online research in philosophy

Introduction -- The starting point : Aristotle's classification of justice -- High scholastics -- Late scholastics -- A special theological problem : divine justice -- Jewish commentators -- Post scholastic writers -- The modern use of Aristotle's forms of justice.

The main aim of this paper is to challenge the validity of the distinction between legal justice and social justice. It is argued that what we usually call legal justice is either an application of the more fundamental notion of social justice to legal rules and decisions or is not a matter of justice at all. In other words, the only correct uses of the notion of legal justice are derivative from the notion of social justice and, hence, the alleged conflicts between criteria of social and legal justice result from the confusion about the proper relationship between these two concepts. Two views about the social justice/legal justice dichotomy are of particular importance and will provide the focus for the argument: this dichotomy is sometimes identified with a classical distinction between distributive and commutative justice and sometimes with the distinction between substantive and procedural justice.

A liberal society seeks not to impose a single way of life, but to leave its citizens as free as possible to choose their own values and ends. It therefore must govern by principles of justice that do not presuppose any particular vision of the good life. But can any such principles be found? And if not, what are the consequences for justice as a moral and political ideal? These are the questions Michael Sandel takes up in this penetrating critique of contemporary liberalism. Sandel locates modern liberalism in the tradition of Kant, and focuses on its most influential recent expression in the work of John Rawls. In the most important challenge yet to Rawls' theory of justice, Sandel traces the limits of liberalism to the conception of the person that underlies it, and argues for a deeper understanding of community than liberalism allows.

As part of the South Carolina Law Review's symposium on the Roberts Court and Equal Protection, this essay looks at Justice Kennedy's sex discrimination jurisprudence. With the new Court, it's natural to be concerned with how the two new Justices might vote in upcoming sex discrimination cases. However, in this essay, I assume what has been the case so far from Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito - that they are reliable votes joining Justices Scalia and Thomas on the Court's more conservative wing. The Justice most people should focus on now is Justice Kennedy, the new median Justice now that Justice O'Connor has retired. This essay seeks to analyze Justice Kennedy's sex discrimination jurisprudence and draw conclusions about his thoughts on sex and gender. First, it reviews the cases involving sex discrimination that Justice Kennedy has participated in while on the Court and shows that he has been a fairly consistent vote against sex discrimination claims. Second, it analyzes Justice Kennedy's votes and opinions in sex discrimination cases and attempt to summarize his views. Finally, the essay evaluates Justice Kennedy's conceptions of gender in his opinions and votes. The essay concludes that Justice Kennedy's new role as median Justice is troubling for sex equality jurisprudence generally and constitutional sex discrimination cases specifically, as Justice Kennedy has shown a tendency, in the many cases arising in the parent/child context, to adhere to traditional and paternalistic gender roles.

Introduction: the foundation of justice -- Practical reason and justifying reasons: on the foundation of morality -- Moral autonomy and the autonomy of morality: toward a theory of normativity after Kant -- Ethics and morality -- The justification of justice: Rawls's political liberalism and Habermas's discourse theory in dialogue -- Political liberty: integrating five conceptions of autonomy -- A critical theory of multicultural toleration -- The rule of reasons: three models of deliberative democracy -- Social justice, justification, and power -- The basic right to justification: toward a constructivist conception of human rights -- Constructions of transnational justice: comparing John Rawls's the law of peoples and Otfried Höffe's democracy in an age of globalisation -- Justice, morality, and power in the global context -- Toward a critical theory of transnational justice.

Justice and Christian Ethics is a study in the meaning and foundations of justice in modern society. Written from a theological perspective, its focus is upon the interaction of religion and law in their common pursuit of justice. Consideration is given, first, to the historical roots of justice in the classical tradition of virtue (Aristotle and Aquinas) and in the biblical ideas of covenant and the righteousness of God. Subsequent chapters trace the relationships between justice, law, and virtue in Puritanism, in Locke, and in the founding documents of the American Republic in the late eighteenth century. In his concluding section, the author develops a covenantal interpretation of justice which includes both law and virtue, both human rights and the common good. Special attention is given to the pluralistic character of modern political societies; to criteria of distributive justice; and to religious resources for the renewal and transformation of justice.

Machine generated contents note: Introduction. -- Prologue: From the Standard Model to a Sense of Justice. -- 1: The Terrain of Justice. -- 2: Teleology and Tutelage in Plato's Republic. -- 3: Aristotle's Theory of Justice. -- 4: From Nature to Artifice: Aristotle to Hobbes. -- 5: The Emergence of Utility. -- 6: Kant's Theory of Justice. -- 7: The Idea of Social Justice. -- 8: The Theory of Justice as Fairness. -- Epilogue: From Social Justice to Global Justice? -- Source Notes. -- Glossary of Names. -- Index.

People currently regard justice as the main principle of institutions and society, while in ancient Greek people took it as the virtue of citizens. This article analyzes Aristotle’s virtue of justice in his method of virtue ethics, discussing the nature of virtue, how justice is the virtue of citizens, what kind of virtue the justice of citizens is, and the prospect of the virtue of justice against a background of institutional justice. Since virtue can be said to be a specific individual character, Aristotle also defines the virtue of justice as the character of justice, with which citizens act justly and desire to do what is just. The virtue of justice is also an individual ethical virtue, differing from others for it is at the same time a social ethic. We can call the virtue of justice a “non-individual individual ethical virtue.” It has been explained as between pure altruism and egoism, which is a wrong explanation. John Rawls regards justice as the first virtue of social institutions, challenging Aristotle’s virtue of justice, an assertion which also needs further deliberation.

Does justice require that individuals get what they deserve? Serena Olsaretti brings together new essays by leading moral and political philosophers examining the relation between desert and justice; they also illuminate the nature of distributive justice, and the relationship between desert and other values, such as equality and responsibility.

Introduction: Doing the right thing -- Utilitarianism : Bentham and J.S. Mill -- Libertarianism -- John Locke -- Markets and morals -- Immanuel Kant -- John Rawls -- Affirmative action -- Aristotle -- Liberals and communitarians -- Conclusion: Reconnecting politics and morals.