Become a Writer Today

Essays About Justice: Top 5 Examples and 7 Prompts

Discover our guide with examples of essays about justice and prompts for your essay writing and discuss vital matters relating to a person’s or nation’s welfare. 

Justice, in general, refers to the notion that individuals get what they deserve. It includes fundamental moral values ​​in law and politics and is considered an act of fairness, equality, and honesty. Four types of justice deal with how victims can solicit a verdict. They are procedural, distributive, retributive, and restorative. There are many pieces with justice as the subject. It’s because justice is a broad subject encompassing many human values.

5 Essay Examples

1. juvenile justice system of usa essay by anonymous on ivypanda.com, 2. wrongful convictions in criminal justice system by anonymous on gradesfixer.com, 3. racial profiling within the criminal justice system by anonymous on papersowl.com, 4. criminal justice: the ban-the-box law by anonymous on ivypanda.com, 5. the special needs of the criminal justice on mental illness cases by anonymous on gradesfixer.com, 1. what is justice, 2. is justice only for the rich and powerful, 3. the importance of justice, 4. the justice system in mainstream media, 5. justice: then vs. now, 6. justice system around the world, 7. obstructions to justice.

“No doubt, familiarity about the nature of juvenile crimes and how juvenile justice structures function across the world will offer an insight to policy makers, social scientists and for gullible citizens. Thus, a comparative analysis will throw light on how well or how poorly one nation is exercising relative to other nations.”

The essay delves into the justice system process for teenagers who are 18 years and below who commit wrongful acts. Most teenagers involved in juvenile crimes do not have a strong foundation or parental support. The author also talks about the treatments, boot camps, and retreat houses available for teenagers serving in juvenile prisons.

The ever-increasing number of juvenile crimes in the world reflects the mismanagement and lack of juvenile courts, sentencing programs, rehabilitation, and age-appropriate treatment. The writer believes that if mistrials remain in the juvenile system, the problem will continue. They suggest that the government must initiate more system reforms and provide juvenile offenders with proper ethical education.

“The justice system is composed of various legal groups and actors, making a miscarriage possible at any stage of the legal process, or at the hands of any legal actor. Eyewitness error, police misconduct, or falsification of evidence are examples of factors that may lead to a wrongful conviction.”

In this essay, the author uses various citations that show the justice system’s flaws in the process and criteria of its rulings. It further discusses the different instances of unfair judgments and mentions that at least 1% of all convicts serving prison time were wrongfully accused. 

The writer believes that changing the way of addressing different cases and ensuring that all legal professionals do their assigned duties will result in fair justice. You might also be interested in these essays about choice .

“Here in the 21st century, we don’t exactly have ‘Black Codes’ we have what is known as Racial Profiling. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) defines racial profiling as ‘the discriminatory practice by law enforcement officials of targeting individuals for suspicion of crime based on the individual’s race ethnicity, religion or national origin.’”

This essay investigates the involvement of race in the criminal justice system, whether they are victims or perpetrators. The author claims that some law enforcement officers mistreat and misjudge people because of their race and presents various cases as evidence of these discriminatory actions. One example is the case of an unarmed black teenager, Jordan Edwards , who was shot because former officer Roy Oliver thought his partner was in danger.

Unfortunately, law enforcement officials use their power and position in society to deny any act of racial profiling, rendering the said law useless. The author declares that while their paper may not prove racial bias in the criminal justice system, they can prove that a person’s color plays a role and can cause harm.

“I think the Ban-the-Box law is the best way of creating employment opportunities for ex-convicts without discrimination. Criminal offenses vary in the degree of the crime, making it unfair to treat all ex-convicts the same. Moreover, some felons learn from their mistakes during detention and parole, creating a better and law-abiding citizen with the ability to work faithfully.”

The essay explains how ex-convicts or current convicts are consistently discriminated against. This discrimination affects their lives even after serving their sentence, especially in their rights to vote and work. 

Regarding job hunting, the author believes the Ban-the-Box law will effectively create more employment opportunities. The law allows employers to see an ex-convict’s skills rather than just their record.  The essay concludes with a reminder that everyone is entitled to a civil right to vote, while private enterprises are free to run background checks. 

“Case management focuses on incorporating key elements that focus on improving the wellbeing of individuals that are being assessed. Mental illness within the criminal justice system is treated as a sensitive issue that requires urgent intervention in order to ensure that an inmate is able to recover.”

This essay pries into one of the most delicate areas of ruling in the justice system, which is leading mentally ill convicts. Offenders who were deemed mentally ill should be able to receive particular treatments for their health while serving time. 

The author mentions that every country must be able to provide mental health services for the inmates to prevent conflicts inside the prison. In conclusion, they suggest that reviewing and prioritizing policies related to mental illness is the best solution to the issue.

Are you interested in writing about mental illnesses? Check out our guide on how to write essays about depression.

7 Prompts for Essays About Justice

Essays About Justice: What is justice?

Justice is a vast subject, and its literal meaning is the quality of being just. This process often occurs when someone who has broken the law gets what they should, whether freedom or punishment. Research and discuss everything there is to know about justice so your readers can fully understand it. Include a brief history of its origins, types, and uses.

Several situations prove that justice is only for the rich. One of the main reasons is the expensive court fees. Research why victims settle outside the court or just let their abusers get away with crimes.

Include data that proves justice is a luxury where the only ones who can ask for equal treatment are those with resources—present situations or well-known cases to support your statements. On the other hand, you can also provide counter-arguments such as government programs that help financially-challenged individuals.

Every citizen has the right to be protected and treated fairly in court. Explain the importance of justice to a person, society, and government. Then, add actual cases of how justice is applied to encourage reform or chaos. Include relevant cases that demonstrate how justice impacts lives and legal changes, such as the case of Emmett Till .

Talk about how justice is usually depicted on screen and how it affects people’s expectations of how the justice system works. Popular television shows such as Suits and Law and Order are examples of the justice system being portrayed in the media. Research these examples and share your opinion on whether movies or television portray the justice system accurately or not.

In this essay, research how justice worldwide has changed. This can include looking at legal systems, human rights, and humanity’s ever-changing opinions. For instance, child labor was considered normal before but is viewed as an injustice today. List significant changes in justice and briefly explain why they have changed over time. You might also be interested in these essays about violence .

Essays About Justice: Justice system around the world

Countries have different ways of instilling justice within their societies. For this prompt, research and discuss the countries you think have the best and worst legal systems. Then, point out how these differences affect the country’s crime rates and quality of life for its citizens.

Examine why people tend to take justice into their hands, disobey legal rules, or give up altogether. It can be because seeking justice is an arduous process resulting in emotional and financial burdens. Often, this occurs when a person feels their government is not providing the support they need. Take a look at this social issue, and discuss it in your essay for a strong argumentative. 

If you are interested in learning more, check out our essay writing tips !

essay writing on justice

Maria Caballero is a freelance writer who has been writing since high school. She believes that to be a writer doesn't only refer to excellent syntax and semantics but also knowing how to weave words together to communicate to any reader effectively.

View all posts

Home — Essay Samples — Law, Crime & Punishment — Judiciary — Justice

one px

Essays on Justice

Hook examples for justice essays, anecdotal hook.

Step into a courtroom, where the pursuit of justice unfolds before our eyes. As the gavel strikes and decisions are made, the impact of justice reverberates through society. Join me on a journey to explore the complexities and significance of justice.

Quotation Hook

""Justice delayed is justice denied."" These words, attributed to William E. Gladstone, emphasize the importance of timely and fair justice. Let's delve into the profound implications of justice in our world.

Justice and Human Rights Hook

Justice and human rights are inextricably linked. Explore how the concept of justice intersects with the protection of fundamental human rights, shaping our understanding of justice on a global scale.

Historical Perspectives on Justice Hook

Justice has evolved over centuries, often in response to historical events and societal changes. Delve into the historical context of justice, from ancient legal systems to pivotal moments in the fight for civil rights.

Justice in the Legal System Hook

Justice is a cornerstone of the legal system. Analyze the principles and mechanisms that underpin justice in legal proceedings, from the presumption of innocence to the role of juries in delivering verdicts.

Social Justice and Equity Hook

Justice extends beyond legal proceedings to issues of social justice and equity. Investigate how societies address inequality, discrimination, and the pursuit of a more just and equitable world.

Modern Challenges in Justice Hook

Justice remains a pressing concern in the modern world. Explore contemporary challenges and debates surrounding justice, including issues related to criminal justice reform, restorative justice, and access to justice.

Kwl Analysis on Justice

The concept of justice, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

What is The True Definition of Justice?

Different types of justice and ways that the term might be defined, justice: what’s the right thing to do by michael j. sandel, poverty and the existing gap between the rich and poor, let us write you an essay from scratch.

  • 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
  • Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Law, Justice and Judicial Power

Analysis of the concept of justice from plato’s point of view, martin luther king's speech: 'i have a dream', injustice in treatment of disabled people in society, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

The Juvenile Justice System as a Major Concern of Law Enforcement

Political and social injustice in america, guilty or not guilty: the delicate balance of seeking for justice in 12 angry men, american criminal justice system: the different stages of an arrest, religion and critical thinking: a union created by dostoyevsky, criminal liability: insanity and automatism, analysis of the shared relationship between ‘the press’ and ‘liberty’, what is the difference between restorative and retributive justice, the survival of the middle passage: the path to justice, respect for the law and how it can be achieved, comparison of restorative and retributive/punitive justice, the nature of us civil justice system in a civil action by jonathan harr, the moral issue of torture and war crimes, the case of lagrand brothers, a landmark case of dollree mapp in the american justice system, review on a judicial management, the  procedure for compounding, an analysis of the differences between the british and american criminal justice systems, contrast liability in tort with contractual liability, court case analysis: malloy vs hogan.

Justice, in its broadest sense, is the principle that people receive that which they deserve, with the interpretation of what then constitutes "deserving" being impacted upon by numerous fields, with many differing viewpoints and perspectives, including the concepts of moral correctness based on ethics, rationality, law, religion, equity and fairness.

Relevant topics

  • Animal Cruelty
  • Serial Killer
  • War on Drugs
  • Domestic Violence
  • School Shooting
  • Drunk Driving
  • Child Abuse

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

  • Instructions Followed To The Letter
  • Deadlines Met At Every Stage
  • Unique And Plagiarism Free

essay writing on justice

SEP home page

  • Table of Contents
  • Random Entry
  • Chronological
  • Editorial Information
  • About the SEP
  • Editorial Board
  • How to Cite the SEP
  • Special Characters
  • Advanced Tools
  • Support the SEP
  • PDFs for SEP Friends
  • Make a Donation
  • SEPIA for Libraries
  • Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

  • Friends PDF Preview
  • Author and Citation Info
  • Back to Top

The idea of justice occupies centre stage both in ethics, and in legal and political philosophy. We apply it to individual actions, to laws, and to public policies, and we think in each case that if they are unjust this is a strong, maybe even conclusive, reason to reject them. Classically, justice was counted as one of the four cardinal virtues (and sometimes as the most important of the four); in modern times John Rawls famously described it as ‘the first virtue of social institutions’ (Rawls 1971, p.3; Rawls, 1999, p.3). We might debate which of these realms of practical philosophy has first claim on justice: is it first and foremost a property of the law, for example, and only derivatively a property of individuals and other institutions? But it is probably more enlightening to accept that the idea has over time sunk deep roots in each of these domains, and to try to make sense of such a wide-ranging concept by identifying elements that are present whenever justice is invoked, but also examining the different forms it takes in various practical contexts. This article aims to provide a general map of the ways in which justice has been understood by philosophers, past and present.

We begin by identifying four core features that distinguish justice from other moral and political ideas. We then examine some major conceptual contrasts: between conservative and ideal justice, between corrective and distributive justice, between procedural and substantive justice, and between comparative and non-comparative justice. Next we turn to questions of scope: to who or what do principles of justice apply? We ask whether non-human animals can be subjects of justice, whether justice applies only between people who already stand in a particular kind of relationship to one another, and whether individual people continue to have duties of justice once justice-based institutions have been created. We then examine three overarching theories that might serve to unify the different forms of justice: utilitarianism, contractarianism, and egalitarianism. But it seems, in conclusion, that no such theory is likely be successful.

More detailed discussions of particular forms of justice can be found in other entries: see especially distributive justice , global justice , intergenerational justice , international distributive justice , justice and bad luck , justice as a virtue , and retributive justice .

1.1 Justice and Individual Claims

1.2 justice, charity and enforceable obligation, 1.3 justice and impartiality, 1.4 justice and agency, 2.1 conservative versus ideal justice, 2.2 corrective versus distributive justice, 2.3 procedural versus substantive justice, 2.4 comparative versus non-comparative justice, 3.1 human vs non-human animals, 3.2 relational vs non-relational justice, 3.3 individuals vs institutions, 3.4 recognition vs. redistribution, 4.1 accommodating intuitions about justice, 4.2 utilitarian theories of justice: three problems, 5.1 gauthier, 5.3 scanlon, 6.1 justice as equality, 6.2 responsibility-sensitive egalitarianism, 6.3 relational egalitarianism, 7. conclusion, other internet resources, related entries, 1. justice: mapping the concept.

‘Justice’ has sometimes been used in a way that makes it virtually indistinguishable from rightness in general. Aristotle, for example, distinguished between ‘universal’ justice that corresponded to ‘virtue as a whole’ and ‘particular’ justice which had a narrower scope (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics , Book V, chs. 1–2). The wide sense may have been more evident in classical Greek than in modern English. But Aristotle also noted that when justice was identified with ‘complete virtue’, this was always ‘in relation to another person’. In other words, if justice is to be identified with morality as such, it must be morality in the sense of ‘what we owe to each other’ (see Scanlon 1998). But it is anyway questionable whether justice should be understood so widely. At the level of individual ethics, justice is often contrasted with charity on the one hand, and mercy on the other, and these too are other-regarding virtues. At the level of public policy, reasons of justice are distinct from, and often compete with, reasons of other kinds, for example economic efficiency or environmental value.

As this article will endeavour to show, justice takes on different meanings in different practical contexts, and to understand it fully we have to grapple with this diversity. But it is nevertheless worth asking whether we find a core concept that runs through all these various uses, or whether it is better regarded as a family resemblance idea according to which different combinations of features are expected to appear on each occasion of use. The most plausible candidate for a core definition comes from the Institutes of Justinian , a codification of Roman Law from the sixth century AD, where justice is defined as ‘the constant and perpetual will to render to each his due’. This is of course quite abstract until further specified, but it does throw light upon four important aspects of justice.

First, it shows that justice has to do with how individual people are treated (‘to each his due’). Issues of justice arise in circumstances in which people can advance claims – to freedom, opportunities, resources, and so forth – that are potentially conflicting, and we appeal to justice to resolve such conflicts by determining what each person is properly entitled to have. In contrast, where people’s interests converge, and the decision to be taken is about the best way to pursue some common purpose – think of a government official having to decide how much food to stockpile as insurance against some future emergency – justice gives way to other values. In other cases, there may be no reason to appeal to justice because resources are so plentiful that we do not need to worry about allotting shares to individuals. Hume pointed out that in a hypothetical state of abundance where ‘every individual finds himself fully provided with whatever his most voracious appetites can want’, ‘the cautious, jealous virtue of justice would never once have been dreamed of’ (Hume, An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals , pp. 183–4). Hume also believed – and philosophical controversy on this point persists until today – that justice has no place in close personal relationships, such as the family, where (it is alleged) each identifies with the others’ interests so strongly that there is no need and no reason for anyone to make claims of personal entitlement. (See Sandel 1982 for a defence of this view; for a critique, see Okin 1989. See also the entry on feminist perspectives on reproduction and the family) .

That justice is a matter of how each separate person is treated appears to create problems for theories such as utilitarianism that judge actions and policies on the basis of their overall consequences aggregated across people – assuming that these theories wish to incorporate rather than discard the idea of justice. In Section 4 below we examine how utilitarians have attempted to respond to this challenge.

Although justice is centrally a matter of how individuals are treated, it is also possible to speak of justice for groups – for example when the state is allocating resources between different categories of citizens. Here each group is being treated as though it were a separate individual for purposes of the allocation.

Second, Justinian’s definition underlines that just treatment is something due to each person, in other words that justice is a matter of claims that can be rightfully made against the agent dispensing justice, whether a person or an institution. Here there is a contrast with other virtues: we demand justice, but we beg for charity or forgiveness. This also means that justice is a matter of obligation for the agent dispensing it, and that the agent wrongs the recipient if the latter is denied what is due to her. It is a characteristic mark of justice that the obligations it creates should be enforceable: we can be made to deliver what is due to others as a matter of justice, either by the recipients themselves or by third parties. However it overstates the position to make the enforceability of its requirements a defining feature of justice (see Buchanan 1987). On the one hand, there are some claims of justice that seem not to be enforceable (by anyone). When we dispense gifts to our children or our friends, we ought to treat each recipient fairly, but neither the beneficiaries themselves nor anyone else can rightfully force the giver to do so. On the other hand, in cases of extreme emergency, it may sometimes be justifiable to force people to do more than justice requires them to do – there may exist enforceable duties of humanity. But these are rare exceptions. The obligatory nature of justice generally goes hand-in-hand with enforceability.

The third aspect of justice to which Justinian’s definition draws our attention is the connection between justice and the impartial and consistent application of rules – that is what the ‘constant and perpetual will’ part of the definition conveys. Justice is the opposite of arbitrariness. It requires that where two cases are relevantly alike, they should be treated in the same way (We discuss below the special case of justice and lotteries). Following a rule that specifies what is due to a person who has features X , Y , Z whenever such a person is encountered ensures this. And although the rule need not be unchangeable – perpetual in the literal sense – it must be relatively stable. This explains why justice is exemplified in the rule of law, where laws are understood as general rules impartially applied over time. Outside of the law itself, individuals and institutions that want to behave justly must mimic the law in certain ways (for instance, gathering reliable information about individual claimants, allowing for appeals against decisions).

Finally, the definition reminds us that justice requires an agent whose will alters the circumstances of its objects. The agent might be an individual person, or it might be a group of people, or an institution such as the state. So we cannot, except metaphorically, describe as unjust states of affairs that no agent has contributed to bringing about – unless we think that there is a Divine Being who has ordered the universe in such a way that every outcome is a manifestation of His will. Admittedly we are tempted to make judgements of what is sometimes called ‘cosmic injustice’ – say when a talented person’s life is cut cruelly short by cancer, or our favourite football team is eliminated from the competition by a freak goal – but this is a temptation we should resist.

This agency condition, however, is less restrictive than it might at first appear. It by no means excludes the possibility that agents can create injustice by omission – for example by failing to create the institutions or to enact the policies that would deliver vital resources to those who need them. Thus it is now common to speak of ‘systemic injustice’ in the case of bad outcomes that no-one intends to occur but that could be prevented by a shift in social norms or institutional practices. The agents in these cases are all those who by acting together to change these things could invert the injustice, but have so far failed to do so.

2. Justice: Four Distinctions

We have so far looked at four elements that are present in every use of the concept of justice. Now it is time to consider some equally important contrasts.

Philosophers writing on justice have observed that it has two different faces, one conservative of existing norms and practices, the other demanding reform of these norms and practices (see Sidgwick 1874/1907, Raphael 2001). Thus on the one hand it is a matter of justice to respect people’s rights under existing law or moral rules, or more generally to fulfil the legitimate expectations they have acquired as a result of past practice, social conventions, and so forth; on the other hand, justice often gives us reason to change laws, practices and conventions quite radically, thereby creating new entitlements and expectations. This exposes an ambiguity in what it means to ‘render each his due’. What is ‘due’ might be what a person can reasonably expect to have given existing law, policy, or social practice, or it might be what the person should get under a regime of ideal justice: this could mean what the person deserves, or needs, or is entitled to on grounds of equality, depending on which ideal principle is being invoked.

Conceptions of justice vary according to the weight they attach to each of these faces. At one extreme, some conceptions interpret justice as wholly concerned with what individuals can claim under existing laws and social conventions: thus for Hume, justice was to be understood as adherence to a set of rules that assign physical objects to individuals (such as being the first possessor of such an object) (Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature , Book III, Part II). These rules can be explained by reference to the natural associations that form in people’s minds between persons and external objects, and although the system of justice as a whole can be shown to be socially useful, there are no relevant independent standards by which its principles can be assessed (Hume briskly dismissed equality and merit as principles for allocating property to persons). In similar vein, Hayek argued that justice was a property of individual behaviour, understood as compliance with the ‘rules of just conduct’ that had evolved to enable a market economy to function effectively. For Hayek, to speak of ‘social justice’ as an ideal standard of distribution was as meaningless as to speak of a ‘moral stone’ (Hayek 1976, p. 78)

At the other extreme stand conceptions of justice which posit some ideal principle of distribution such as equality, together with a ‘currency’ specifying the respect in which justice requires people to be made equally well off, and then refuse to acknowledge the justice of any claims that do not arise directly from the application of this principle. Thus claims deriving from existing law or practice are dismissed unless they happen to coincide with what the principle requires. More often, however, ideal justice is seen as proposing principles by which existing institutions and practices can be assessed, with a view to reforming them, or in the extreme case abolishing them entirely, while the claims that people already have under those practices are given some weight. Rawls, for example, whose two principles of justice count as ideal principles for this purpose, is at pains to stress that they are not intended to be applied in a way that disregards people’s existing legitimate expectations. About the ‘difference principle’, which requires social and economic inequalities to be regulated so that they work to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society, he says:

It applies to the announced system of public law and statutes and not to particular transactions or distributions, nor to the decisions of individuals and associations, but rather to the institutional background against which these transactions and decisions take place. There are no unannounced and unpredictable interferences with citizens’ expectations and acquisitions. Entitlements are earned and honored as the public system of rules declares. (Rawls 1993, p. 283)

Here we see Rawls attempting to reconcile the demands of conservative and ideal justice. Yet he does not directly address the question of what should happen when changing circumstances mean that the difference principle requires new laws or policies to be enacted: do those whose prior entitlements or expectations are no longer met have a claim to be compensated for their loss? We could call this the question of transitional justice (though this phrase is often used now in a more specific sense to refer to the process of reconciliation that may occur following civil war or other armed conflicts: see the entry on transitional justice ).

A second important contrast, whose pedigree reaches back at least as far as Aristotle, is between justice as a principle for assigning distributable goods of various kinds to individual people, and justice as a remedial principle that applies when one person wrongly interferes with another’s legitimate holdings. Thus suppose Bill steals Alice’s computer, or sells Alice faulty goods which he claims to be in perfect order: then Alice suffers a loss, which justice demands that Bill should remedy by returning the computer or fulfilling his contract honestly. Corrective justice, then, essentially concerns a bilateral relationship between a wrongdoer and his victim, and demands that the fault be cancelled by restoring the victim to the position she would have been in had the wrongful behaviour not occurred; it may also require that the wrongdoer not benefit from his faulty behaviour. Distributive justice, on the other hand, is multilateral: it assumes a distributing agent, and a number of persons who have claims on what is being distributed. Justice here requires that the resources available to the distributor be shared according to some relevant criterion, such as equality, desert, or need. In Aristotle’s example, if there are fewer flutes available than people who want to play them, they should be given to the best performers (Aristotle, The Politics , p. 128). In modern debates, principles of distributive justice are applied to social institutions such as property and tax systems, which are understood as producing distributive outcomes across large societies, or even the world as a whole.

The conceptual distinction between distributive and corrective justice seems clear, but their normative relationship is more difficult to pin down (see Perry 2000, Ripstein 2004, Coleman 1992, chs. 16–17). Some have claimed that corrective justice is merely instrumental to distributive justice: its aim is to move from a situation of distributive injustice brought about by the faulty behaviour to one that is more nearly (if not perfectly) distributively just. But this view runs into a number of objections. One is that so long as Alice has a legitimate title to her computer, her claim of corrective justice against Bill does not depend on her having had, prior to the theft, the share of resources that distributive justice ideally demands. She might be richer than she deserves to be, yet corrective justice still require that the computer be returned to her. In other words, corrective justice may serve to promote conservative rather than ideal justice, to use the distinction introduced in 2.1. Another objection is that corrective justice requires the wrongdoer himself to restore or compensate the person he has wronged, even if the cause of distributive justice could be better served by transferring resources from a third party – giving Alice one of even-more-undeservedly-rich Charles’s computers, for example. This underlines the bilateral nature of corrective justice, and also the fact that it comes into play in response to faulty behaviour on someone’s part. Its primary demand is that people should not lose out because others have behaved wrongfully or carelessly, but it also encompasses the idea that ‘no man should profit by his own wrong’. If Alice loses her computer in a boating accident, she might, under an insurance scheme, have a claim of distributive justice to a new machine, but she has no claim of corrective justice.

If corrective justice cannot be subsumed normatively under distributive justice, we need to explain its value. What is achieved when we make Bill return the computer to Alice? Aristotle ( Nicomachean Ethics , Book V, ch. 4) suggested that corrective justice aims to restore the two parties to a position of equality; by returning the computer we cancel both Bill’s unjustified gain and Alice’s unjustified loss. But this assumes that the computer can be returned intact. Corrective justice requires that Alice be made no worse off than she was before the theft, even if that means Bill suffering an absolute loss (e.g. by paying for a new computer if he has damaged Alice’s). Aristotle himself recognized that the idea of evening out gain and loss made no literal sense in a case where one person assaults another and has to compensate him for his injury – there is no ‘gain’ to be redistributed. It seems, then, that the value of corrective justice must lie in the principle that each person must take responsibility for his own conduct, and if he fails to respect the legitimate interests of others by causing injury, he must make good the harm. In that way, each person can plan her life secure in the knowledge that she will be protected against certain kinds of external setbacks. Philosophers and lawyers writing on corrective justice disagree about what standard of responsibility should apply – for example whether compensation is required only when one person wilfully or negligently causes another to suffer loss, or whether it can also be demanded when the perpetrator displays no such fault but is nevertheless causally responsible for the injury.

A third distinction that must be drawn is between the justice of the procedures that might be used to determine how benefits and burdens of various kinds are allocated to people, and the justice of the final allocation itself. It might initially seem as though the justice of a procedure can be reduced to the justice of the results produced by applying it, but this is not so. For one thing, there are cases in which the idea of an independently just outcome makes no sense. A coin toss is a fair way of deciding who starts a game, but neither the Blues nor the Reds have a claim of justice to bat first or kick off. But even where a procedure has been shaped by a concern that it should produce substantively just outcomes, it may still have special properties that make it intrinsically just. In that case, using a different procedure to produce the same result might be objectionable. In an influential discussion, John Rawls contrasted perfect procedural justice , where a procedure is such that if it is followed a just outcome is guaranteed (requiring the person who cuts a cake to take the last slice himself is the illustration Rawls provides), imperfect procedural justice , where the procedure is such that following it is likely, but not certain, to produce the just result, and pure procedural justice , such as the coin-tossing example, where there is no independent way to assess the outcome – if we call it just, it is only on the grounds that it has come about by following the relevant procedure (Rawls 1971, 1999, § 14).

Theories of justice can then be distinguished according to the relative weight they attach to procedures and substantive outcomes. Some theories are purely procedural in form. Robert Nozick distinguished between historical theories of justice, end-state theories, and patterned theories in order to defend the first against the second and third (Nozick 1974). An end-state theory defines justice in terms of some overall property of a distribution (of resources, welfare, etc.) – for example whether it is egalitarian, or whether the lowest position in the distribution is as high as it can be, as Rawls’ difference principle requires. A patterned theory looks at whether what each receives as part of a distribution matches some individual feature such as their desert or their need. By contrast, an historical theory asks about the process by which the final outcome has arisen. In Nozick’s particular case, a distribution of resources is said to be just if everyone within its scope is entitled to what they now own, having acquired it by legitimate means – such as voluntary contract or gift – from someone who was also entitled to have it, leading back eventually to a just act of acquisition – such as labouring on a plot of land – that gave the first owner his valid title. The shape of the final distribution is irrelevant: according to Nozick, justice is entirely a matter of the sequence of prior events that created it (for critical assessments of Nozick’s position, see Paul 1982, Wolff 1991, Cohen 1995, chs. 1–2).

For most philosophers, however, the justice of a procedure is to a large extent a function of the justice of the outcomes that it tends to produce when applied. For instance, the procedures that together make up a fair trial are justified on the grounds that for the most part they produce outcomes in which the guilty are punished and the innocent are acquitted. Yet even in these cases, we should be wary of assuming that the procedure itself has no independent value. We can ask of a procedure whether it treats the people to whom it is applied justly, for example by giving them adequate opportunities to advance their claims, not requiring them to provide personal information that they find humiliating to reveal, and so forth. Studies by social psychologists have shown that in many cases people care more about being treated fairly by the institutions they have to deal with than about how they fare when the procedure’s final result is known (Lind and Tyler 1988).

Justice takes a comparative form when to determine what is due to one person we need to look at what others can also claim: to determine how large a slice of pie is rightfully John’s, we have to know how many others have a claim to the pie, and also what the principle for sharing it should be – equality, or something else. Justice takes a non-comparative form when we can determine what is due to a person merely by knowing relevant facts about that particular person: if John has already been promised the whole of the pie, then that is what he can rightfully claim for himself. Some theories of justice seem to imply that justice is always a comparative notion – for example when it is said that justice consists in the absence of arbitrary inequality – whereas others imply that it is always non-comparative. But conceptually, at least, both forms seem admissible; indeed we can find cases in which it appears we have to choose between doing justice comparatively and doing it non-comparatively (see Feinberg 1974; for a critical response, see Montague 1980). For example, we might have several candidates all of whom are roughly equally deserving of an academic honour, but the number of honours we are permitted to award is smaller than the number of candidates. If we honour some but not others, we perpetrate a comparative injustice, but if to avoid doing so we honour no-one at all, then each is treated less well than they deserve, and so unjustly from a non-comparative perspective.

Theories of justice can then be categorised according to whether they are comparative, non-comparative, or neither. Principles of equality – principles requiring the equal distribution of some kind of benefit – are plainly comparative in form, since what is due to each person is simply an equal share of the benefit in question rather than any fixed amount. In the case of principles of desert, the position is less straightforward. These principles take the form ‘ A deserves X by virtue of P ’, where X is a mode of treatment, and P is a personal characteristic possessed by A (Feinberg 1970). In the case of both X and P , we can ask whether they are to be identified comparatively or non-comparatively. Thus what A deserves might either be an entitlement, or an absolute amount of some benefit – ‘a living wage’, say – or it might be a share of some collective benefit, or a multiple or fraction of what others are receiving – ‘twice what B is getting’, say. Turning to P , or what is often called the desert basis, this may be a feature of A that we can identify without reference to anyone else, or it may be a comparative feature, such as being the best student in a graduating class. So desert-based claims of justice might take one of four different forms depending on whether the basis of desert and/or the deserved mode of treatment is comparative or non-comparative (see Olsaretti 2003 for essays that address this question; for a more advanced treatment, see Kagan 2012, Part III).

Among principles of justice that are straightforwardly non-comparative are ‘sufficiency’ principles which hold that what justice requires is that each person should have ‘enough’, on some dimension or other – for instance, have all of their needs fulfilled, or have a specified set of capabilities that they are able to exercise (for a general defence of sufficiency, though not one that links it specifically to justice, see Frankfurt 2015; for a critique, see Casal 2007). Such principles, however, need to be supplemented by other principles, not only to tell us what to do with the surplus (assuming there is one) once everyone has sufficient resources, but also to guide us in situations where there are too few resources to bring everyone up to the sufficiency threshold. Should we, for example, maximise the number of people who achieve sufficiency, or minimise the aggregate shortfall suffered by those in the relevant group? Unless we are prepared to say that these are not matters of justice, a theory of justice that contains only the sufficiency principle and nothing else looks incomplete.

Some theories of justice cannot readily be classified either as comparative or as non-comparative. Consider one part of Rawls’ theory of social justice, the difference principle, which as noted above requires that social and economic inequalities be arranged to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged (Rawls 1971, 1999, §12–13). Under this principle, ideally just shares are calculated by determining what each person would receive under the set of social institutions whose economic effect is to raise the worst off person to the highest possible level. This is neither a fixed amount, nor one that depends in any direct sense on what other individuals are receiving, or should receive. Applying the difference principle does require making comparisons, but these are comparisons between the effects of different social institutions – say different tax laws, or different ways of defining property rights – not between individual people and the amounts of benefit they are receiving. We might call theories of this kind ‘holistic’ or ‘systemic’.

3. The Scope of Justice

When we raise questions about the scope of justice, we are asking about when principles of justice take effect and among whom . We have already, when discussing Hume, encountered the idea that there might be circumstances in which justice becomes irrelevant – circumstances in which resources are so abundant that it is pointless to allocate individual shares, or, as Hume also believed, in which resources are so scarce that everyone is permitted to grab what he can in the name of self-preservation. But even in circumstances that are less extreme than these, questions about scope arise. Who can make claims of justice, and who might have the corresponding obligation to meet them? Does this depend on the kind of thing that is being claimed? If comparative principles are being applied, who should be counted as part of the comparison group? Do some principles of justice have universal scope – they apply whenever agent A acts towards recipient B , regardless of the relationship between them – while others are contextual in character, applying only within social or political relationships of a certain kind? The present section examines some of these questions in greater detail.

What does a creature have to do, or be like, to be included within the scope of (at least some) principles of justice? Most past philosophers have assumed that the line should be drawn so as to exclude all non-human animals, but more recently some have been prepared to defend ‘justice for animals’ (Nussbaum 2006, ch. 6; Garner 2013). Against this, Rawls asserts that although we have ‘duties of compassion and humanity’ towards animals and should refrain from treating them cruelly, nonetheless they are ‘outside the scope of the theory of justice’ (Rawls 1971, p. 512; Rawls 1999, p. 448). How could this claim be justified?

We can focus our attention either on individual features that humans possess and animals lack, and that might be thought relevant to their inclusion within the scope of justice, or on asymmetries in the relationship between humans and other animals. To begin with the latter, Hume claimed that the domination humans exercised over animals – such that an animal could only possess something by virtue of our permission – meant that we were ‘bound by the laws of humanity to give gentle usage to these creatures, but should not, properly speaking, lie under any restraint of justice with regard to them’ (Hume, Enquiry , p. 190). For Rawls and those influenced by him, principles of distributive justice apply among agents who are related to one another as participants in a ‘cooperative venture for mutual advantage’, and this might seem to exclude animals from the scope of such principles. Critics of this view have pointed to cases of human-animal co-operation (Donaldson and Kymlicka 2011, Valentini 2014); however these arguments focus mainly or entirely on the special case of dogs , and it seems implausible to generalise from them in an attempt to show that human-animal relationships generally have a co-operative character.

But the claim that justice only applies to participants in co-operative practices is anyway vulnerable to the objection that it risks excluding seriously disabled people, people living in isolated communities, and future generations from the scope of justice, so it does not seem compelling as a claim about justice in general (see further below). Might there be other reasons why animals cannot make claims of justice on us? Another Rawls-inspired suggestion is that animals lack the necessary moral powers, in particular the capacity to act on principles of justice themselves. They cannot distinguish what is justly owed to them from what is not; and they cannot determine what they owe to others – whether to humans or to other non-human animals – as a matter of justice. This suggestion interprets justice as involving a kind of reciprocity: an agent to whom justice is due must also in principle be an agent who could dispense justice to others, by virtue of having the relevant capacity, even if for physical reasons – such as suffering from severe disability – they cannot do so in practice.

If this suggestion is rejected, and we allow that some animals, at least, should be included within the scope of justice, we can then ask about the form that justice should take in their cases. Using the distinction drawn in 2.4 above, it appears that justice for animals must be non-comparative. For example, we might attribute rights to the animals over whom we exercise power – rights against cruel treatment, and rights to food and shelter, for instance. This would involve using a sufficiency principle to determine what animals are owed as a matter of justice. It is much less plausible to think that comparative principles might apply, such that giving special treats to one cat but not another could count as an injustice.

The Rawlsian view introduced in the previous section, which holds that principles of social justice apply among people who are engaged together in a co-operative practice, is a leading example of a relational theory of justice. Other theories offer different accounts of the relevant justice-generating feature: for example, Nagel has argued that principles of distributive justice apply among people who by virtue of being citizens of the same state are required both to comply with, and accept responsibility for, the coercive laws that govern their lives (Nagel 2005). In both cases, the claim being made is that when people stand in a certain relationship to one another, they become subject to principles of justice whose scope is limited to those within the relationship. In particular, comparative principles apply within the relationship, but not beyond it. If A stands in a relationship (of the right kind) to B , then it becomes a matter of justice how A is treated relative to B , but it does not matter in the same way how A is treated relative to C who stands outside of the relationship. Justice may still require that C be given treatment of a certain kind, but that will be justice in its non-comparative guise.

Whether justice is relational in either of the ways that Rawls and Nagel suggest has large implications for its scope. In particular it bears on the question whether there is such a thing as global distributive justice, or, in contrast, whether distributive principles only apply to people who are related together as members of the same society or citizens of the same state. For example, might the global inequalities that exist between rich and poor in today’s world be unjust simply as inequalities, or are they unjust only insofar as they prevent poor people from living lives that we judge to be acceptable? (see entries on international distributive justice and global justice ) So much hangs on the question whether, and if so in virtue of what, distributive justice has a relational character. What reason can be given for thinking that it does?

Suppose we have two people A and B , of whom one is significantly better off than another – has greater opportunities or a higher income, say. Why should this be a concern of justice? It seems it will not be a concern unless it can be shown that the inequality between A and B can be attributed to the behaviour of some agent, individual or collective, whose actions or omissions have resulted in A being better off than B – in which case we can ask whether the inequality between them is justifiable, say on grounds of their respective deserts. This reiterates the claim in 1.4 above that without an agent to whom the outcome can be attributed there can only be justice or injustice in a metaphorical, ‘cosmic’, sense. Relational theorists claim that when people associate with one another in the relevant way, they become agents of justice. On a small scale they can organize informally to ensure that each receives what is due to him relative to the rest. On a larger scale, distributive justice requires the creation of legal and other institutions to achieve that outcome. Moreover failure to co-ordinate their actions in this way is likely to be a source of injustice by omission.

Debates about the scope of justice then become debates about whether different forms of human association are of the right kind to create agency in the relevant sense. Take the question of whether principles of social justice should apply to market transactions. If we see the market as a neutral arena in which many individual people freely pursue their own purposes, then the answer will be No. The only form of justice that arises will be justice in the conduct of each agent, who must avoid inflicting harm on others, must fulfil her contracts, and so forth. Whereas if we see the market as governed by a humanly-constructed system of rules that the participants collectively have the power to change – by legislation, for example – then we cannot avoid asking whether the outcomes it currently produces meet relevant standards of distributive justice, whatever we take these to be. A similar issue arises in the debate about over principles of global justice referred to above: is the current world order such that it makes sense to regard humanity as a whole as a collective agent responsible for the distributive outcomes it allows to occur?

Once institutions are established for the purpose (among other things) of delivering justice on a large scale, we can ask what duties of justice individual people have in consequence. Is their duty simply to support the institutions, and comply with whatever rules of conduct apply to them personally? Or do they have further duties to promote justice by acting directly on the relevant principles in their daily lives? No one doubts that some duties of justice fall directly on individuals, for example duties not to deceive or defraud when engaging in commercial transactions (and duties of corrective justice where behaviour is faulty), or duties to carry out one’s fair share of an informally organized project from which one expects to benefit, such as cleaning up the neighbourhood park. Others fall on them because they are performing a role within a social institution, for example the duty of an employer not to discriminate on grounds of race or gender when hiring workers, or the duty of a local government officer to assign public housing to those in greatest need. But what is much more in dispute is whether individual people have more extensive duties to promote social justice (for contrasting views, see Cohen 2008, ch. 3, Murphy 1998, Rawls 1993, Lecture VII, Young 2011, ch. 2).

Consider two cases: the first concerns parents who confer advantages on their children in ways that undermine fair equality of opportunity. If the latter principle of justice requires, to cite Rawls, that ‘those who have the same level of talent and ability and the same willingness to use these gifts should have the same prospects of success regardless of their social class of origin’ (Rawls 2001, p. 44) then there are myriad ways in which some parents can bestow advantages on their children that other parents cannot – financial benefits, educational opportunities, social contacts, and so forth – that are likely to bring greater success in later life. Are parents therefore constrained as a matter of justice to avoid conferring at least some of these advantages, or are they free to benefit their children as they choose, leaving the pursuit of equal opportunities entirely in the hands of the state (for a careful analysis, see Brighouse and Swift 2014)?

The second example concerns wage differentials. Might individuals whose talents can bring them high rewards in the labour market have a duty not to make use of their bargaining power, but instead be willing to work for a fair wage – which if fairness is understood in egalitarian terms might mean the same wage as everyone else (perhaps with extra compensation for those whose labour is unusually burdensome)? Rawls, as we saw above, argued that economic justice meant arranging social and economic inequalities to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, and in formulating the principle in this way he assumed that some inequalities might serve as incentives to greater production that would also raise the position of the worst-off group in society. But if individuals were willing to forego incentives, and so economic inequalities served no useful purpose, then the arrangement that worked to the greatest benefit of the (otherwise) least advantaged would be one of strict equality. Cohen (2008) argues that Rawls’ position is internally inconsistent. As citizens designing our institutions we are supposed to be guided by the difference principle, but as private actors in the marketplace, we are permitted to ignore that principle and bargain for higher wages, even though doing so will work to the disadvantage of the worst-off group. Justice, according to Cohen, requires us to embrace an ethos of service that disdains material incentives.

Why might we hesitate before agreeing that in cases such as these, justice requires people to refrain from doing things that they are permitted to do by the public rules of their society (passing on benefits to their children; seeking higher wages)? One reason is that the refraining is only going to have a significant effect if it is practised on a large scale, and individuals have no assurance that others will follow their example; meanwhile they (or their children) will lose out relative to the less scrupulous. A connected reason has to do with publicity: it may be hard to detect whether people are following the required ethos or not (see Williams 1998). Is the person who sends her child to a private school because she claims he has special needs that the local state school cannot meet being sincere, or is she just trying to buy him comparative advantage? How can we tell whether the person who claims more money, but merely, he says, as compensation for the unusual stress that his work involves, is reporting honestly? (for Cohen’s response, see Cohen 2008, ch. 8) It appears, then, that there are principles of justice that apply to what Rawls calls ‘the basic structure of society [as] a public system of rules’ that do not apply in the same way to the personal behaviour of the individuals who live within that structure. Attending to the scope , as well as the content , of justice is important.

Recent philosophical writing on justice has drawn attention to forms of injustice that do not involve the material treatment that people receive, either from other persons or from institutions, but the harms they suffer through failures of recognition. They are impacted by social norms and social practices that diminish their sense of agency and induce them to see themselves as of lesser value than others. Here then justice is understood as being adequately and appropriately recognized, and injustice as involving failures of recognition, or in some cases ‘misrecognition’, when a person is placed in a category or assigned an identity that is not their own. In one influential formulation of this idea, ‘it is unjust that some individuals and groups are denied the status of full partners in social interaction simply as a consequence of institutionalized patterns of cultural value in whose construction they have not equally participated and which disparage their distinctive characteristics or the distinctive characteristics assigned to them’ (Fraser in Fraser and Honneth 2003, p. 29).

What, then, does it mean to be recognized? In general it means to be viewed and treated by others in the way that is appropriate to the features that you possess, but most philosophers regard recognition as multidimensional. In particular, they distinguish between being recognized as an equal, where a person is accorded the kind of standing that gives them an equal status with other members of the relevant group, and being recognized for having characteristics, achievements or an identity that may be uniquely their own. Recognition in this second sense may involve the unequal granting of social esteem. Justice as recognition, therefore, is internally complex. At the social level, Axel Honneth distinguishes ‘three forms of social recognition, based in the sphere-specific principles of love, equal legal treatment, and social esteem’ (Fraser and Honneth 2003 p. 180)

The question that arises is how best to understand the relationship between justice of this kind and distributive justice, involving the allocation of material resources and so forth. For Honneth, justice as recognition is understood expansively so that it can also capture issues of economic justice, the thought being that the harm inflicted when, say, labour is not adequately rewarded can be understood as a failure to offer adequate recognition of the worker’s social contribution. For Nancy Fraser, by contrast, recognition and redistribution are seen as two mutually irreducible but jointly necessary conditions for social justice. Failures of recognition can be experienced by some among the economically privileged – such as ‘the African-American Wall Street banker who cannot get a taxi to pick him up’ (Fraser and Honneth 2003, p. 34). Justice as recognition requires cultural shifts in the way that different forms of identity and different types of achievement are valued that are independent of the institutional changes required to achieve distributive justice.

A particular form of recognitional injustice is epistemic injustice as diagnosed by Miranda Fricker (Fricker 2007). This occurs when someone is wronged in their capacity as a source of knowledge, and it takes two main forms: testimonial injustice and hermeneutic injustice. As Fricker explains ‘testimonial injustice occurs when prejudice causes a hearer to give a deflated level of credibility to a speaker’s word; hermeneutical injustice occurs at a prior stage when a gap in collective interpretive resources puts someone as at an unfair disadvantage when it comes to making sense of their social experiences’ (Fricker 2007, p. 1). She argues that testimonial injustice matters for two reasons. First, the person who suffers from it is less able to protect or advance their interests – for example they are less likely to be believed when having to defend themselves in court. Second, since others are unwilling to regard them as competent sources of knowledge, they may lose trust in their own capacity to know, leading in some cases to ‘prolonged self-doubt and loss of intellectual confidence’.

Hermeneutical injustice arises in the context of unequal relationships in which the subordinated party lacks the concept or concepts needed to make sense of their experience (and thereby to challenge their subordination). Fricker uses the example of a woman who suffered sexual harassment at the time before feminists had developed that concept, and so had no adequate word to describe what she was experiencing. Hermeneutical injustice matters most when it is systematic, brought about by power inequalities that leave certain groups ‘hermeneutically marginalised’. However she treats epistemic justice as a virtue that individual hearers can develop, in contrast to recognition theorists like Fraser and Honneth for whom achieving recognitional justice requires collective action to change social and cultural norms on the part of misrecognized groups.

4. Utilitarianism and Justice

Can justice be understood in utilitarian terms? This may in the first place depend on how we interpret utilitarianism. We treat it here as a normative theory whose aim is to supply a criterion – the greatest happiness principle – that can be used, directly or indirectly, both by individuals and by institutions (such as states) in deciding what to do, rather than simply as a tool for evaluating states of affairs. Utilitarianism cannot plausibly provide a theory of justice unless it is interpreted in this action-guiding way, in light of what was said above about justice and agency. We also assume that the most likely candidate will be a rule-utilitarian view that treats principles of justice as belonging to the set of rules which when followed by the relevant agents will tend to produce the greatest total utility (for different ways of formulating this view, see the entry on rule consequentialism) .

Most utilitarians have regarded it as part of their task in defending utilitarianism to show that it can both accommodate and explain much of what we intuitively believe about justice. This is certainly true of two of the greatest among them, John Stuart Mill and Sidgwick, both of whom went to considerable lengths to show that familiar principles of justice could be given a utilitarian rationale (Mill Utilitarianism , ch. 5; Sidgwick 1874/1907, Book III, ch.5). Bentham, in contrast, was more cavalier: ‘justice, in the only sense in which it has a meaning, is an imaginary personage, feigned for the convenience of discourse, whose dictates are the dictates of utility, applied to certain particular cases’ ( The Principles of Morals and Legislation , pp. 125–6). If we follow the lead of Mill and Sidgwick in wishing to take seriously how justice is commonly understood, the utilitarian has two challenges to face. First he or she must show that the demands of justice as commonly understood correspond roughly to the rules that when followed by persons, or implemented by institutions, are most conducive to the greatest happiness. They need not mirror the latter exactly, because utilitarians will argue, as both Mill and Sidgwick did, that our intuitions about justice are often ambiguous or internally inconsistent, but there must be enough overlap to warrant the claim that what the utilitarian theory can accommodate and explain is indeed justice . (As Sidgwick (1874/1907, p. 264) put it, ‘we may, so to speak, clip the ragged edge of common usage, but we must not make excision of any considerable portion’.) Second, some explanation must be given for the distinctiveness of justice. Why do we have a concept that is used to mark off a particular set of requirements and claims if the normative basis for these requirements and claims is nothing other than general utility? What accounts for our intuitive sense of justice? The task confronting the utilitarian, then, is to systematize our understanding of justice without obliterating it.

By way of illustration, both Mill and Sidgwick recognize that desert , of both reward and punishment, is a key component of common understandings of justice, but they argue that if we remain at the level of common sense when we try to analyse it, we run into irresolvable contradictions. For instance, we are inclined to think that a person’s deserts should depend on what they have actually achieved – say the economic value of what they have produced – but also, because achievement will depend on factors for which the person in question can claim no credit, such as inborn talent, that their deserts should depend only on factors for which they are directly responsible, such as the amount of effort they expend. Each of these conceptions, when put into practice, would lead to a quite different schedule of rewards, and the only means to escape the impasse, these utilitarians claim, is to ask which schedule will generate most utility by directing people’s choices and efforts in the most socially productive way. Similar reasoning applies to the principles of punishment: the rules we should follow are the rules that are most conducive to the ends for which punishment is instituted, such as deterring crime.

To explain the distinctiveness of justice, Mill suggests that it designates moral requirements that, because of their very great importance to human well-being, people have a right to have discharged, and are therefore matters of perfect obligation. A person who commits an injustice is always liable to punishment of some kind, he argues. So he explains our sense of justice in terms of the resentment we feel towards someone who breaches these requirements. Sidgwick, who laid greater stress than Mill on the connection between justice and law, also underlined the relationship between justice and gratitude, on one side, and resentment, on the other, in order to capture the way in which our concern for justice seems to differ from our concern for utility in general.

Yet despite these efforts to reconcile justice and utility, three serious obstacles still remain. The first concerns what we might call the currency of justice: justice has to do with the way that tangible benefits and burdens are assigned, and not with the happiness or unhappiness that the assignees experience. It is a matter of justice, for example, that people should be paid the right amount for the jobs that they do, but, special circumstances aside, it is no concern of justice that John derives more satisfaction from his fairly-earned income than Jane does from hers (but see Cohen 1989 for a different view). There is so to speak, a division of labour, under which rights, opportunities, and material benefits of various kinds are allocated by principles of justice, while the conversion of these into units of utility (or disutility) is the responsibility of each individual recipient (see Dworkin 2000, ch. 1). Utilitarians will therefore find it hard to explain what from their point of view seems to be the fetishistic concern of justice over how the means to happiness are distributed, rather than happiness itself.

The second obstacle is that utilitarianism judges outcomes by totalling up utility levels, and has no independent concern for how that utility is distributed between persons. So even if we set aside the currency issue, utilitarian theory seems unable to capture justice’s demand that each should receive what is due to her regardless of the total amount of benefit this generates. Defenders of utilitarianism will argue that when the conduct-guiding rules are being formulated, attention will be paid to distributive questions. In particular, when resources are being distributed among people we know little about individually, there are good reasons to favour equality, since in most cases resources have diminishing marginal utility – the more of them you have, the less satisfaction you derive from additional instalments. Yet this is only a contingent matter. If some people are very adept at turning resources into well-being – they are so-called ‘utility monsters’ – then a utilitarian should support a rule that privileges them. This seems repugnant to justice. As Rawls famously put the general point, ‘each member of society is thought to have an inviolability founded on justice which….even the welfare of every one else cannot override’ (Rawls 1971, p. 28; Rawls 1999, pp. 24–25).

The third and final difficulty stems from utilitarianism’s thoroughgoing consequentialism. Rules are assessed strictly in the light of the consequences of adopting then, not in terms of their intrinsic properties. Of course, when agents follow rules, they are meant to do what the rule requires rather than to calculate consequences directly. But for a utilitarian, it is never going to be a good reason for adopting a rule that it will give people what they deserve or what they are entitled to, when desert or entitlement are created by events in the past, such as a person’s having performed a worthwhile action or entered an agreement. Backward-looking reasons have to be transmuted into forward-looking reasons in order to count. If a rule such as pacta sunt servanda (‘agreements must be kept’) is going to be adopted on utilitarian grounds, this is not because there is any inherent wrongness in defaulting on a compact one has made, but because a rule that compacts must be kept is a useful one, since it allows people to co-ordinate their behaviour knowing that their expectations about the future are likely to be met. But justice, although not always backward-looking in the sense explained, often is. What is due to a person is in many cases what they deserve for what they have done, or what they are entitled to by virtue of past transactions. So even if it were possible to construct a forward-looking rationale for having rules that closely tracked desert or entitlement as these are normally understood, the utilitarian still cannot capture the sense of justice – why it matters that people should get what is due to then – that informs our common-sense judgements.

Utilitarians might reply that their reconstruction preserves what is rationally defensible in common sense beliefs while what it discards are elements that cannot survive sustained critical reflection. But this would bring them closer to Bentham’s view that justice, as commonly understood, is nothing but a ‘phantom’.

5. Contractarianism and Justice

The shortcomings of utilitarianism have prompted several recent philosophers to revive the old idea of the social contract as a better way of bringing coherence to our thinking about justice. The idea here is not that people actually have entered a contract to establish justice, or that they should proceed to do so, but that we can understand justice better by asking the question: what principles to govern their institutions, practices and personal behaviour would people choose to adopt if they all had to agree on them in advance? The contract, in other words, is hypothetical; but the search for agreement is meant to ensure that the principles chosen would, when implemented, not lead to outcomes that people could not accept. Thus whereas a utilitarian might, under some circumstances, be prepared to support slavery – if the misery of the slaves were outweighed by the heightened pleasures of the slave-owners – contractarians claims that no-one could accept a principle permitting slavery, lest they themselves were destined to be slaves when the principle was applied.

The problem that contractarians face is to show how such an agreement is possible. If we were to ask people, in the real world, what principles they would prefer to live under, they are likely to start from a position of quite radical disagreement, given their interests and their beliefs. Some might even be willing to endorse slavery, if they were fairly certain that they would not end up as slaves themselves, or if they were sado-masochists who viewed the humiliations inflicted on slaves in a positive light. So in order to show how agreement could be achieved, contractarians have to model the contracting parties in a particular way, either by limiting what they are allowed to know about themselves or about the future, or by attributing to them certain motivations while excluding others. Since the modelling can be done differently, we have a family of contractarian theories of justice, three of whose most important members are the theories of Gauthier, Rawls and Scanlon.

Gauthier (1986) presents the social contract as a bargain between rational individuals who can gain through co-operating with one another, but who are competing over the division of the resulting surplus. He assumes that each is interested only in trying to maximise his own welfare, and he also assumes that there is a non-co-operative baseline from which the bargaining begins – so nobody would accept a solution that left her less well off than in the baseline condition. Each person can identify the outcome under which they fare best – their maximum gain – but they have no reason to expect others to accept that. Gauthier argues that rational bargainers will converge on the principle of Minimax Relative Concession , which requires each to concede the same relative proportion of their maximum possible gain relative to the non-co-operative baseline. Thus suppose there is a feasible arrangement whereby each participant can achieve two-thirds of their maximum gain, but no arrangement under which they all do better than that, then this is the arrangement that the principle recommends. Each person has made the same concession relative to the outcome that is best for them personally – not accepting the same absolute loss of welfare, let it be noted, but the same proportionate loss.

There are some internal difficulties with Gauthier’s theory that need to be recorded briefly (for a full discussion, see Barry 1989, esp. Part III). One is whether Minimax Relative Concession is in fact the correct solution to the bargaining problem that Gauthier introduces, as opposed to the standard Nash solution which (in a simple two-person case) selects the outcome in which the product of the two parties’ utilities is maximised (for discussion of different solutions to the bargaining problem, see the entry on contemporary approaches to the social contract , § 3.2). A second is whether Gauthier is able to justify positing a ‘Lockean’ baseline, under which each is assumed to respect the natural rights of the others, as the starting point for bargaining over the surplus – as opposed to a more conflictual ‘Hobbesian’ baseline in which individuals are permitted to use their natural powers to threaten one another in the process of establishing what each could expect to get in the absence of co-operation. But the larger question is whether a contract modelled in this way is an appropriate device for delivering principles of justice. On the one hand, it captures the idea that the practice of justice should work to everyone’s advantage, while requiring all those involved to moderate the demands they make on one another. On the other hand, it prescribes a final distribution of benefit that appears morally arbitrary, in the sense that A ’s bargaining advantage over B – which stems from the fact that his maximum possible gain is greater than hers – allows him to claim a higher level of benefit as a matter of justice . This seems implausible: there may be prudential reasons to recommend a distribution that reflects the outcome that self-interested and rational bargainers would arrive at, but claims of justice need a different basis.

John Rawls’ theory of justice is the most widely-cited example of a contractarian theory, but before outlining it, two words of caution are necessary. First, the shape of the theory has evolved from its first incarnation in Rawls (1958) through his major work A Theory of Justice (Rawls 1971) and on to Rawls (1993) and Rawls (2001). Second, although Rawls has consistently claimed that the principles of justice he defends are the principles that would be selected by people in a suitably designed ‘original position’ in which they are asked to choose the social and political institutions they will live under – this is what qualifies his theory as contractarian – it is less clear how important a role the contract itself plays in his thinking. His principles, which are discussed elsewhere (see the entry on John Rawls) , can be defended on their own merits as a theory of social justice for a modern liberal society, even if their contractual grounding proves to be unsound. Rawls presents the contracting parties as seeking to advance their own interests as they decide which principles to favour, but under two informational constraints. First, they are not allowed to know their own ‘conception of the good’ – what ends they personally find it most valuable to pursue – so the principles must be couched in terms of ‘primary goods’, understood as goods that it is better to have more rather than less of whatever conception of the good you favour. Second, they are placed behind a ‘veil of ignorance’ that deprives them of any knowledge of personal characteristics, such as their gender, their place in society, or the talents and skills they possess. This means that they have no basis on which to bargain for advantage, and have to consider themselves as generic persons who might be male or female, talented or untalented, and so forth. In consequence, Rawls argues, all will choose to live under impartial principles that work to no-one’s advantage in particular.

The problem for Rawls, however, is to show that the principles that would be selected in such an original position are in fact recognizable as principles of justice . One might expect the parties to calculate how to weigh the primary goods (which Rawls catalogues as ‘rights and liberties, opportunities and powers, income and wealth’) against each other, and then to choose as their social principle ‘maximise the weighted sum of primary goods, averaged across all persons’. This, however, would bring the theory very close to utilitarianism, since the natural method of weighing primary goods is to ask how much utility having a given quantity of each is likely, on average, to bring (for the claim that utilitarianism would be chosen in a Rawlsian original position, see Harsanyi 1975). Since Rawls wishes to reject utilitarianism, he has to adjust the psychology of the parties in the original position so that they reason differently. Thus he suggests that, at least in developed societies, people have special reason to prioritise liberty over the other goods and to ensure that it is equally distributed: he argues that this is essential to safeguard their self-respect. In later writing his argument is less empirical: now the parties to the contract are endowed with ‘moral powers’ that must be exercised, and it is then fairly easy to show that this requires them to have a set of basic liberties.

When he turns to the distribution of income and wealth, Rawls has to show why his choosers would pick the difference principle, which considers only the position of the worst-off social group, over other principles such as maximising average income across the whole society. In Theory of Justice he does this by attributing special psychological features to the choosers that make it appropriate for them to follow the ‘maximin’ rule for decisions under uncertainty (choose the option whose worst possible outcome is least bad for you). For example, they are said to be much more concerned to achieve the minimum level of income that the difference principle would guarantee them than to enjoy increases above that level. In his later work, he abandons this reliance on maximin reasoning and gives greater prominence to another argument hinted at in Theory . This portrays the contracting parties as starting out from the presumption that income and wealth should be distributed equally, but then recognizing that all can benefit by permitting certain inequalities to arise. When these inequalities are governed by the difference principle, they can be justified to everyone, including the worst off, thus creating the conditions for a more stable society. But we need then to ask why equal distribution should be treated as the benchmark, departures from which require special justification. When Rawls says that it is ‘not reasonable’ for any of the parties initially to expect more than an equal share (Rawls 1971, p. 150; Rawls 1999, p. 130), is this simply a corollary of their position as rational choosers behind a veil of ignorance, or has Rawls in addition endowed them with a substantive sense of justice that includes this presumption of equality?

Although Rawls throughout presents his theory of justice as contractarian, we can now see that the terms of the contract are in part determined by prior normative principles that Rawls engineers the parties to follow. So in contrast to Gauthier, it is no longer simply a case of self-interested contractors negotiating their way to an agreement. Rawls candidly admits that the contractual situation has to be adjusted so that it yields results that match our pre-existing convictions about justice. But then we may ask how much work the contractual apparatus is really doing (see Barry 1989, ch. 9 for a critical appraisal).

Scanlon (1998) does not attempt to deliver a theory of justice in the same sense as Rawls, but his contractarian account of that part of morality that specifies ‘what we owe to each other’ covers much of the same terrain (for an explicit attempt to analyse justice in Scanlonian terms, see Barry 1995). Like Rawls, Scanlon is concerned to develop an alternative to utilitarianism, and he does so by developing a test that any candidate moral principle must pass: it must be such that no-one could reasonably reject it as the basis for informed, unforced general agreement (see the entry on contractualism ). Scanlon’s contractors are not positioned behind a veil of ignorance. They are able to see what effect adopting any proposed principle would have on them personally. If that effect is unacceptable to them, they are permitted to reject it. Each person has, so to speak, a veto on any general principle for regulating conduct. Those that survive this test are defensible as principles of justice – Scanlon concedes that there might be alternative sets of such principles appropriate to different social conditions.

It might seem, however, that giving each person a veto would lead straightforwardly to deadlock, since anyone might reject a principle under which he fared badly relative to some alternative. Here the idea of reasonable rejection becomes important. It would not, Scanlon thinks, be reasonable to reject a principle under which one does badly if the alternatives all involve someone else faring worse still. One needs to take account of other people’s reasons for rejecting these alternatives. It might then appear that Scanlon’s contractualism yields the difference principle, which requires the worst-off group in society to be as well of as they can be. But this is not the conclusion that Scanlon draws (though he acknowledges that there might be special reasons to follow Rawls in requiring basic social institutions to follow the difference principle). The claims of other groups must be considered too. If a policy greatly benefits many others, while slightly worsening the position of a few, though without leaving them very badly off, it may well not be rejectable. Scanlon’s position leaves some room for aggregation – it makes a difference how many people will be benefitted if a principle is followed – though not the simple form of aggregation that utilitarians defend.

Scanlon also says that a person can have a reason for rejecting a principle if it treats them unfairly, say by benefitting some but not others for arbitrary reasons. This presupposes a norm of fairness that the contractarian theory does not itself attempt to explain or justify. So it looks as though the purpose of the theory is to provide a distinctive account of moral reasoning (and moral motivation) but not to defend any substantive principles of distributive justice. In this respect, Scanlon’s contractualism is less ambitious than either Gauthier’s or Rawls’.

6. Egalitarianism and Justice

In the recent past, many philosophers have sought to establish a close connection between justice and equality: they ask the question ‘what kind of equality does justice require?’, and to that several competing answers have been given (see, for example Cohen 1989, Dworkin 2000, Sen 1980). But we should not be too hasty to assume that what justice demands is always equality, whether of treatment or of outcome. Perhaps it does so only in a formal sense. As we saw in sect 1.3, justice requires the impartial and consistent application of rules, from which it follows that when two people are alike in all relevant respects, they must be treated equally. But, as Aristotle among others saw, justice also involves the idea of proportional treatment, which implies recipients getting unequal amounts of whatever good is at issue (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics , Book V, ch. 3). If A is twice as deserving or twice as needy as B , justice may require that she receives more than B does. So here formal equality of treatment – the same rule applied to both – leads to an unequal outcome. Again, when justice takes the conservative form of respect for existing entitlements or legitimate expectations (see para 2.1) there is no reason to anticipate that what is due to different people will be substantively the same.

So we need to ask about the circumstances in which justice requires a substantively equal distribution of advantages. One rather obvious case occurs when the members of the group within which the distribution is going to occur have no relevant distinguishing features, so there are no grounds on which some can claim greater shares of benefit than others. Suppose a group experiences a windfall gain for which no-one can claim any credit: a pot of gold somehow appears in their midst. Then unless any member can make a justice-related claim for a larger-than-equal share – say that she has special needs that she lacks sufficient resources to meet – an equal distribution of the gold is what justice demands, since any other distribution would be arbitrary. Equality here is the default principle that applies in the absence of any special claims that can be presented as reasons of justice.

Equality also acts as a default in circumstances where, although people may indeed have unequal claims to whatever good is being distributed, we have no reliable way of identifying and measuring those claims. By sharing the good equally, we can at least ensure that every claim has been partially satisfied. Thus suppose we have limited supplies of a drug that can treat malaria, and a number of patients displaying symptoms of the disease, but lacking specialised medical knowledge we cannot tell whether one person’s condition is more serious than another’s; then by sharing out the drug equally, we can guarantee that each person at least receives the highest fraction of what they really need. Any other distribution must leave at least one person with less (this of course assumes that there is no threshold amount of the drug beneath which it is ineffective; if that assumption is wrong, justice under the stated conditions might require a lottery in which the chosen ones receive threshold-size doses).

If justice requires equality only by default, it might seem to apply only in a narrow range of cases. How could egalitarian justice be made more robust? One approach involves declaring a wider range of factors irrelevant to just distribution. Thus one formulation of the principle holds that no-one should be worse-off than anyone else as a result of their ‘morally arbitrary’ characteristics, where a characteristic is morally arbitrary when its possessor cannot claim credit for having it. This captures a widespread intuition that people should not be advantaged or disadvantaged by virtue of their race or gender, but extends it (more controversially) to all personal features with a genetic basis, such as natural talents and inborn dispositions. In doing so, it discounts most claims of desert, since when people are said to deserve benefits of various kinds, it is usually for performing actions or displaying qualities that depend upon innate characteristics such as strength or intelligence. In the following section, we will see how egalitarian theories of justice have tried to incorporate some desert-like elements by way of response. But otherwise justice as equality and justice as desert appear to be in conflict, and the challenge is to show what can justify equal treatment in the face of inequalities of desert.

A second approach answers this challenge by explaining why it is positively valuable to afford people equal treatment even if they do display features that might appear to justify differential treatment. A prominent advocate of this approach is Dworkin, who argues that fundamental to justice is a principle of equal concern and respect for persons, and what this means in more concrete term is that equal resources should be devoted to the life of each member of society (Dworkin 2000). (The reference to membership here is not redundant, because Dworkin understands egalitarian justice as a principle that must be applied within sovereign states specifically – so in the terms of 3.2, this is a relational view of justice.) The thought is that showing persons equal respect may sometimes require us to afford them equal treatment, even in the face of relevant grounds for discrimination. Thus we insist on political equality – one person, one vote – even though we know that there are quite large differences in people’s competence to make political decisions.

As noted above, justice as simple equality of treatment seems open to the objection that it fails to acknowledge the agency of the recipients, who may have acted in ways that appear to qualify them to receive more (or less) of whatever benefit is being distributed. To answer this objection, several recent philosophers have presented alternative versions of ‘responsibility-sensitive egalitarianism’ – a family of theories of justice that treat equal distribution as a starting point but allow for departures from that baseline when these result from the responsible choices made by individuals (see Knight and Stemplowska 2011 for examples). These theories differ along several dimensions: the ‘currency of justice’ used to define the baseline of equality, the conditions that must be fulfilled for a choice to qualify as responsible, and which among the consequences that follow from a choice should count when the justice of an outcome is being assessed (it may in particular appear unjust to allow people to suffer the full consequences of bad choices that they could not reasonably have anticipated). The label that is often used to describe a sub-class of these theories is ‘luck egalitarianism’. According to luck egalitarians, justice requires that no-one should be disadvantaged relative to others on account of ‘brute’ bad luck, whereas inequalities that arise through the exercise of personal responsibility are permissible (for a full discussion of luck egalitarianism, see the entry on justice and bad luck ). ‘Brute’ luck is interpreted widely to include not only external circumstances such as one person’s initially having access to more resources than another, but also internal factors such as possessing natural abilities or disabilities, or having involuntarily acquired expensive tastes. All such inequalities are to be ironed out by redistribution or compensation, while people’s choices about how to use the assets they are granted should be respected, even if this leads to significant inequality in the long run.

Luck egalitarianism has proved surprisingly influential in recent debates on justice, despite the evident difficulties involved in, for example, quantifying ‘brute luck disadvantage’ in such a way that a compensatory scheme could be established. There are, however, a number of problems it has to face. By giving scope to personal responsibility, it seeks to capture what is perhaps the most attractive part of the conventional idea of desert – that people should be rewarded for making good choices and penalised for making bad ones – while filtering out the effects of having (undeserved) natural talents. But in reality the choices that people make are influenced by the talents and other qualities that they happen to have already. So if we allow someone to reap advantages by, for example, devoting long hours to learning to play the piano at a high level, we must recognize that this is a choice that she would almost certainly not have made unless early experiment showed that she was musically gifted. We cannot say what she would have chosen to do in a counterfactual world in which she was tone deaf. There seems then to be no coherent half-way house between accepting full-blooded desert and denying that people can justly claim relative advantage through the exercise of responsibility and choice (see further Miller 1999, ch. 7) .

A second problem is that one person’s exercise of responsibility may prove advantageous or disadvantageous to others, even though they have done nothing to bring this change about, so from their point of view it must count as ‘brute’ luck. This will be true, for example, in any case in which people are competing to excel in some field, where successful choices made by A will worsen the comparative position of B , C , and D . Or again, if A acts in a way that benefits B , but does nothing comparable to improve the position of C and D , then an inequality is created that counts as ‘brute bad luck’ from the perspective of the latter. One of the most influential exponents of luck egalitarianism seems to have recognized the problem in a late essay: ‘unlike plain egalitarianism, luck egalitarianism is paradoxical, because the use of shares by people is bound to lead to a distribution flecked by luck’ (Cohen 2011, p. 142).

We have seen that equality can sometimes be understood as required by justice; but it can also be valued independently. Indeed there can be circumstances in which the two values collide, because what justice demands is inequality of outcome. The kind of inequality that is independently valuable is social equality, best understood as a property of the relationships that prevail within a society: people regard and treat each other as social equals, and the society’s institutions are designed to foster and reflect such attitudes. A society of equals contrasts with one in which people belong to different ranks in a social hierarchy, and behave towards one another as their relative ranking prescribes. Different reasons can be given for objecting to social inequality, and conversely for valuing social equality (see Scanlon 2003).

Those who find equality valuable for reasons other than reasons of distributive justice are often described as ‘relational egalitarians’ (see Anderson 1999, Wolff 1998, Fourie, Schuppert and Wallimann-Helmer 2015). It is tempting to regard relational egalitarianism as a rival theory of justice to the luck egalitarian theory outlined in §6.2, but it may be more illuminating to see it instead as providing an alternative account of why we should care about limiting material inequality. Thus, faced with a world like the one we currently inhabit in which income differences are very large, justice theorists are likely to criticize these inequalities on grounds that they are not deserved, or arise from brute luck, etc., whereas relational egalitarians will say that they create a divided society in which people are alienated from each other, and cannot interact in a mutually respectful way. Relational equality does not address issues of distribution directly, and so cannot function as a theory of justice itself, but it can provide grounds for preferring one theory of justice to its rivals – namely that implementing that particular theory is more likely to create or sustain a society of equals.

We saw at the beginning of this article that justice can take a number of different forms, depending on the practical context in which it is being applied. Although we found common elements running through this diversity of use – most readily captured in Justinian’s ‘suum cuique ’ formula – these were formal rather than substantive. In these circumstances, it is natural to look for an overarching framework into which the various contextually specific conceptions of justice can all be fitted. Three such frameworks were examined: utilitarianism, contractarianism and egalitarianism. None, however, passed what we might call the ‘Sidgwick/Rawls test’, namely that of incorporating and explaining the majority at least of our considered convictions about justice – beliefs that we feel confident in holding about what justice requires us to do in a wide and varied range of circumstances (for Rawls’ version of the test see the entry on reflective equilibrium ). So unless we are willing to jettison many of these convictions in order to uphold one or other general framework, we will need to accept that no comprehensive theory of justice is available to us; we will have to make do with partial theories – theories about what justice requires in particular domains of human life. Rawls himself, despite the bold title of his first book ( A Theory of Justice ), came to recognize that what he had outlined was at best a theory of social justice applied to the basic institutional structure of a modern liberal state. Other forms of justice – familial, allocative, associational, international – with their associated principles would be applicable in their respective domains (for an even more explicitly pluralist account of justice, see Walzer 1983; for a fuller defence of a contextual approach to justice, see Miller 2013, esp. ch. 2).

One way to loosen up our thinking about justice is by paying greater attention to the history of the concept. We can learn a great deal by reading what Aristotle, or Aquinas, or Hume, has to say about the concept, but as we do so, we also see that elements we would expect to find are missing (there is nothing about rights in Aristotle, for example), while others that we would not anticipate are present. This may in some part be due to the idiosyncrasies of each thinker, but more importantly it reflects differences in the form of social life in which each was embedded – its economic, legal and political structure, especially. Various attempts have been made to write histories of justice that are more than just catalogues of what individual thinkers have said: they aim to trace and explain systematic shifts in the way that justice has been interpreted (for contrasting examples, see MacIntyre 1988, Fleischacker 2004, Johnston 2011). These should not be read as enlightenment stories in which our understanding of justice steadily improves as the centuries roll by. MacIntyre’s view, for example, is that modern liberal societies cannot sustain the practices within which notions of justice find their proper home. We can get a better grasp of what justice means to us by seeing the various conceptions that compete for our attention as tied to aspects of our social world that did not exist in the past, and are equally liable to disappear in the future.

  • Anderson, Elizabeth, 1999, “What is the Point of Equality?” Ethics , 109: 287–337.
  • Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics , translated by Roger Crisp, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
  • –––, The Politics , translated by Thomas Sinclair, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1962.
  • Barry, Brian, 1989, Theories of Justice , Hemel Hempstead: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.
  • –––, 1995, Justice as Impartiality , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Bentham, Jeremy, The Principles of Morals and Legislation , ed. Laurence Lafleur, New York: Hafner Press, 1948.
  • Brighouse, Harry and Adam Swift, 2014, Family Values: the ethics of parent-child relationships , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Buchanan, Allen, 1987, “Justice and Charity,” Ethics , 97: 558–75.
  • Casal, Paula, 2007, “Why Sufficiency Is Not Enough,” Ethics , 117: 296–326.
  • Cohen, G.A., 1989, “On the Currency of Egalitarian Justice,” Ethics , 99: 906–44.
  • –––, 1995, Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • –––, 2008, Rescuing Justice and Equality , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • –––, 2011, “Fairness and Legitimacy in Justice, and: Does Option Luck ever Preserve Justice?” in On the Currency of Egalitarian Justice and Other Essays in Political Philosophy , edited by Michael Otsuka, Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Coleman, Jules, 1992, Risks and Wrongs , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Donaldson, Sue and Will Kymlicka, 2011, Zoopolis: a political theory of animals rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Dworkin, Ronald, 2000, Sovereign Virtue: the theory and practice of equality , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Feinberg, Joel, 1970, “Justice and Personal Desert,” in Doing and Deserving: essays in the theory of responsibility , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • –––, 1974, “Noncomparative Justice,” Philosophical Review , 83: 297–338.
  • Fleischacker, Samuel, 2004, A Short History of Distributive Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Fourie, Carina, Fabian Schuppert and Ivo Wallimann-Helmer (eds.), 2015, Social Equality: on what it means to be equals , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Frankfurt, Harry, 2015, On Inequality , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Fraser, Nancy and Axel Honneth, 2003, Redistribution or Recognition? : a political-philosophical exchange , London: Verso.
  • Fricker, Miranda, 2007, Epistemic Injustice; power and the ethics of knowing , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Garner, Robert, 2013, A Theory of Justice for Animals , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Gauthier, David, 1986, Morals by Agreement , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  • Harsanyi, John, 1975, “Can the Maximin Principle Serve as a Basis for Morality? A Critique of John Rawls’s Theory,” American Political Science Review , 69: 594–606.
  • Hayek, Friedrich, 1976, Law, Legislation and Liberty (Volume II: The Mirage of Social Justice ), London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
  • Hume, David, A Treatise of Human Nature , edited by L.A. Selby-Bigge, revised by P.H. Nidditch, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978.
  • –––, An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals in Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals , edited by L. A. Selby-Bigge, revised by P.H. Nidditch, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975.
  • Johnston, David, 2011, A Brief History of Justice , Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Kagan, Shelly, 2012, The Geometry of Desert , New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Knight, Carl and Zofia Stemplowska (eds.), 2011, Responsibility and Distributive Justice , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Lind, E. Allan and Tom Tyler, 1988, The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice , New York and London: Plenum Press.
  • MacIntyre, Alasdair, 1988, Whose Justice? Which Rationality? , London: Duckworth.
  • Mill, John Stuart, Utilitarianism in Utilitarianism, On Liberty, Representative Government , ed. A.D. Lindsay, London: Dent, 1964.
  • Miller, David, 1999, Principles of Social Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • –––, 2013, Justice for Earthlings: essays in political philosophy , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Montague, Phillip, 1980, “Comparative and Non-Comparative Justice,” Philosophical Quarterly , 30: 131–40.
  • Murphy, Liam, 1998, “Institutions and the Demands of Justice,” Philosophy and Public Affairs , 27, 251–91.
  • Nagel, Thomas, 2005, “The Problem of Global Justice,” Philosophy and Public Affairs , 33, 113–47.
  • Nozick, Robert, 1974, Anarchy, State and Utopia , Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Nussbaum, Martha, 2006, Frontiers of Justice: disability, nationality, species membership , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Okin, Susan, 1989, Justice, Gender, and the Family , New York: Basic Books.
  • Olsaretti, Serena (ed.), 2003, Justice and Desert , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Paul, Jeffrey (ed.), 1982, Reading Nozick : essays on Anarchy, State, and Utopia , Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Perry, Stephen, 2000, “On the Relationship between Corrective and Distributive Justice,” in Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence, Fourth Series , edited by Jeremy Horder, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Raphael, D. D., 2001, Concepts of Justice , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  • Rawls, John, 1958, “Justice as Fairness,” Philosophical Review , 67: 164–94.
  • –––, 1971, A Theory of Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • –––, 1993, Political Liberalism , New York: Columbia University Press.
  • –––, 1999, A Theory of Justice , revised edition, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • –––, 2001, Justice as Fairness: a restatement , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Ripstein, Arthur, 2004, “The Division of Responsibility and the Law of Tort,” Fordham Law Review , 72: 1811–44.
  • Sandel, Michael, 1982, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Scanlon, T. M., 1998, What We Owe to Each Other , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • –––, 2003, “The Diversity of Objections to Inequality,” in The Difficulty of Tolerance: essays in political philosophy , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Sen, Amartya, 1980, “Equality of What?” in Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Volume 1 , ed. S. McMurrin, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Sidgwick, Henry, 1874/1907, The Methods of Ethics , London: Macmillan.
  • Valentini, Laura, 2014, “Canine Justice: An Associative Account,” Political Studies , 62: 37–52.
  • Walzer, Michael, 1983, Spheres of Justice: a defence of pluralism and equality , New York: Basic Books.
  • Williams, Andrew, 1998, “Incentives, Inequality, and Publicity,” Philosophy and Public Affairs , 27: 225–47.
  • Wolff, Jonathan, 1991, Robert Nozick : property, justice and the minimal state , Cambridge: Polity.
  • –––, 1998, “Fairness, Respect and the Egalitarian Ethos,” Philosophy and Public Affairs , 27: 97–122.
  • Young, Iris Marion, 2011, Responsibility for Justice , New York: Oxford University Press.
How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.
  • Justice , course lectures by Michael Sandel
  • Justice Everywhere , a group blog about justice in public affairs

Aristotle, General Topics: ethics | consequentialism | consequentialism: rule | contractualism | feminist philosophy, topics: perspectives on reproduction and the family | justice: as a virtue | justice: distributive | justice: global | justice: intergenerational | justice: international distributive | justice: retributive | justice: transitional | luck: justice and bad luck | Rawls, John | reflective equilibrium | social contract: contemporary approaches to

Copyright © 2021 by David Miller < david . miller @ nuffield . ox . ac . uk >

  • Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

  • Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Writing Universe - logo

  • Environment
  • Information Science
  • Social Issues
  • Argumentative
  • Cause and Effect
  • Classification
  • Compare and Contrast
  • Descriptive
  • Exemplification
  • Informative
  • Controversial
  • Exploratory
  • What Is an Essay
  • Length of an Essay
  • Generate Ideas
  • Types of Essays
  • Structuring an Essay
  • Outline For Essay
  • Essay Introduction
  • Thesis Statement
  • Body of an Essay
  • Writing a Conclusion
  • Essay Writing Tips
  • Drafting an Essay
  • Revision Process
  • Fix a Broken Essay
  • Format of an Essay
  • Essay Examples
  • Essay Checklist
  • Essay Writing Service
  • Pay for Research Paper
  • Write My Research Paper
  • Write My Essay
  • Custom Essay Writing Service
  • Admission Essay Writing Service
  • Pay for Essay
  • Academic Ghostwriting
  • Write My Book Report
  • Case Study Writing Service
  • Dissertation Writing Service
  • Coursework Writing Service
  • Lab Report Writing Service
  • Do My Assignment
  • Buy College Papers
  • Capstone Project Writing Service
  • Buy Research Paper
  • Custom Essays for Sale

Can’t find a perfect paper?

  • Free Essay Samples

Essays on Justice

Every justice essay showcases a different take on explaining justice. Ever since Antiquity philosophers understood that justice concerns all areas of human life, from common ones like the state's justice system and civil rights to private ones like individual human everyday lives, and many justice essays share this point. Some essay-writers define justice as the requirement of conformity between what a person does and what they receive in return – many essays on justice feature this definition of justice. Citizens of the same country have equal rights, freedoms, follow and are prosecuted under the same law, which makes for a uniformed justice system. Justice essay samples featured here explore justice from different points of view – make sure to review different samples of essays.

Wolterstorff considers the concept bound to justice after reflecting on two life-related events. The 1976 apartheid concerns prevalent in South Africa associates to one of the theories noted. He observed how the Afrikaners failed to extend justice to both the ‘colored’ people and the ‘blacks.’ Another event concerns the 1978...

Nozick's Theory of Justice Nozick’s theory of justice claims that, by examining its history, one can determine if goods have been distributed in a just way or not. Unlike, John Rawls theory of justice based on original agreements and structure of the society (Feibleman, 207), Nozick’s argument is historically based. The...

A Just Society A just society is the one that has a fair distribution of resources, political transparency, and fair justice to those who deserve it and an appropriate punishment for those who break the law among others. In a just society, there should be no people who are more privileged...

Factors Influencing Decision Making in the Supreme Courts There are many factors that influence the decision making in the supreme courts. There are not supposed to be any factor, but there are. Ideally, the court is supposed to be influenced only by the laws of that land, and rulings are supposed...

1. The decision to issue a writ of certiorari is made when there are suspected irregularities in a case. In this regard, an appellate court requires a lower court to submit the case record for review purposes. Higher courts exercise the discretion to determine which cases need to be reviewed. 2....

George Zimmerman’s acquittal was met with mixed reactions from the public, media, and legal analysts alike (Foreman, 2013). Although the prosecution had a seemingly strong case linking to a second-degree murder of Trayvon Martin, the defense equally had strong counterarguments to that regard. In their submissions, the defense was succinct...

Found a perfect essay sample but want a unique one?

Request writing help from expert writer in you feed!

The United States Prison System The United States has among the highest rates of imprisonment in the world. The number of inmates as at 2016 was about 8 million (Markman et al., 2016). The high prison populations have been blamed for the high expenditures of the justice system. Therefore, there has...

Introduction Victimology is the study of victims of crime and the relationships between offenders and the existing criminal justice system. The study of crime victims involves an analysis of crime and criminal behavior by taking different forms. The mainstream of victimology, however, solely focuses on crime victims with an emphasis on...

Words: 1779

In the modern world, students have a dizzying collection of career paths that were not available in the past generations. Every graduating student faces an overwhelming range of possibilities that lie before them after completion of their campus studies. The circumstances that come with the achievement can be stressful and...

Andrew Bradford is the author of the core reading entitled "As Cape Town's Water Runs Out, The Rich Drill Wells. The Poor Worry About Eating". Bradford is a citizen of South Africa interested mainly in the factors affecting the individuals of his country who cannot afford clean drinking water. The author...

On June 6th 2018, Kim Kardashian West, wife to right-winged pundit and African American rapper Kanye West met president Trump in the Oval office and urged him to offer clemency to one Alice Marie Johnson. Convicted in 1996, for her involvement in Memphis cocaine tariffing organization with links to a...

Words: 1193

Justice: A Concept of Giving and Receiving What is Due Justice refers to the quality of giving and receiving what is due. The concept of justice also refers to actions that demonstrate this quality, and to people who administer laws in society. Over the years, western philosophers have attempted to define...

Related topic to Justice

You might also like.

Human Rights Careers

8 Tips For Writing A Social Justice Essay

Social justice covers a variety of issues involving race, gender, age, sexual orientation, income equality and much more. How do you write an essay on a social justice issue that’s engaging, informative and memorable? Here are eight tips you should take to heart when writing:

When writing a social justice essay, you should brainstorm for ideas, sharpen your focus, identify your purpose, find a story, use a variety of sources, define your terms, provide specific evidence and acknowledge opposing views.

#1. Brainstorm creatively

Before you start writing your social justice essay, you need a topic. Don’t hesitate to look far and wide for inspiration. Read other social justice essays, look at recent news stories, watch movies and talk to people who are also interested in social justice. At this stage, don’t worry about the “trendiness” of your idea or whether a lot of people are already writing about it. Your topic will evolve in response to your research and the arguments you develop. At the brainstorming stage, you’re focused on generating as many ideas as possible, thinking outside the box and identifying what interests you the most. Take a free online course to get a better understanding of social justice.

You can take a creative brainstorming approach! A blog on Hubspot offers 15 creative ideas such as storyboarding, which involves laying out ideas in a narrative form with terms, images and other elements. You can also try freewriting, which is when you choose something you’re interested in. Next, write down everything you already know, what you need to know but don’t already, why the topic matters and anything else that comes to mind. Freewriting is a good exercise because it helps you decide if there’s any substance to a topic or if it’s clear there’s not enough material for a full essay.

#2. Sharpen your topic’s focus

The best essays narrow on a specific social justice topic and sharpen its focus, so it says something meaningful and interesting. This is often challenging, but wrestling with what exactly you want your essay to say is worth the effort. Why? An essay with a narrow, sharp focus has a clearer message. You’re also able to dig deeper into your topic and provide better analysis. If your topic is too broad, you’re forced to skim the surface, which produces a less interesting essay.

How do you sharpen your essay’s focus? Grace Fleming provides several tips on ThoughtCatalog . First, you can tell your topic is too broad if it can be summarized in just 1-2 words. As an example, “health inequity” is way too broad. Fleming suggests applying the questions, “Who, what, where, when, why and how,” to your topic to narrow it down. So, instead of just “health inequity,” you might end up with something like “The impact of health inequity in maternal healthcare systems on Indigenous women.” Your topic’s focus may shift or narrow even further depending on the research you find.

Writing a human rights topic research paper? Here are five of the most useful tips .

#3. Identify your purpose

As you unearth your topic and narrow its focus, it’s important to think about what you want your essay to accomplish. If you’re only thinking about your essay as an assignment, you’ll most likely end up with a product that’s unfocused or unclear. Vague sentiments like “Everyone is writing about social justice” and “Social justice is important” are also not going to produce an essay with a clear purpose. Why are you writing this essay? Are you wanting to raise awareness of a topic that’s been historically ignored? Or do you want to inspire people to take action and change something by giving them concrete how-to strategies? Identifying your purpose as soon as possible directs your research, your essay structure and how you style your writing.

If you’re not sure how to find your purpose, think about who you’re writing for. An essay written for a university class has a different audience than an essay written for a social justice organization’s social media page. If there are specific instructions for your essay (professors often have requirements they’re looking for), always follow them closely. Once you’ve identified your purpose, keep it at the front of your mind. You’ll produce an essay that’s clear, focused and effective.

#4. Find a human story

The best social justice essays don’t only provide compelling arguments and accurate statistics; they show your topic’s real-world impact. Harvard’s Kennedy School’s communications program describes this process as “finding a character.” It’s especially useful when you’re writing something persuasive. Whatever your topic, try to find the human stories behind the ideas and the data. How you do that depends on the nature of your essay. As an example, if you’re writing something more academic, focusing too much on the emotional side of a story may not be appropriate. However, if you’re writing an essay for an NGO’s fundraising campaign, focusing on a few people’s stories helps your reader connect to the topic more deeply.

How do you choose what stories to feature? Harvard suggests choosing someone you have access to either through your research or as an interview subject. If you get the opportunity to interview people, make sure you ask interesting questions that dig beneath the surface. Your subject has a unique perspective; you want to find the information and stories only they can provide.

#5. Rely on a variety of sources

Depending on your essay’s purpose and audience, there might be certain sources you’re required to use. In a piece for Inside Higher Ed, Stephanie Y. Evans describes how her students must use at least 10 source types in their final paper assignment. Most of the time, you’ll have a lot of freedom when it comes to research and choosing your sources. For best results, you want to use a wide variety. There are a few reasons why. The first is that a variety of sources gives you more material for your essay. You’ll access different perspectives you wouldn’t have found if you stuck to just a few books or papers. Reading more sources also helps you ensure your information is accurate; you’re fact-checking sources against one another. Expanding your research helps you address bias, as well. If you rely only on sources that reflect your existing views, your essay will be much less interesting.

While we’re talking about sources, let’s touch on citations. If you’re writing an essay for school, your teacher will most likely tell you what citation method they want you to use. There are several depending on the discipline. As an example, in the United States, social science disciplines like sociology and education tend to use the American Psychological Association (APA) style. Some places are very rigid about citation styles, while others are more relaxed. If you’re writing an essay where your citation won’t be checked, you still need to give credit to any ideas, thoughts, or research that’s not yours. Proper citation builds trust with your reader and boosts your credibility.

Here are more tips on writing a human rights essay!

#6. Define your key terms

To make your essay as clear and effective as possible, you want every reader on the same page right at the beginning. Defining your key terms is an important step. As Ian Johnston writes, creating an effective argument requires “the establishment of clear, precise, and effective definitions for key terms in the arguments.” You may have to adapt an existing definition or write your own. Johnston offers principles such as adjusting a definition based on the knowledge of who you’re writing for, focusing on what a term is and not just on its effects, and expanding a definition so it covers everything a reader needs to know.

How do you decide which terms are important in your essay? First, never assume a reader understands a term because it’s “obvious.” The most obvious terms are often the ones that need the clearest definitions. If your reader doesn’t know exactly what you’re talking about when you use a term like “health equity,” your essay won’t be as effective. In general, you want to define any terms relevant to your topic, terms that are used frequently and terms with distinct meanings in the context of your essay.

#7. Provide specific evidence and examples

Social justice issues are grounded in reality, so an essay should reflect that. Don’t spend your whole paper being philosophical or hypothetical. As an example, let’s say you’re writing an essay about desertification in Mali. Don’t discuss desertification as an abstract concept. Include real statistics and case studies on desertification in Mali, who it’s affecting the most and what is being done about it. For every argument you make, present supporting evidence and examples.

The strength of your evidence determines the strength of your arguments. How do you find strong evidence? Cite This For Me lists a handful of examples , such as studies, statistics, quotes from subject matter experts and/or reports, and case studies. Good evidence also needs to be accurate and in support of your argument. Depending on your essay topic, how current a piece of evidence is also matters. If you’re not relying on the most current evidence available, it can weaken your overall argument. Evidence should also be as specific as possible to your topic. Referring back to our desertification in Mali essay, that means locating examples of how desertification affects people in Mali , not in Chad or Russia.

Academic essay writing requires specific skills. Here’s an online introductory course on academic writing .

#8. Acknowledge your critics

Not every social justice essay requires an acknowledgment of opposing viewpoints, but addressing critics can strengthen your essay. How? It lets you confront your critics head-on and refute their arguments. It also shows you’ve researched your topic from every angle and you’re willing to be open-minded. Some people worry that introducing counterarguments will weaken the essay, but when you do the work to truly dissect your critic’s views and reaffirm your own, it makes your essay stronger.

The University of Pittsburgh offers a four-step strategy for refuting an argument. First, you need to identify the claim you’re responding to. This is often the trickiest part. Some writers misrepresent the claims of their critics to make them easier to refute, but that’s an intellectually dishonest method. Do your best to understand what exactly the opposing argument is claiming. Next, make your claim. You might need to provide specific evidence, which you may or may not have already included in your essay. Depending on the claim, your own thoughts may be a strong enough argument. Lastly, summarize what your claim implies about your critics, so your reader is left with a clear understanding of why your argument is the stronger one.

You may also like

9 online courses on leading diverse teams, 40 top-rated social issues courses to study in 2024, 10 courses to prepare for your human rights job, register now: global institute of human rights certificate program, the un immersion programme is open for applications, the un young leaders online training programme is open for applications, ngo jobs: our short guide, apply now: un post graduate diploma in global health procurement and supply chain management, civil rights jobs: our short guide, social justice lawyer 101: tasks, salary, career paths, 7 things to consider when designing a human rights logo, apply now: un executive diploma on international criminal law and transitional justice, about the author, emmaline soken-huberty.

Emmaline Soken-Huberty is a freelance writer based in Portland, Oregon. She started to become interested in human rights while attending college, eventually getting a concentration in human rights and humanitarianism. LGBTQ+ rights, women’s rights, and climate change are of special concern to her. In her spare time, she can be found reading or enjoying Oregon’s natural beauty with her husband and dog.

  • Entertainment
  • Environment
  • Information Science and Technology
  • Social Issues

Home Essay Samples Law

Essay Samples on Justice

The rich vs. poor justice system: navigating disparities in access.

The stark contrast between the rich and poor justice system raises critical questions about equity, fairness, and the extent to which the legal system serves individuals from different socioeconomic backgrounds. The administration of justice is expected to be blind to wealth and social status, providing...

  • Criminal Justice

The Importance of the Criminal Justice System

The importance of the criminal justice system cannot be overstated in a functioning society. It serves as the cornerstone of maintaining law and order, upholding justice, and safeguarding the rights of individuals. This system comprises a network of agencies, institutions, and processes that work together...

The Three Major Components of the Criminal Justice System

The three major components of the criminal justice system play a vital role in maintaining law and order, upholding justice, and ensuring the protection of citizens' rights. This system is a cornerstone of modern societies, designed to address and mitigate criminal activities through a structured...

Pioneering Justice: Legacy of First African American Supreme Court

The appointment of the first African American Supreme Court Justice marked a historic milestone in the journey towards equality and justice within the United States. This essay delves into the life and accomplishments of the first African American to serve on the highest judicial body...

  • African American

Unveiling Medieval Justice: Courts, Punishments, and Evolution of the Law in Europe

I have been assigned the task of researching a topic from medieval Europe. The following paragraphs include law and court from the time 476 AD – 1492 (medieval) because in the class time we have had for history and I found the law and court...

  • Medieval Europe

Stressed out with your paper?

Consider using writing assistance:

  • 100% unique papers
  • 3 hrs deadline option

Judiciary Diversity and Separation of Powers in the UK

“The law the legal profession and the courts are there to serve the whole population, not just a small section of it. They should be as reflective of that as it is possible to be” In this paper I will discuss the extent to which...

  • Gender Inequality

What Does Social Justice Mean To You

Justice can be said to be the ligament that binds together civilized beings and civilized nations. The word 'justice' can be heard on everybody's lips and can mean virtually everything. The majority of the people cry of 'Peace and Justice' that would fire and sword...

  • Restorative Justice
  • Social Justice

"A Tale Of Two Cities": Movie Analysis

“A Tale Of Two Cities” is a movie based on historical events that have taken place. The best way to describe this film is by saying “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times”. The movie we watched is considered to...

  • A Tale of Two Cities

Moral Foundation for Liberal Egalitarian Politics

Left-libertarianism is a promising englobement of the values that define liberal egalitarian politics. In this essay I will argue that left-libertarianism does in fact provide a compelling moral foundation for liberal egalitarian politics. Furthermore, throughout the essay I will bring in discussion certain elements that...

The Development of English Contract Law

The development of English Contract Law was massively impacted by Athenian and Roman Law which is by the Twelve Tables in 450 BC. Roman law of contracts where is found in Byzantine emperor Jusatinian’s law where it is called Corpus. Juris Civil (“Body of Civil...

Standing Up Against Police Brutality And For Your Beliefs

Tupac Shaker exclaimed “This so called ‘Home of the Brave’ why isn’t anybody backing us up!” The battle and struggle of racial profiling and civil mistreatment from police has diminished through the course of the 20th century. From the era of slavery in America to...

  • Personal Beliefs
  • Police Brutality

Beneficence And Nonmaleficence: The Main Principles Of Utilitarianism

Autonomy is when someone has a rational capacity for self-governance or self- determination which is the ability to direct one’s life and make choices for themselves. A person should be allowed capacity for self-determination. People will have the power to make rational decisions as well...

  • Utilitarianism

Injustice Anywhere Is A Threat To Justice Everywhere

Justice In the world of freedom of expression, individuals through society have their own demonstration of justice. Depending on the point of view of each personage in which justice would have a different meaning. Martin Luther King and Judith Butler are two representatives emphasizing their...

  • American Criminal Justice System
  • Letter From Birmingham Jail

Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied: Injustice Anywhere Is A Threat To Justice Everywhere

Historical acknowledgement of delays in the justice system after recognize the perspective of the accused or the disputed and suggest that for a person seeking justice, the time taken for resolution of their issue is critical to the justice experience. In essence, these acknowledgements are...

Falsely Convicted: A Person Is Innocent Until Proven Guilty

Imagine waking up and being accused of a crime that you did not commit. This is a nightmare for anyone who cares about justice. Year after innocent people re tossed into the legal system for short- or long-term sentences for crimes they did not commit....

Beneficence And Nonmaleficence As One Of The Principles Of Medical Ethics

As a student who is currently striving to succeed in medical school in the near future, I am studying medical ethics to learn the basics and Principles of Biomedical Ethics and thus applying it in my career. There are four main principles of Biomedical Ethics...

  • Helping Others
  • Medical Ethics

Motivation Of People Seeking For Revenge

People tend to become extremely motivated in the pursuit of seeking out revenge on others for various reasons. From something mediocre to an extreme. Revenge is the forceful desire to inflict hurt or harm to another for a wrong suffered at their hands or just...

Reliability And Implications Of Neuroscientific Findings In Legal Contexts

Abstract Neuroscience has steadily become a standard part of the psychological assessment in court but is still relatively new. The usage of it still lacks consensus from both the neuroscientific as well as the legal side and proper policies have not been put into practice....

  • Criminology
  • Nervous System

Negative Side Of Jury System And Why It Should Be Abolished

A jury system is a system where the verdict in a case is decided by a jury with justice. Justice is the idea of determining someone’s rightness by the law by fairness. The jury system should no longer exist because it causes problems like people...

  • Judicial System

Theme of Justice in Ernest J. Gaines' Novel A Lesson Before Dying

Everyone has different options on justice and who deserves justice but in reality it's really faiths decision on who gets justice and who doesn't. In the novel “A Lesson Before Dying” by Ernest J. Gaines, about a young boy in his teens being sentenced to...

  • A Lesson Before Dying

Comparison of Laws and Themes in the Code of Nesilim and Hammurabi's Code

In the code of Nesilim and Hammurabi’s code of law some general themes that I find are that if there is an action there will be a reaction and for every action there is a negative consequence. These consequences can come in the form of...

  • Hammurabi's Code

Analysis of Corrupt Justice System Portrayed in Bryan Stevenson's Novel Just Mercy

The founder of the Equal Justice Initiative and an author, Bryan Stevenson, in his novel Just Mercy, question the corrupt justice system. Stevenson highlights the cons of the justice system, such as how racism and bribery are taken into place. With the creation of a...

  • Juvenile Justice System

Differences in Justice System of Various Countries Around the World

Common law is the legal system used in Great Britain and the United States except the state of Louisiana. According to common law, judges must consider the decisions of earlier court’s precedents about similar cases when making their own decisions. People sometimes call common law...

  • Criminal Law

The Determination to Fight for Justice in Erin Brockovich

The “Erin Brockovich” is a true story about the woman who was unemployed and has three young children and shows the struggles of her family name is (Julia Roberts) directed by Steven Soderbergh and it was released on June 14, 2000. The film was very...

  • Erin Brockovich
  • Single Parenting

Just War Theory: Justification of War Events

'A way of morally justifying war by the theory that, despite its evils, war may be necessary and justifiable under certain conditions and within certain limitations. Conditions for entering and conducting wars are constructed'. It differs from pacifism and the holy war theory. The traditional...

  • Israeli Palestinian Conflict
  • Just War Theory

Uncovering the Corruption Of Justice in Friedrich DĂźrrenmatt's Play The Visit

Throughout history, there is always the question of whether or not justice can be bought and morally achieved. Money plays a key role in the deterioration of the fundamental basis of justice for there are many instances in which it has been capable of blurring...

The Meaning of Justice in The Crucible

In everyday life we can see that the concept of justice has a different meaning for everyone. In the act three of The Crucible we see how meaning of justice is different depending on the character, time and occasion. In this section, Arthur Miller will...

  • Arthur Miller
  • The Crucible Conflict

The Justice Motive and Guantanamo Bay: The Blindness in Injustice   

On the morning of September 11, 2001, the United States fell victim to the terrorist attacks of Al Qaeda. These attacks shifted the United States to focus on rectifying this travesty. This motivation birthed the “War on Terror,” which sought to destroy threats of terrorism...

  • Guantanamo Bay

The Development of New Methods of Crime Prevention

Abstract Crime prevention is such a broad term. What is considered a crime? How is our law enforcement deterring crime? How can we work with our law enforcement to help prevent crime? There are many issues that are dealt with on a day to day...

The Realism Behind the Concept of Just War

War: The bane of civilization’s existence. War is often characterized by the absence of peace, but war’s nature extends beyond that very characteristic. Its definition is widely disputed and this is partly because those who have undertaken the task of delving into the subject of...

Measure for Measure: The Complex Relations of Justice, Punishment and Mercy

Introduction Measure to Measure is one of the most exquisite pieces of work by Shakespeare. It is a dark comedy play in five acts that are based on the complex interactions of justice, mercy, and punishment. It opens with the Duke of Vienna, Vincentio, commissioning...

  • Measure for Measure

Symbolism of the Corruption of Justice in The Visit

In The Visit, author, Friedrich Durrenmatt uses the development of characters and symbolism to raise the questions of corruptibility of Justice “Can Justice Be Bought”? The main characters, Claire Zachanassian, Alfred Ill and the townspeople of Güllen all help the author give us, as audience...

Should Prisoner Rehabilitation Programs be Intoduced to American Prisons

When the prison door slams behind an inmate, it does not mean they lose their basic human rights; the human quality is not locked away. Prisons are necessary to protect and keep society safe, without them the strong would feel no threat when they prey...

  • Rehabilitation Programs

Liberty and Justice for All as the Words of Destiny

“Liberty and justice for all” are the words recited by students across the United States each day. This phrase is included in our nation's Pledge of Allegiance, which is supposed to represent the idea that each citizen is equal under the law. It signifies the...

The Need of Implementation the Common Law in Modern Society

The common law system is recognized as an older; as well as proficient technique in quite a few countries helping to make the system of law a better one. In Canada, common law is used and based on the judge's past decisions rather than written...

Serving Justice by Killing a Murder, a Rogerian Style Argument

The first established death penalty laws date as far back as the Eighteenth Century B.C. in the Code of King Hammurabi of Babylon, which codified the death penalty for 25 different crimes. The vast majority of individuals facing execution were convicted of crimes that are...

  • Rogerian Argument

"Just Mercy": a Hopeful Cry for Justice in the Face of Injustice

As I lived in Lehi, Utah for most of my life, I realized that I have grown up somewhat sheltered. My parents were fearful of sending me to high school afraid of what I might hear, even overly cautious while taking a trip to New...

Just Mercy: The Importance of the Equality in Justice

I never thought I would sympathize with her murderer. I never thought I would feel bad for the man who made our family suffer so much. My grandfather was only 10 years old when his mother was shot during an armed robbery of their little...

Exploration of Grit in True Grit by Charles Portis

The terms revenge and justice often get muddled. Revenge is centered around retaliation while justice is solely dealing with restoring a broken or uneven balance. The novel True Grit, by Charles Portis, is about a fourteen-year-old girl named Mattie Ross who is intent on tracking...

  • Protagonist

The Equity of Territorial Jurisdiction Laws

Jurisdiction can be simply be defined as the courts power to determine a case. It is so fundamental that it is a condition precedent to be fulfilled before any action can be brought before a court. In the decided case of shelim v. Gobang it...

Mandatory Organ Donation for the Common Good

Michael Sandel introduces to readers in the beginning of his book: “Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do?” that there are three approaches in thinking about justice in order to gear America towards a politics of the common good. The first of which is maximizing...

  • Organ Donation

The Unfaireness and Injustice Behind Corporative Outsourcing

The main purpose of this research paper is to explain the key reasons why outsourcing isn’t good for a business and how it takes jobs away from workers in the United States. The biggest problem with outsourcing is that it increases unemployment rates. The disadvantages...

  • Outsourcing
  • Unemployment

Antigone and Creon: Discussion of Values and Justice

Occurring in the moral realm, the major conflict in Sophocles' Antigone finds its very essence in the binary opposition of two disparate minds, the upholder of divine law and the advocate of human law. This clash between two social forces is embodied by the author...

  • Antigone Tragic Hero

Racialized Mass Incarceration: The Facade of 'Liberty and Justice for All'

Millions of individuals throughout the United States have the Pledge of Allegiance memorized and some even recite it every day. One particular line, however, is rather conflicting. “Liberty and justice for all.” The United States prides itself on being a utopian world of freedom and...

  • Mass Incarceration

Societal Narcissism and Class Injustice in The Hunger Games

Merriam-Webster dictionary defines dystopia as “an imaginary place where people lead dehumanized and often fearful lives.” Dystopian literature is a type of fictional written work used to examine social and political structures in 'a dark, nightmare world.' The term dystopia is characterized as a general...

  • The Hunger Games

The Salem Witch Trials: Horrific Tragedy of Injustice

“During the colonial period, nearly three hundred women were accused by their neighbors of performing witchcraft. Although those accusations spanned approximately the first century of English settlement in North America, about half were voiced during one ten-month period in 1692.” (Salem Witchcraft Trials). In 1962...

  • Salem Witch Trials

Death Penalty as A Tool of Injustice

Do you remember those times in grade school when you had to sit out at recess because your teacher thought you did something you were innocent of? That was brutal punishment as a kid. You felt so angry because you missed the chance of playing...

  • Death Penalty

The Problems Of Juvenile Justice System In India

"In our country children are considered as a gift from the heaven and if the child is a boy then nothing could be more soothing for the family and from the very beginning children are exempted from severe punishment for any wrong committed on their...

An Analysis Of The Adversarial System Of Australia

Criminal Justice systems come in all forms, some of which may appear foreign to those not familiar with the system itself. Becoming familiar with any criminal justice system can become somewhat of a struggle considering all the changes and developments that have been made over...

Formal And Informal Justice Systems

In chapter one, the book goes over the differences between formal and informal justice. Formal justice is “a process that takes an offender through a series of decision points beginning with arrest and concluding with reentry into society” (Siegel 10). Informal justice however is when...

  • Book Review

Juvenile Justice Systems Throughout The World

Among the world’s developed countries, the United States is widely considered to be one of, if not the harshest criminal justice system. In America, we find an elevated level of violent crime and more severe punishments than many other countries. It is no secret that...

Expanding on the Topic of Justice in Plato’s Republic

Throughout the book The Republic Plato, Socrates, and the rest of their peers constantly discuss what justice is. Spanning over the course of several chapters, they compare what an ideal city would be like and how the ordering of the city is the same as...

  • Plato Republic

The Impact of Determinate and Indeterminate Sentencing Models on Corrections in the United States

Analyze the impact that various sentencing models have had on corrections. As part of your analysis you must discuss at least two (2) different sentencing models. The Purpose of Sentencing a criminal is to deter others from committing crimes, to incapacitate individuals from continuing to...

Why Flogging Is An Injustice

According to Jeff Jacoby, a columnist from the Boston Globe newspaper, in “Bring Back Flogging”, America’s current form of punishment for breaking laws is a waste and that it should be replaced with public whipping or flogging. Jacoby attempts to convey this subject by using...

  • Criminals in Society

The Connection Between Justice And Fairness

I personally think that justice is the same thing as fairness. Justice can be seen anywhere, when you are talking about law for example, justice will apply equally to everyone, well depending the type of charge you get of course. For example, if you kill...

The Key Elements Of Tne Advocacy Letter

When the topic of social justice arises, a wide array of issues come to mind. As social workers we must be able to analyze broad topics and pinpoint the underlying causes that contribute to the overall injustices that an individual or community are facing. By...

Best topics on Justice

1. The Rich vs. Poor Justice System: Navigating Disparities in Access

2. The Importance of the Criminal Justice System

3. The Three Major Components of the Criminal Justice System

4. Pioneering Justice: Legacy of First African American Supreme Court

5. Unveiling Medieval Justice: Courts, Punishments, and Evolution of the Law in Europe

6. Judiciary Diversity and Separation of Powers in the UK

7. What Does Social Justice Mean To You

8. “A Tale Of Two Cities”: Movie Analysis

9. Moral Foundation for Liberal Egalitarian Politics

10. The Development of English Contract Law

11. Standing Up Against Police Brutality And For Your Beliefs

12. Beneficence And Nonmaleficence: The Main Principles Of Utilitarianism

13. Injustice Anywhere Is A Threat To Justice Everywhere

14. Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied: Injustice Anywhere Is A Threat To Justice Everywhere

15. Falsely Convicted: A Person Is Innocent Until Proven Guilty

  • First Amendment
  • Cyber Crime
  • Marijuana Legalization
  • Employment Law

Need writing help?

You can always rely on us no matter what type of paper you need

*No hidden charges

100% Unique Essays

Absolutely Confidential

Money Back Guarantee

By clicking “Send Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails

You can also get a UNIQUE essay on this or any other topic

Thank you! We’ll contact you as soon as possible.

🏛️ Justice Essays

Importance of gun safety 🔥 trending.

Gun-related deaths and injuries can be prevented if measures are implemented to improve gun handling and safer storage and keep them away from individuals at…

Courtroom standards analysis

A courtroom can be described as the official chamber for the transaction of judicial business. Various individuals in the courtroom usually have different roles. Some…

Evaluation of the Performance of Jackson County Judges

Introduction  The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the performance of Jackson County judges. To achieve the goal of the investigation, a total of…

Improvised Explosive Devices and Vehicular – Borne Improvised Explosive Devices

Improvised explosive devices and vehicular- borne explosives explosive devices as the focus of this project have become such serious security threats in the modern world,…

VICARIOUS LIABILITY IN THE LAW OF TORT

The law of tort has two primary aims; to compensate the victim or to deter torts in general. A tort is defined as a civil…

essay writing on justice

THE DOCTRINE OF COMPETENCE-COMPETENCE

Introduction Competence-competence can be regarded as a general doctrine that is present in international commercial arbitration. In international trade agreements, most parties mutually agree to…

International Commercial Arbitration Research Paper

Introduction The term ‘arbitration’ is defined as an effective mechanism for settling disagreements through a written contract, which is undertaken by the respective parties. The…

New Solution to Ethics in Criminal Justice

Ethical situation Corruption in the criminal justice system has been a thorn in the flesh for many governments.  The judicial institutions are very corrupt and…

Plato’s Concept of Justice

Plato (427BCE- 346BCE) was a Greek philosopher. He was a student of the great Greek Philosopher Socrates, and hence most of his ideologies were aligned…

Issues in Criminal Justice Concerns for Speedy Criminal Justice Process

Introduction The criminal justice is a subject of widespread heated debate in many quarters of the UK systems such as the Parliament the broadcast media…

Probation instead incarceration

Incarceration is a condition whereby an offender is detained or confined in a place such as jail or prison for a certain period of time….

PRIVATIZATION OF ATC IN U.S

Impact of Privatization of Air Traffic Control System in the US Privatization is the transfer of ownership and control of a government-owned business to private…

Creating Laws without Sacrificing Religious Freedom

Since time in memorial, religion has played critical roles when it came to the creation and establishment of laws governing global societies. There are several…

Comparison of Structure and Prospect of European Union and Eurasia…

This paper seeks to explore a comparison between the European Union (EU) and the Eurasian Union, popularly known as the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). The…

Do you agree with the view that social media can…

Introduction  Social media has been dignified as a blessing in disguise and a revolutionary discovery responsible for social equity since conception. However, scholars and researchers…

TRANSNATIONAL ORGANISED AND CORPORATE CRIME

Introduction The paper seeks to discuss ways in which the global structural conditions influenced the prevalence of transnational organized crime. Research has revealed recent developments…

Gender and crime

Introduction Gender is a key factor existing within a society which acts as a main influential social construct. Gender as a social construct is believed…

The UAE Legal System 

Introduction The United Arab Emirates’ (UAE) legal system is one of the most complicated in the world. It is a combination of common laws and…

Should Texting while Driving be illegal?

Since the inception of mobile phones, communication through text messages has become the simplest method of passing information from one person to another. Texting is…

Was The American Revolution Justified Essay

In the mid-1700s, thirteen American colonies began an uprising with the goal of achieving independence from Great Britain. The Americans had all grounds, motives and…

What is the best site to search for quality justice paper samples?

In our database, you will find a well-written justice essay sample.

How to use justice essay samples to create my paper?

Please read and analyze them, then paraphrase the parts you liked, do some additional research on your own, or order an essay to be written by our professionals.

Is it allowed to submit your samples as mine?

You can use samples as your inspiration, but nothing more than that, as it will be illegal to submit work as your own while others might have cited the source.

How many college papers and research papers do you have in your database?

We have thousands of essays and research papers.

According to Plato, classical justice is a “human virtue” that requires an individual to balance many aspects of their nature, especially reason, desire, and spirit. Everyone will act pretty in society and carry out their responsibilities in the proper form and at the appropriate time.

Justice Essay Examples through Philosophical Approach

For practically all Western accounts, Aristotle’s exposition of the virtue of justice served as the beginning point. According to him, treating comparable circumstances similarly is the essence of justice. This principle has given subsequent philosophers the challenge of determining pertinent parallels.

Aristotle distinguishes between distributive justice, which is the equitable sharing of wealth or other assets, and reparative justice, which is the punishment of a person for a wrong they have committed. The appropriate state, a key idea in political philosophy, likewise depends on justice. During your philosophy or even law classes, the lecturer might ask you to write an essay about justice to ensure you comprehend this theme’s philosophical aspect. You might need some justice essay examples for your inspiration.

How a Justice Essay Sample Can Help You in Writing

Writing an essay on justice is challenging. Finding accurate information, organizing it properly, and feeling confident that you’re using reliable sources are complex tasks.

We are here. You can find an essay on a given topic as our database of writings can be searched by subject and keywords. After that, you can use our essay as a leaping point for your study by expanding it or changing how it is structured.

Get writing inspiration from our examples

You might quickly become stuck when writing an English essay on justice. The words you want to use are in your head, but you can’t locate them. Clear your mind and concentrate on what needs to be done following aids in getting ideas out of your head. Reading other people’s writing when you’re having problems coming up with something is recommended, as you’ve undoubtedly heard.

Essays for your inspiration

Imagine you are writing an essay. Seeing how many potential themes and frameworks there are, you feel overwhelmed. You are not alone. Most students are clueless as to where to begin while writing a justice essay.

This collection of essay examples was created for your benefit so that you can view what experienced authors have written about legal jurisdictions, rights, and judicial power, courts and utilize their concepts as inspiration for your articles. Each topic and format is covered in this collection.

Tons of essay examples are available for public use

We have the ideal option if you need examples of well-written, entertaining, and engaging essays about justice. To aid you in starting your essay writing, authors from the United States and other nations have compiled a collection of pieces on various subjects.

The best part is: Everything is free! See how simple it may be to produce an essay that impresses your professor by browsing through our collection of academic papers right now.

Order Custom Justice Essays if You Disliked the Free Samples

Did you know that EssayWriter has a group of American professional essay writers who can assist you with writing essays on justice? Anyone can afford our services because our essay writing is reasonably priced. Every piece is entirely original and written from scratch.

For middle school, high school, college, and university students and working professionals, we provide various academic papers, such as dissertations and research papers. Don’t hesitate to contact us immediately if you need assistance with any academic writing assignment!

  • Bill of Rights
  • Civil Disobedience
  • Drunk Driving
  • First Amendment
  • Forensic Science
  • Gang Violence
  • Human Rights
  • Identity Theft

essay writing on justice

Using Social Justice Projects to Teach High School Writing

Inspiring high school students to write research-based papers can be challenging. In this interview conducted by Ellen Carillo, author of the forthcoming MLA Guide to Digital Literacy , Jessyca Mathews, a high school teacher in Flint, Michigan, talks about how she uses social justice projects in her classroom to get students engaged in what they read and write. She also discusses methods for teaching students to develop their voices, consider different points of view, identify bias in sources, prepare for college writing, and become good citizens in the world.

Note: The interview has been edited for clarity and concision.

Ellen Carillo: Could you say a little bit about why you’ve chosen social justice as a framework for your writing courses as opposed to some other framework?

Jessyca Mathews: Well, I’m from Flint, Michigan, and the majority of my kids either live in the city or they are connected to someone in the city. After a while I started to realize that there were some major issues within our community, and I could start by making a change in my classroom. So about three years ago I started to make the change to the class, helping kids to figure out how to develop their voices. I mean literature is absolutely important, and we read literature, but the one thing that I’ve found is kids in this community are really confused about how to properly research what’s going on and to speak out about what’s going on. And so that’s when I made the shift that was needed for my community: teaching them how to effectively go about having a voice either on paper or orally, to get people to pay attention to what they had to say.

EC: You teach a course called Activism and Inquiry where students do a research project on social justice, on topics of their choosing. Can you give some examples of the topics that students have explored over the last few years?

JM: Every semester there are different ideas, which is cool. I love it. We did our big projects for last semester three weeks ago, and we had two kids who studied conversion therapy. It was very eye-opening. Other topics were sex trafficking in the state of Michigan, because the students found out Michigan is one of the top states with sex trafficking; colorism within the African American community; the importance of black teachers in the classroom for all students; problems with the medical system. The students come up with the best things you can imagine, because I’m not forcing them all to do one topic but a topic they may care about. That’s the key: if they care, they’re going to give one hundred percent in finding the topic and understanding it.

EC: And how do you deal with some of those really controversial topics and different viewpoints?

JM: It’s actually kind of fun. It’s scary sometimes, but the big thing that we say all the time is that we’re here to inform society. We’re not here to argue with one another. So if we take the attitude that we’re here to inform people and have really good educational conversations, it makes it a little easier. But they have picked some topics where, I’m like, whoa, that’s real big or that’s real controversial. But at least that way I can have conversations with them. I tell them my job is to be their editor and their cheerleader. I’m not here to force them one way or the other. I’m here to make sure their voices are heard the right way and to cheer them on in figuring out what they want to put out for the public to understand.

EC: Do you find that students have trouble just thinking about it in terms of informing and educating as opposed to arguing? Because I think so often we’re tempted to argue, and I think in a lot of writing classes argument is what is taught, but it sounds like you’re doing things a bit differently.

JM: I think we are such a debate society that we forget the importance of just having a conversation. So even when they’re doing their argumentative writing, they’re still trying to explain a conversation instead of saying, “I’m right, you’re wrong.” That’s just so one-sided, and we talk a lot about bias. Can we just open up the conversation to enlighten people? Or maybe just take something as food for thought or at least give credit to the other side. I don’t know why we have to fight on everything. I always like to use the phrase with the kids “living in the gray.” Isn’t it OK to just live in the gray for a little bit? You can feel what it’s like. We make everything so black-and-white.

EC: Could you say a little bit about the resources that students use to research these topics?

JM: There’s a great chart online, the Media Bias Chart , that shows the better sources that are kind of in the middle instead of being biased. We talk about traditional sources. We talk about books and articles because students like to always push more towards the nontraditional. So I want them to appreciate traditional sources. I spend a whole day with them on Google Scholar , and I talk about educational databases, but I also tell them to go interview someone. There’s such value in just sitting back and listening. I tell them, “Just listen to someone and ask them the right questions.” Those fat questions. I like to use thin and fat . Or thick . I used that this year. Thick questions just get more in there. We don’t want a thin sandwich. I use that all the time for the kids. Food always works. Sandwiches.

I also talk to them about Twitter. Twitter is a new thing that we need to embrace a little bit more, even though it does have bias. Which people should you follow, and what information do they put out there? Are they giving good educational sources? So it’s like a mixture of the old and the new. That way, you’re seeing that knowledge is everywhere.

EC: Can you say a little bit about particular websites you use and how they come into play in your classes?

JM: Letters to the Next President is awesome. When it’s an election year, your students can go on that website, make an account, and post what they would like to say to the president. The site is filled with writings from kids from middle to high school, and they post about different social injustice issues. The other cool thing is that they can respond to one another. So if you see a letter and you think, “You know what? I’m feeling the same thing,” you can have a conversation with the kids on the other side of the country. Same with Youth Voices . Youth Voices has an amazing setup where the kids have to make a post and put an image on it, which I think is kind of cool because they are always obsessed with images anyway. They need to pick an image that matches what they want to convey. And you can have different classmates from all around the country that you can link up with. They can comment to one another. They can create a top-twenty-five posts lists, and my kids get excited when they’re in the top twenty-five, and they’ll say, “Look, I’m one of the featured people.” Or they get excited because a kid from California will respond.

So it helps teach them the concept that the community is not just the teacher. That’s a huge mistake they make, thinking, “I write in high school for the teacher.” But they should be writing for a different audience and thinking a little bit more broadly. And if kids are stuck and don’t know what they care about, they should just look at the great resources that are out there. They can learn how to do a survey. They can go out and talk with members of the community and ask for their opinion. There are great resources for anyone who’s thinking about bringing activism into the classroom.

EC: So those are websites that you’ve vetted and know are good for students to use. How do you teach students how to determine whether other resources are credible? Do you offer them tools for doing so? How do you go about that in the classroom?

JM: When we first start doing anything, we talk about how easy it is for us to get caught in that trap of being biased. We talk about why we should care about both sides. Because most kids don’t. So before we even get into sources, we talk about bias. How do we identify it? I give them a little checklist of things to look for, checklists for doing research on the Internet: How do you know it’s a valid site and not a site by someone who just threw something together? I do a lot of work with C3WP [ College, Career, and Community Writers Program ], which is run by the National Writing Project. C3WP shows types of argument in writing and teaches students how to look at sources in different ways.

EC: Do you ever have students talk about their own biases in addition to the biases of the other sources? I imagine as they’re approaching the social justice projects, they need to be aware of their own biases and what they’re bringing to the sources.

JM : When you ask them to list their biases, they kind of laugh at themselves afterwards, because they swear they’re not biased. But when they actually sit back, they can see the biases that they have in everyday life, like with sports. They’ll say, “So-and-so is the greatest basketball player ever.” And I’ll ask, “Have you ever looked at statistics of other people?” One of the questions from C3WP is, What more do you want to know about your topic? Just because we’re not talking about the topic in the class anymore doesn’t mean that your inquiry stops. I want them to think of the other side. Constantly questioning is a good thing to do because at least they’ll have that aha moment of thinking, “Maybe I am a little biased. Let me think that through a little bit and maybe even restructure.” Also, when kids do research, they start to see the other side. Once they get comfortable with understanding bias, they start to at least give credit to others.

EC: Do you expect students to include in their writing those other viewpoints and those other perspectives?

JM: Yes. I tell them, “You are talking to the community. You have to find a way to at least know the other side, too.” If you actually study the other side, you can say, “I’m well-aware of this. Those are very valid points.” At least there’s respect.

EC: Do your students struggle with that? I find that my students think that if they address the other side or other viewpoints, it’s going to weaken their perspective.

JM: Yes. It’s the win-win mentality. “I must win this argument.” Why not take some time and hear the other side? Give ’em a little street cred. It is probably the hardest part for them—giving the other side a chance, trying to understand it.

EC: How do they learn to develop these more nuanced and complex discussions in their papers? What kinds of writing exercises do you have them do? What leads to the final piece?

JM: My kids write every single day. I follow a lot of Kelly Gallagher’s ideas. One thing that he does is “ten minutes, one page.” I will give kids pictures that connect with social injustice issues. It might be an infographic. It could be a photo. It could be a political cartoon. Whatever it may be, I put it up every single day. And that’s the first thing they do every day. As soon as they walk in, they know to get out their notebook. I say, “You have ten minutes; your goal is to write one page.” They go on rounds of ten but only get to choose one piece for me to grade. I say, “You need to choose your best piece,” and that at least gets them comfortable with writing. And then a lot of times I’ll ask, “Can we find a source that we can connect to that best piece? Can we find something that goes against the argument you have?” And so it’s just like building blocks, where they start to realize writing isn’t that scary. That’s the biggest thing. When they think about writing, especially research-based writing, they think, “Oh my God, that’s terrifying. I don’t want to do it.” And I say, “No, just write first.” We add in the research, and they start to develop their ideas from there, and by the end, they can write with no problem.

The other thing I would bring up is a cool chapter [in Bird by Bird ] by Anne Lamott on bad first drafts. There’s this concept with these kids that has been drilled into them that you can’t have a terrible first draft. When they actually get a chance to sit back and think, “Oh my goodness, we’re supposed to write really badly,” it makes things so much easier. I say, “At least you put something down. What can we do to improve it?” And they just keep taking different steps and becoming more comfortable and then finally write their big research paper or project.

EC: So the other bit that research-based writing involves is obviously reading, when they’re finding these sources. How do you prepare them to read these sources, some of which, I imagine, might be difficult? What kinds of exercises or classwork do you do to prepare them, not just for the writing but for the reading part of research?

JM: The first part is just finding something that they actually enjoy reading. I have all these books in my room. I used to be that teacher who said, “These are the books we’re supposed to read, and these are the books that I’m going to force down your throat.” And that’s a huge mistake. Now I look at different books that are out there that people are hyping. I love Project Lit on Twitter . It’s awesome. I made an Amazon wish list, and people started sending books. I had one kid who drove me crazy. He said, “I don’t like books. How am I supposed to do a research paper if I don’t like to read?” And I said, “Have you read anything that you love?” I gave him All American Boys , and I said, “Read this. I bet you you’ll love it. It fits your personality. If you love this book, then I know you can take the next step and start looking at these academic journals.” And he did. And he said, “This is the first book I’ve finished.” And I said, “See, there’s stuff out there that you love to read. Now pick a topic you love to research and are passionate about. Then we can find the sources. You won’t love every source, but I’m sure there’s some source out there that you’ll like.”

So it’s just making reading and writing an everyday thing. My students do the “ten minutes, one page,” and they also have ten minutes of reading every day. So when it comes time to do the research where it seems like it’s just this monotonous pile, it’s really not that bad for them because they have already gotten used to it. They think, “I already read at least ten minutes every day anyway, so I can handle this.”

EC: How does this work prepare students for college writing? And also for being good citizens in the world?

JM: The final project for our classes is called Activism Day. It’s every kid’s favorite. We put on an event for the entire community, and they go out and share their work. They can share their written pieces, they can share what they learned about the topic, they can create different conversations. We literally take over our cafeteria, and every one of my seniors in that semester goes in there, and we have this huge event. The kids who are going to college have done research papers and are more than proud to share what they’re writing. They will have their papers laid out sometimes, or they might pull a paper up on a Chromebook and say, “Look at this, I wrote this,” which is awesome, because they’re not just writing the paper and then throwing it away. Those kids who are not going to go to college are still going to be good citizens because they know how to have a conversation, and they know how to look up information. They know how to do it. That’s what we need. We need for kids to go and read and be informed and be able to productively talk about it. All the kids love Activism Day. They really feel empowered and they feel like, “Yeah, for college, I can stand up and I can write a paper and I can read these things that I thought I’d never ever read.”

EC: It sounds like so much of what you do starts from a place of making sure that students want to do it and that they want to read what they’re reading, they want to write about what they’re writing about. We often forget that aspect of it. We don’t often start in that place of pleasure, and it’s just so refreshing to hear you talk about it in that way. It’s exciting, and students are doing wonderful work in the end, both for the school and for the community.

Is there anything else that you might want to mention that I haven’t touched on?

JM: Activism Day is what people are most interested in, but they’re also scared because you’re opening a door for kids not to agree with what your kids say. But that’s what the world has. We have people that are not going to agree with you.

I’d like to mention that the website Teaching Tolerance is an awesome place to go. It gives you things to help you figure out how you might integrate activities in the classroom. Also, there are grants you can apply for. I applied for a grant, and I got more money than I asked for.

EC: That never happens!

JM: I know, but they said, “We believe in this project.” So Teaching Tolerance is one of my first go-tos to start off things with the kids.

Join the Conversation

We invite you to comment on this post and exchange ideas with other site visitors. Comments are moderated and subject to terms of service.

If you have a question for the MLA's editors, submit it to Ask the MLA!

Your e-mail address will not be published

EssayBanyan.com – Collections of Essay for Students of all Class in English

Essay on Justice

Every living thing has life. But the lives of humans are much different and advance as compared to other living things. However, the lives of humans are not that easy. The main thing that makes human life easy and peaceful is Justice. Justice is essential for maintaining a fair and equitable society and is an important part of human life.

On an individual level, justice ensures that everyone is treated fairly and has access to the same rights and privileges. To understand the necessity of justice, let us have a look at justice in detail.

Short and Long Justice Essay in English

Here, we are presenting long and short essays on Justice in English for students under word limits of 100 – 150 Words, 200 – 250 words, and 500 – 600 words. This topic is useful for students of classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 in English. Also it will be helpful for students preparing for various competitive exams. These provided essays will help you to write effective essays, paragraphs, and speeches on Justice.

Justice Essay 10 Lines (100 – 120 Words)

1) Justice is a concept of fairness.

2) It ensures that people are treated equally.

3) Justice is considered to be the foundation of a secular society.

4) It is a fundamental right of every individual.

5) It is a complex concept that can often require difficult decisions.

6) Justice is an important part of a democratic country.

7) Justice should be encouraged in all areas of life.

8) It is a balance between rights and obligations.

9) Justice should work to resolve conflicts peacefully.

10) Justice should ensure that all people have access to equal opportunities.

Short Essay on Justice (250 – 300 Words)

Introduction

Justice is a concept of fairness that must be based on ethics, rationality, law, religion, and equality. It is a concept that upholds the equality of all people and treats everyone fairly.

Justice is not only an idea but an action that requires understanding the right and wrong of decisions to make sure everyone is treated fairly.

Advantages of Justice

Justice is essential for a healthy and functioning society. It is the foundation of democracy and laws. It is also essential for safeguarding individual rights and freedoms. It ensures that individuals are treated fairly and with respect, and that everyone has access to the same rights and privileges. People are afraid to commit crimes in a country where the law is followed. Additionally, justice offers voice to the weak and the impoverished, preventing the wealthy and powerful from taking advantage of them.

Disadvantages of Justice

One of the main disadvantages of justice is that it can be slow and inefficient. Additionally, with legal costs and court fees, people have to pay huge amount. Moreover, justice systems have been known to be biased against certain groups especially the powerful peoples, leading to unequal outcomes. Many people are afraid of the process of justice systems and end up losing their hope.

Justice is an essential element of a healthy society and is fundamental to the maintenance of a peaceful world. Justice should be applied equally to all people, regardless of their race, gender, or social class. Every citizen should follow law and promote equality to enjoy a healthy living.

Long Essay on Justice (500 Words)

“Justice” is not only a small word, it is a sentiment. For many people justice is not only their fundamental right but it is their need. It’s challenging to define what justice means. It has broad meaning varying from person to person. Justice should be seen as both a reward for doing good deeds and a means of punishing bad behavior.

What Is Justice?

Justice is the concept of treating all people with respect, regardless of social or economic status. When justice is applied, it ensures that individuals receive fair treatment and that their rights are protected. This includes access to resources and opportunities, as well as the right to a fair trial and equal protection under the law.

Types of Justice

There are three types of justice: retributive justice, restorative justice, and distributive justice. Retributive justice is the idea that those who commit wrongs should be punished as a way of getting revenge. While restorative justice is focused on repairing the harm caused by wrongdoing and restoring relationships between offenders and victims. Distributive justice is concerned with ensuring that resources are shared equally.

Importance of Justice

Justice is important for a number of reasons. It helps to maintain order in society and to ensure that laws are followed. Justice also helps to protect the rights of individuals and to ensure that people are treated same. It also helps to promote respect for the law and to create a sense of trust between citizens and the government. Justice is a cornerstone of democracy and is essential to the preservation of social order. Justice is an essential element of a healthy society.

The Black Side of Justice

Justice is an important part of society, but it has some disadvantages as well. Justice can be slow and expensive, as it often takes a long time for justice to be served. People may have to wait a long time for their case to go through the court system, and they may have to pay a lot of money for lawyers or court fees. Additionally, justice can be subjective, as judges and juries may interpret the law differently and come to different conclusions. This can lead to unfair results, which can be very frustrating and disappointing for involved.

How Justice can be maintained in society?

There are many ways through which justice can be maintained in a society. Some of them are listed below:

1. All citizens should follow by the laws, regardless of their social or economic status.

2. No one should be given special privileges or be discriminated on the basis of their race, gender, religion, or any other characteristic.

3. Everyone has basic human rights that should be respected by others.

4. People should be held accountable for their actions and any wrongdoings should be punished accordingly.

5. Governments and other institutions should be transparent about their decisions and actions.

Justice is an essential concept in a functioning society. It is a fundamental human right that should be respected and upheld by all nations. We must work together to create a fairer and more equal society.

I hope the above-provided essay on Justice will be helpful to you in understanding the advantages, disadvantages, and role of Justice in our society.

FAQs: Frequently Asked Questions on Justice

Ans. India celebrated 20 February every year as World Day of Social Justice.

Ans. Lady Justice is generally represented holding a set of scales in one hand, on which she balances the act and its effects in order to reach equilibrium and, thus, justice.

Ans. The justice system works by having two sides present their case to a judge or jury. Based on the evidence, the judge then makes a fair decision.

Ans. The role of the police in the justice system is to investigate crimes, gather evidence, and arrest the criminal.

Ans. As justice is impartial and shouldn’t be dependent on a person’s appearance or other external factors, the statue of justice is blindfolded.

Related Posts

Essay on digital india, cashless india essay, essay on child is father of the man, essay on causes, effects and prevention of corona virus, essay on dr. sarvepalli radhakrishnan, durga puja essay, essay on summer vacation, essay on my plans for summer vacation, essay on holiday.

Peace and Justice Essay

While conflict, used interchangeably with a clash or violence, refers to a state of opposition between people, views, or objectives, violence “…is any condition that prevents a human being from achieving her or his full potential” (Cortright 7). The issue of conflicts has become a daily subject as cases of killings, bombings, and assassinations continue to occur at an alarming level. Racial, color, religious, tribal and economic differences are the major fuels behind conflicts.

Peace, on the other hand, refers to the prevailing conditions in the absence of conflicts and violence. As clashes continue to persist around the globe, playwrights, among other people, have resolved into addressing the issue, the causes, effects, and the possible solutions. According to Terry George, the director of the famous Hotel Rwanda film, the world is yearning for people who can courageously campaign for peace and justice.

Hotel Rwanda , the fascinating composition of Terry George, brings to light the most horrifying upshots, as contemporary history unfolds. It features both tribal and religious conflicts as they occurred during the 1994 Rwandan genocide.

It is a sensitive account of the Hutus of Rwanda, whose genocide campaigns saw the death of thousands of the marginalized Tutsis, upon whom the departed Belgian colonizers had bestowed power. Revolving around a prominent hotel in Kigali, George features Don Cheadle as the manager of the hotel and a representative of the majority Hutus, the wealthy tribe that enjoys majority of the country’s resources.

His wife stands in for the minority Tutsis. She is the least happy as she watches her people suffer harassments and severe beatings. She pleads to her husband to help them despite being a Hutu. As the violence intensifies, killings of the Tutsi begin based on race, religion, and social status. As the European clients and staff force their way out of the country, Paul becomes in charge of the visitor’s hotel.

He cannot tolerate the mass killings anymore and therefore opts to transform the hotel into a refugee camp for the Tutsis, a step that his Hutu people perceive as betrayal. However, from this courageous step, he ends up preserving the lives of at least 1238 Tutsi people. However, the director qualifies in his good way of demonstrating peace and justice, as this is his objective.

The aforementioned subject of conflicts and violence dominates the movie. Nevertheless, efforts of nurturing peace and justice still stand out. The director features both tribal and religious conflicts as observed, not only in Rwanda, but also in the world allover. The majority Hutus clash with the minority Tutsis claiming, “We are the majority. Tutsis are the minority. Hutus must kill all the Tutsis…” (George). From these words, the director brings to light death as one of the many the consequences of conflicts.

The singling out of a Paul from his people, Hutus, to bring salvation to the minority Tutsis is subject to discussion. As Paul struggles to foster peace among the Tutsis, he is welcomes conflicts from the other side, who view him as a traitor, validating Cortright’s words that “Peace does not mean the absence of conflicts” (7). Patriotism is more than love for ones country.

It entails the willingness and sacrifice of ones own people. According to this theory, Paul is a traitor, rather than a patriot and is subject to a stern punishment. However, the director strategically presents Paul’s bold step of going against the majority, who are never right, to picture him as an epitome of the few who are able to stand for peace and justice, not based on gender, tribe, and religion, to quote a few.

Hotel Rwanda qualifies in driving home the point that, if one person could single him/herself out of the action of the majority, the peace, justice, love, and harmony could carry the day. This film will prove relevant in the coming weeks because the students will find it easy to understand the subject about conflicts and violence. This must-watch film presents a good way of demonstrating peace and justice.

Works Cited

Cortright, David. Peace: A History of Movements and Ideas . Cambridge University Press, 2008.

George, Terry, dir. Hotel Rwanda. Lions Gate Films, 2004. Film.

  • Chicago (A-D)
  • Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, November 1). Peace and Justice. https://ivypanda.com/essays/peace-and-justice/

"Peace and Justice." IvyPanda , 1 Nov. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/peace-and-justice/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Peace and Justice'. 1 November.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Peace and Justice." November 1, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/peace-and-justice/.

1. IvyPanda . "Peace and Justice." November 1, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/peace-and-justice/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Peace and Justice." November 1, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/peace-and-justice/.

  • The Rwandan Genocide: Hutus and Tutsi Ethnic Hatred
  • Genocide in Rwanda: Insiders and Outsiders
  • Rwanda Genocide: Process and Outcomes
  • Hotel Rwanda': The 1994 Rwandan Genocide's History
  • Hutus and Tutsis Ethnic Groups Conflict
  • "Hotel Rwanda" (2004) by Terry George
  • Sometime in April: Summary and Analysis of the Movie
  • Ethnic Conflicts and Misrepresentation of Rwandan Hutus
  • In-class Reaction Paper: Rwandan Genocide
  • The Rwandan Slaughter: Reasons and Participants
  • The Construction of the Postmodern Subject in Professional Writing
  • The Syrian Conflict: An International Crisis
  • Some of the most significant innovations of the 20th Century
  • How the AIDS Epidemic Has Affected the World on a Political, Social, Economical Way
  • Apartheid, Its Causes and the Process

Logo

Speech on Justice

Justice: a word that signifies fairness and equality. It’s a pivotal aspect of society, ensuring everyone gets their due. You’ve probably heard it, but do you really know what it means?

Understanding justice can be a bit tricky. It’s not just about punishment or reward; it’s about balance. Let’s explore this concept together.

1-minute Speech on Justice

Hello everyone. Today, I want to talk about a simple but powerful word, “Justice”. Justice is like a big tree giving us shade on a hot day. It makes sure everyone is treated fairly, no one is left out, and no one is hurt.

In our first story, imagine you’re in a race. You’ve trained hard, and you’re ready to win. But just as the race begins, someone trips you. Is that fair? No, right? Justice, in this case, means that the person who tripped you is punished and you get a chance to race again. This is justice as fairness.

Now, let’s think about a different tale. Imagine you and your friend both want the last piece of cake. You could split it, but your friend already had two pieces and you only had one. Justice here could mean that you get the last piece, balancing things out. This is justice as equality.

For our last story, imagine you broke your friend’s toy by accident. You feel bad, and you decide to replace it with a new one. Here, justice means that when we make a mistake, we take responsibility and try to fix it. This is justice as responsibility.

So, my friends, justice is fairness, equality, and taking responsibility. It’s like a big tree that covers us all, keeping us safe and happy. Let’s promise to help this tree grow in our homes, our schools, and our communities.

Also check:

  • Essay on Justice

2-minute Speech on Justice

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Justice is a simple word with a profound meaning. It’s like a big umbrella that covers fair play, honesty, and equality. It’s about making sure everyone gets what they deserve, not more, not less.

Let’s imagine a game of soccer. All players follow rules. If someone breaks them, the referee blows the whistle. The rule-breaker gets a penalty. That’s justice. It ensures fairness in the game. Just like soccer, we have rules in life too. When someone breaks these rules, justice makes sure they face the consequences.

Justice isn’t just about punishing people who do wrong. It’s also about standing up for those who can’t stand up for themselves. It’s about making sure the weak and the voiceless are heard. When a bully takes away a smaller kid’s lunch, justice is when someone steps in to say, “That’s not right.”

But, justice can sometimes be slow. It’s like a giant wheel that turns at its own pace. We’ve all heard the saying, “Justice delayed is justice denied.” That means when justice takes too long, it’s as if there’s no justice at all. It’s important to remember that while the wheel of justice may turn slowly, it does turn. We should never lose hope.

Justice isn’t just the job of lawyers, judges, or police officers. It’s the responsibility of all of us. When we see something wrong happening, we should step forward. When we know about a crime and stay silent, we become part of the problem. By speaking out, we can be part of the solution.

In conclusion, justice is a treasure we must all safeguard. It’s a promise of fairness, a shield for the weak, and a hope for a better world. It may be slow, but it’s sure. And it’s not just the duty of a few, but the responsibility of all. Let’s pledge to uphold justice, in big ways and small, every day of our lives.

  • Speech on World Autism Awareness Day
  • Speech on Joy Of Playing Outdoor Games
  • Speech on Joy Of Giving

We also have speeches on more interesting topics that you may want to explore.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Close-button

Meet the 2024 Writing Freedom Fellows

By Jim Plank / February 13 2024

essay writing on justice

  • Newsletters
  • Account Activating this button will toggle the display of additional content Account Sign out

The Loss of Things I Took for Granted

Ten years into my college teaching career, students stopped being able to read effectively..

Recent years have seen successive waves of book bans in Republican-controlled states, aimed at pulling any text with “woke” themes from classrooms and library shelves. Though the results sometimes seem farcical, as with the banning of Art Spiegelman’s Maus due to its inclusion of “cuss words” and explicit rodent nudity, the book-banning agenda is no laughing matter. Motivated by bigotry, it has already done demonstrable harm and promises to do more. But at the same time, the appropriate response is, in principle, simple. Named individuals have advanced explicit policies with clear goals and outcomes, and we can replace those individuals with people who want to reverse those policies. That is already beginning to happen in many places, and I hope those successes will continue until every banned book is restored.

If and when that happens, however, we will not be able to declare victory quite yet. Defeating the open conspiracy to deprive students of physical access to books will do little to counteract the more diffuse confluence of forces that are depriving students of the skills needed to meaningfully engage with those books in the first place. As a college educator, I am confronted daily with the results of that conspiracy-without-conspirators. I have been teaching in small liberal arts colleges for over 15 years now, and in the past five years, it’s as though someone flipped a switch. For most of my career, I assigned around 30 pages of reading per class meeting as a baseline expectation—sometimes scaling up for purely expository readings or pulling back for more difficult texts. (No human being can read 30 pages of Hegel in one sitting, for example.) Now students are intimidated by anything over 10 pages and seem to walk away from readings of as little as 20 pages with no real understanding. Even smart and motivated students struggle to do more with written texts than extract decontextualized take-aways. Considerable class time is taken up simply establishing what happened in a story or the basic steps of an argument—skills I used to be able to take for granted.

Since this development very directly affects my ability to do my job as I understand it, I talk about it a lot. And when I talk about it with nonacademics, certain predictable responses inevitably arise, all questioning the reality of the trend I describe. Hasn’t every generation felt that the younger cohort is going to hell in a handbasket? Haven’t professors always complained that educators at earlier levels are not adequately equipping their students? And haven’t students from time immemorial skipped the readings?

The response of my fellow academics, however, reassures me that I’m not simply indulging in intergenerational grousing. Anecdotally, I have literally never met a professor who did not share my experience. Professors are also discussing the issue in academic trade publications , from a variety of perspectives. What we almost all seem to agree on is that we are facing new obstacles in structuring and delivering our courses, requiring us to ratchet down expectations in the face of a ratcheting down of preparation. Yes, there were always students who skipped the readings, but we are in new territory when even highly motivated honors students struggle to grasp the basic argument of a 20-page article. Yes, professors never feel satisfied that high school teachers have done enough, but not every generation of professors has had to deal with the fallout of No Child Left Behind and Common Core. Finally, yes, every generation thinks the younger generation is failing to make the grade— except for the current cohort of professors, who are by and large more invested in their students’ success and mental health and more responsive to student needs than any group of educators in human history. We are not complaining about our students. We are complaining about what has been taken from them.

If we ask what has caused this change, there are some obvious culprits. The first is the same thing that has taken away almost everyone’s ability to focus—the ubiquitous smartphone. Even as a career academic who studies the Quran in Arabic for fun, I have noticed my reading endurance flagging. I once found myself boasting at a faculty meeting that I had read through my entire hourlong train ride without looking at my phone. My colleagues agreed this was a major feat, one they had not achieved recently. Even if I rarely attain that high level of focus, though, I am able to “turn it on” when demanded, for instance to plow through a big novel during a holiday break. That’s because I was able to develop and practice those skills of extended concentration and attentive reading before the intervention of the smartphone. For children who were raised with smartphones, by contrast, that foundation is missing. It is probably no coincidence that the iPhone itself, originally released in 2007, is approaching college age, meaning that professors are increasingly dealing with students who would have become addicted to the dopamine hit of the omnipresent screen long before they were introduced to the more subtle pleasures of the page.

The second go-to explanation is the massive disruption of school closures during COVID-19. There is still some debate about the necessity of those measures, but what is not up for debate any longer is the very real learning loss that students suffered at every level. The impact will inevitably continue to be felt for the next decade or more, until the last cohort affected by the mass “pivot to online” finally graduates. I doubt that the pandemic closures were the decisive factor in themselves, however. Not only did the marked decline in reading resilience start before the pandemic, but the students I am seeing would have already been in high school during the school closures. Hence they would be better equipped to get something out of the online format and, more importantly, their basic reading competence would have already been established.

Less discussed than these broader cultural trends over which educators have little control are the major changes in reading pedagogy that have occurred in recent decades—some motivated by the ever-increasing demand to “teach to the test” and some by fads coming out of schools of education. In the latter category is the widely discussed decline in phonics education in favor of the “balanced literacy” approach advocated by education expert Lucy Calkins (who has more recently come to accept the need for more phonics instruction). I started to see the results of this ill-advised change several years ago, when students abruptly stopped attempting to sound out unfamiliar words and instead paused until they recognized the whole word as a unit. (In a recent class session, a smart, capable student was caught short by the word circumstances when reading a text out loud.) The result of this vibes-based literacy is that students never attain genuine fluency in reading. Even aside from the impact of smartphones, their experience of reading is constantly interrupted by their intentionally cultivated inability to process unfamiliar words.

For all the flaws of the balanced literacy method, it was presumably implemented by people who thought it would help. It is hard to see a similar motivation in the growing trend toward assigning students only the kind of short passages that can be included in a standardized test. Due in part to changes driven by the infamous Common Core standards , teachers now have to fight to assign their students longer readings, much less entire books, because those activities won’t feed directly into students getting higher test scores, which leads to schools getting more funding. The emphasis on standardized tests was always a distraction at best, but we have reached the point where it is actively cannibalizing students’ educational experience—an outcome no one intended or planned, and for which there is no possible justification.

We can’t go back in time and do the pandemic differently at this point, nor is there any realistic path to putting the smartphone genie back in the bottle. (Though I will note that we as a society do at least attempt to keep other addictive products out of the hands of children.) But I have to think that we can, at the very least, stop actively preventing young people from developing the ability to follow extended narratives and arguments in the classroom. Regardless of their profession or ultimate educational level, they will need those skills. The world is a complicated place. People—their histories and identities, their institutions and work processes, their fears and desires—are simply too complex to be captured in a worksheet with a paragraph and some reading comprehension questions. Large-scale prose writing is the best medium we have for capturing that complexity, and the education system should not be in the business of keeping students from learning how to engage effectively with it.

This is a matter not of snobbery, but of basic justice. I recognize that not everyone centers their lives on books as much as a humanities professor does. I think they’re missing out, but they’re adults and they can choose how to spend their time. What’s happening with the current generation is not that they are simply choosing TikTok over Jane Austen. They are being deprived of the ability to choose—for no real reason or benefit. We can and must stop perpetrating this crime on our young people.

comscore beacon

EU AI Act: first regulation on artificial intelligence

The use of artificial intelligence in the EU will be regulated by the AI Act, the world’s first comprehensive AI law. Find out how it will protect you.

A man faces a computer generated figure with programming language in the background

As part of its digital strategy , the EU wants to regulate artificial intelligence (AI) to ensure better conditions for the development and use of this innovative technology. AI can create many benefits , such as better healthcare; safer and cleaner transport; more efficient manufacturing; and cheaper and more sustainable energy.

In April 2021, the European Commission proposed the first EU regulatory framework for AI. It says that AI systems that can be used in different applications are analysed and classified according to the risk they pose to users. The different risk levels will mean more or less regulation. Once approved, these will be the world’s first rules on AI.

Learn more about what artificial intelligence is and how it is used

What Parliament wants in AI legislation

Parliament’s priority is to make sure that AI systems used in the EU are safe, transparent, traceable, non-discriminatory and environmentally friendly. AI systems should be overseen by people, rather than by automation, to prevent harmful outcomes.

Parliament also wants to establish a technology-neutral, uniform definition for AI that could be applied to future AI systems.

Learn more about Parliament’s work on AI and its vision for AI’s future

AI Act: different rules for different risk levels

The new rules establish obligations for providers and users depending on the level of risk from artificial intelligence. While many AI systems pose minimal risk, they need to be assessed.

Unacceptable risk

Unacceptable risk AI systems are systems considered a threat to people and will be banned. They include:

  • Cognitive behavioural manipulation of people or specific vulnerable groups: for example voice-activated toys that encourage dangerous behaviour in children
  • Social scoring: classifying people based on behaviour, socio-economic status or personal characteristics
  • Biometric identification and categorisation of people
  • Real-time and remote biometric identification systems, such as facial recognition

Some exceptions may be allowed for law enforcement purposes. “Real-time” remote biometric identification systems will be allowed in a limited number of serious cases, while “post” remote biometric identification systems, where identification occurs after a significant delay, will be allowed to prosecute serious crimes and only after court approval.

AI systems that negatively affect safety or fundamental rights will be considered high risk and will be divided into two categories:

1) AI systems that are used in products falling under the EU’s product safety legislation . This includes toys, aviation, cars, medical devices and lifts.

2) AI systems falling into specific areas that will have to be registered in an EU database:

  • Management and operation of critical infrastructure
  • Education and vocational training
  • Employment, worker management and access to self-employment
  • Access to and enjoyment of essential private services and public services and benefits
  • Law enforcement
  • Migration, asylum and border control management
  • Assistance in legal interpretation and application of the law.

All high-risk AI systems will be assessed before being put on the market and also throughout their lifecycle.

General purpose and generative AI

Generative AI, like ChatGPT, would have to comply with transparency requirements:

  • Disclosing that the content was generated by AI
  • Designing the model to prevent it from generating illegal content
  • Publishing summaries of copyrighted data used for training

High-impact general-purpose AI models that might pose systemic risk, such as the more advanced AI model GPT-4, would have to undergo thorough evaluations and any serious incidents would have to be reported to the European Commission.

Limited risk

Limited risk AI systems should comply with minimal transparency requirements that would allow users to make informed decisions. After interacting with the applications, the user can then decide whether they want to continue using it. Users should be made aware when they are interacting with AI. This includes AI systems that generate or manipulate image, audio or video content, for example deepfakes.

On December 9 2023, Parliament reached a provisional agreement with the Council on the AI act . The agreed text will now have to be formally adopted by both Parliament and Council to become EU law. Before all MEPs have their say on the agreement, Parliament’s internal market and civil liberties committees will vote on it.

More on the EU’s digital measures

  • Cryptocurrency dangers and the benefits of EU legislation
  • Fighting cybercrime: new EU cybersecurity laws explained
  • Boosting data sharing in the EU: what are the benefits?
  • EU Digital Markets Act and Digital Services Act
  • Five ways the European Parliament wants to protect online gamers
  • Artificial Intelligence Act

Related articles

Digital transformation in the eu, share this article on:.

  • Sign up for mail updates
  • PDF version

This section features overview and background articles for the general public. Press releases and materials for news media are available in the news section .

  • Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

A Slap Shot Against Climate Denial

A photo illustration of a gavel holding up the Earth.

By Michael E. Mann and Peter J. Fontaine

Dr. Mann is a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and the author of “Our Fragile Moment: How Lessons From Earth’s Past Can Help Us Survive the Climate Crisis.” Mr. Fontaine is an environmental lawyer who served as co-counsel for Dr. Mann in the defamation case detailed in this essay.

The climate is warming. Polar ice is melting, glaciers are receding, the chemistry of the ocean is becoming dangerously acidic, sea levels are rising. All of this and more are consequences of the greenhouse gases we continue to emit into the atmosphere, where they trap and radiate heat that would otherwise escape into space.

Those are facts, not conjectures. Yet the scientists researching the fallout from that inconvenient fact, established more than 100 years ago, continue to face attacks that threaten their research, reputations and livelihoods.

One of us, Michael Mann, is just such a scientist. Twelve years ago, he found himself accused of research fraud for his work documenting the rapid rise of Earth’s temperature since the early 20th century.

An adjunct scholar at the time at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which has said it “questions global warming alarmism,” compared Dr. Mann on a blog hosted by the institute to a convicted sex offender. “Instead of molesting children,” the post read, “he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science.” Then a conservative writer republished parts of that post on a blog hosted by National Review and added that Dr. Mann was “behind the fraudulent climate-change ‘hockey stick’ graph.”

Last week, after our decade-long journey through the court system, a jury in Washington, D.C., found that both writers were liable for defamation . We hope this sends a broader message that defamatory attacks on scientists go beyond the bounds of protected speech and have consequences. The jury awarded $1 in compensatory damages from each defendant, and punitive damages of $1,000 against one defendant and $1 million against the other.

However, we lament the time lost to this battle. This case is part of a larger culture war in which research is distorted and the truth about the climate threat is dissembled.

The assault on climate science has grown broader and more sophisticated. Rachael Lyle-Thompson, a lawyer for the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, which has supported Dr. Mann in the past, warned recently that sweeping and “invasive open records requests” to harass and intimidate and “other misuse of the legal system” continue to “threaten climate scientists’ ability to freely conduct research and openly share it with the public.”

And the attacks have expanded to other frontiers of science. Witness the ongoing assault on public health experts such as the doctors Anthony Fauci and Peter Hotez, who have sought to address the Covid-19 pandemic. Or the false claims about adverse health effects from wind turbines. Or efforts by the Trump administration to limit the scientific and medical research that the government can use to determine public health regulations. Or rollbacks of environmental regulations. The list, unfortunately, goes on.

It is in the context of this broader war on science that our recent trial victory may have wider implications. It has drawn a line in the sand. Scientists now know that they can respond to attacks by suing for defamation.

A scientist defamed can publish a thousand peer-reviewed articles in the effort to clear his or her name, but when scientists and lawyers join forces, disinformation can more readily be defeated. What’s disheartening is that it took more than a decade and countless hours by a team of lawyers to win a jury verdict in our case when the verdict on human-caused global warming was rendered decades ago.

Nearly 60 years ago, in fact, scientists warned President Lyndon Johnson that the continued combustion of fossil fuels would cause irreversible warming of the Earth’s atmosphere, with consequences we are seeing today. Concentrations of carbon dioxide then were at 320 parts per million in the atmosphere, compared to preindustrial levels of approximately 280 p.p.m.

Three decades later, with atmospheric carbon dioxide at 370 p.p.m., Dr. Mann, then a young postdoc, and two veteran climatologists, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes, published the first version of a graph that resembled an upturned hockey stick.

The handle of the stick charted the relatively constant temperatures of preindustrial times, while the upturned blade showed a rapid warming that began with the Industrial Revolution. To assemble the graph, they used natural temperature archives such as tree rings, corals and sediment and ice cores to estimate global temperatures back in time. The hockey stick graph soon became what a 2013 article in The Atlantic called “ the most controversial chart in science.”

“Climate deniers threw everything they had at the hockey stick,” the author, Chris Mooney, now a climate reporter at The Washington Post, wrote. They failed to disprove it — but “they certainly sowed plenty of doubt in the mind of the public,” he noted.

Which, of course, was the point. And that brings us back to our case.

In 2012, with atmospheric carbon dioxide having risen to nearly 400 p.p.m., the two blog posts attacking the hockey stick graph appeared, comparing Dr. Mann, then a professor at Penn State, to Jerry Sandusky, an assistant football coach at Penn State who had been convicted of abusing young boys.

As a jury has now decided, those posts were defamatory and were published with actual malice — meaning the defendants either knew the allegations were false or showed reckless disregard for the truth, a difficult hurdle for plaintiffs considered public figures to clear. But we did. And the hockey stick graph in the meantime has become firmly ensconced in the wall of evidence that burning fossil fuels is warming the planet at a pace and scale unseen.

Yet the machinery of disinformation, waged in part by the fossil fuel industry, continues to seed doubt, divert attention and delay action. Indeed, one of the defendants said in court that he stood by “every word I wrote about Michael Mann” and “his fraudulent hockey stick.” Both defendants are likely to appeal.

As of Tuesday, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide had hit 424.20 p.p.m., levels not seen for at least three million years , when Earth was warmer and the seas were much higher.

Clean energy solutions are readily available. But meaningful action in the United States, one of the world’s biggest carbon emitters, is in jeopardy of being blocked or slowed if a significant portion of the electorate does not accept the basic scientific facts and understand their implications. Voters should keep this in mind when they go to the polls later this year. With climate science still under attack and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increasing, we’re running out of time.

Michael E. Mann is a professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania and the author of “ Our Fragile Moment: How Lessons From Earth’s Past Can Help Us Survive the Climate Crisis. ” Peter J. Fontaine is chair of the environmental law practice at the law firm Cozen O’Connor and served as co-counsel for Dr. Mann in the defamation lawsuit detailed in this essay.

Source images by Roberto Machado Noa and Oleksii Polishchuk/Getty Images

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , X and Threads .

VIDEO

  1. Social Justice Essay Outline

  2. Argumentative essay writing

  3. Justice delayed is justice denied #essay #essaywriting #for #lawexams #judiciary #ArpnaLL.b

  4. Argumentative essay examples I Essay writing online

  5. Data-Driven Decisions in Criminal Justice: Data Collection

  6. Essay Class 4: Justice Delayed is Justice Denied @haldere-academy

COMMENTS

  1. Essays About Justice: Top 5 Examples And 7 Prompts

    1. Juvenile Justice System Of USA Essay by Anonymous on IvyPanda.com "No doubt, familiarity about the nature of juvenile crimes and how juvenile justice structures function across the world will offer an insight to policy makers, social scientists and for gullible citizens.

  2. Essays on Justice

    95 essay samples found 1 Kwl Analysis on Justice 1 page / 438 words Justice is a fundamental concept that permeates various aspects of human society. From legal systems to individual interactions, the notion of justice shapes our understanding of fairness and equity.

  3. 589 Justice Topic Ideas to Write about & Essay Samples

    589 Justice Essay Topic Ideas & Examples Updated: Nov 9th, 2023 31 min Table of Contents 🏆 Best Justice Topic Ideas & Essay Examples Juvenile Justice System in "Sleepers" Film by Barry Levinson This gang was at the disposal of these boys and they would join anytime they wanted hence the community pushed these juveniles to join the gang.

  4. PDF JUSTICE

    The purpose of the writing assignments in Justice is to improve your moral reasoning skills. We encourage you to build on concepts from the course texts in order to deepen your ideas and test your views against the strongest counterarguments. "Cannibalism at Sea," Septem-ber 20, 1884, The Illustrated London News WRITING the TWO ANALYTIC PAPERS

  5. Justice

    Classically, justice was counted as one of the four cardinal virtues (and sometimes as the most important of the four); in modern times John Rawls famously described it as 'the first virtue of social institutions' (Rawls 1971, p.3; Rawls, 1999, p.3).

  6. Essay on Justice

    Conclusion In conclusion, justice is an indispensable component of any society. It is an evolving concept that reflects societal values and norms. As we continue to advance as a society, it is crucial that our understanding and application of justice evolve too, ensuring it remains a true embodiment of fairness and equality.

  7. Free Essays on Justice, Examples, Topics, Outlines

    Essays on Justice Every justice essay showcases a different take on explaining justice. Ever since Antiquity philosophers understood that justice concerns all areas of human life, from common ones like the state's justice system and civil rights to private ones like individual human everyday lives, and many justice essays share this point.

  8. 143 Social Justice Topics to Write about & Essay Samples

    Updated: Oct 26th, 2023 13 min Table of Contents Social justice essays are an excellent tool for demonstrating your awareness of the current issues in society. We will write a custom essay specifically for you by our professional experts 809 writers online Learn More

  9. 8 Tips For Writing A Social Justice Essay

    When writing a social justice essay, you should brainstorm for ideas, sharpen your focus, identify your purpose, find a story, use a variety of sources, define your terms, provide specific evidence and acknowledge opposing views. #1. Brainstorm creatively Before you start writing your social justice essay, you need a topic.

  10. Justice Essays: Samples & Topics

    Dystopian literature is a type of fictional written work used to examine social and political structures in 'a dark, nightmare world.'. The term dystopia is characterized as a general... Justice. Narcissism. The Hunger Games. 960 Words | 2 Pages | Topics: Science fiction film, Science fiction, Dystopia.

  11. Essay Topics on Justice

    Essay Topics on Justice. Clio has taught education courses at the college level and has a Ph.D. in curriculum and instruction. Justice can be an incredibly tricky concept to unravel, yet it is at ...

  12. ️ Justice Essay Examples

    Tons of essay examples are available for public use. We have the ideal option if you need examples of well-written, entertaining, and engaging essays about justice. To aid you in starting your essay writing, authors from the United States and other nations have compiled a collection of pieces on various subjects. The best part is: Everything is ...

  13. Essay about Justice

    The Definition of Justice Essay. The Republic by Plato examines many aspects of the human condition. In this piece of writing Plato reveals the sentiments of Socrates as they define how humans function and interact with one another. He even more closely Socrates looks at morality and the values individuals hold most important.

  14. What Does Justice Mean to You: Opinion Essay

    What Does Justice Mean to You: Opinion Essay Cite This Essay Download In my opinion, justice is an act of giving freedom to an individual through the means of proper rules and regulations and promoting equality. It aims to provide equal rights, opportunities, and facilities to an individual and society in a fair way.

  15. Writing Through the Lens of Social Justice

    Jun 23, 2022 Last February, at a virtual event put on by my alma mater, Northwestern University's Medill School of Journalism, I listened to four Black journalists from venues like The New York Times and Washington Post share their insight and experiences on the intersection of race and reporting in 2021.

  16. Using Social Justice Projects to Teach High School Writing

    Inspiring high school students to write research-based papers can be challenging. In this interview conducted by Ellen Carillo, author of the forthcoming MLA Guide to Digital Literacy, Jessyca Mathews, a high school teacher in Flint, Michigan, talks about how she uses social justice projects in her classroom to get students engaged in what they read and write.

  17. Essay on Justice for all Class in 100 to 500 Words in English

    1) Justice is a concept of fairness. 2) It ensures that people are treated equally. 3) Justice is considered to be the foundation of a secular society. 4) It is a fundamental right of every individual. 5) It is a complex concept that can often require difficult decisions. 6) Justice is an important part of a democratic country.

  18. Essay on Justice

    1493 Words 6 Pages. Essay on Justice. 'Justice is such an elusive concept that it hardly seems worthwhile for a legal system to strive to achieve it'. Justice is something that we all want from a Law and believe should be an integral part in any legal system. However, the meaning of Justice is very difficult to define.

  19. Relationship between Equality and Justice Essay

    Relationship between Equality and Justice Essay. This essay sample was donated by a student to help the academic community. Papers provided by EduBirdie writers usually outdo students' samples. The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal. This quote by Aristotle sums up David Miller's conjecture in the article, Against ...

  20. Peace and Justice

    Peace and Justice Essay. While conflict, used interchangeably with a clash or violence, refers to a state of opposition between people, views, or objectives, violence "…is any condition that prevents a human being from achieving her or his full potential" (Cortright 7). The issue of conflicts has become a daily subject as cases of ...

  21. Essay on Law And Justice

    Students are often asked to write an essay on Law And Justice in their schools and colleges. And if you're also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic. Let's take a look… 100 Words Essay on Law And Justice Understanding Law and Justice

  22. Criminal Justice Essay Writing Guide

    You must create a strong starting point. The historical cases might present an intriguing way of developing the topic for the essay. Research, do not just google: The easy way out is to connect to the internet and google. This might not work out for you in criminal justice essays.

  23. Essay on Social Justice

    Students are often asked to write an essay on Social Justice in their schools and colleges. And if you're also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic. Let's take a look… 100 Words Essay on Social Justice Understanding Social Justice. Social justice is the fair treatment of all people in ...

  24. Speech on Justice

    This is justice as responsibility. So, my friends, justice is fairness, equality, and taking responsibility. It's like a big tree that covers us all, keeping us safe and happy. Let's promise to help this tree grow in our homes, our schools, and our communities. Thank you. Also check: Essay on Justice; 2-minute Speech on Justice. Ladies and ...

  25. Meet the 2024 Writing Freedom Fellows

    Dee Farmer (she/her) is a creative nonfiction writer, poet, and a trailblazer in transgender and prison litigation, having built a robust legal writing practice. She is the architect of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Farmer v. Brennan. During the HIV/AIDS epidemic, she disseminated her poems and essays within the Bureau of Prisons.

  26. Literacy crisis in college students: Essay from a professor on students

    Large-scale prose writing is the best medium we have for capturing that complexity, and the education system should not be in the business of keeping students from learning how to engage ...

  27. Opinion

    For more than two decades I've taught versions of this fiction-writing exercise. I've used it in universities, middle schools and private workshops; with 7-year-olds and 70-year-olds.

  28. EU AI Act: first regulation on artificial intelligence

    As part of its digital strategy, the EU wants to regulate artificial intelligence (AI) to ensure better conditions for the development and use of this innovative technology. AI can create many benefits, such as better healthcare; safer and cleaner transport; more efficient manufacturing; and cheaper and more sustainable energy.. In April 2021, the European Commission proposed the first EU ...

  29. Opinion

    Dr. Mann is a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and the author of "Our Fragile Moment: How Lessons From Earth's Past Can Help Us Survive the Climate Crisis." Mr. Fontaine is an ...