global warming

This article is about the effects of global warming and climate change.[2] The effects, or impacts, of climate change may be physical, ecological, social or economic. Evidence of observed climate change includes the instrumental temperature record, rising sea levels, and decreased snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere.[3] According to IPCC (2007a:10), "[most] of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in [human greenhouse gas] concentrations". It is predicted that future climate changes will include further global warming (i.e., an upward trend in global mean temperature), sea level rise, and a probable increase in the frequency of some extreme weather events. Signatories of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change have agreed to implement policies designed to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases. Overview Global mean surface temperature difference from the average for 1880-2009 Mean surface temperature change for the period 1999 to 2008 relative to the average temperatures from 1940 to 1980 Over the last hundred years or so, the instrumental temperature record has shown a trend in climate of increased global mean temperature, i.e., global warming. Other observed changes include Arctic shrinkage, Arctic methane release, releases of terrestrial carbon from permafrost regions and Arctic methane release in coastal sediments, and sea level rise.[4][5] Global average temperature is predicted to increase over this century, with a probable increase in frequency of some extreme weather events, and changes in rainfall patterns. Moving from global to regional scales, there is increased uncertainty over how climate will change. The probability of warming having unforeseen consequences increases with the rate, magnitude, and duration of climate change.[6] Some of the physical impacts of climate change are irreversible at continental and global scales.[7] With medium confidence, IPCC (2007b:17) concluded that with a global average temperature increase of 1–4°C, (relative to 1990–2000) partial deglaciation of the Greenland ice sheet would occur over a period of centuries to millennia.[8] Including the possible contribution of partial deglaciation of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, sea level would rise by 4–6 m or more. The impacts of climate change across world population will not be distributed evenly (Smith et al., 2001:957).[9] Some regions and sectors are expected to experience benefits while others will experience costs. With greater levels of warming (greater than 2–3°C by 2100, relative to 1990 temperature levels), it is very likely that benefits will decline and costs increase (IPCC, 2007b:17). Low-latitude and less-developed areas are probably at the greatest risk from climate change (Schneider et al.., 2007:781).[10] With human systems, adaptation potential for climate change impacts is considerable, although the costs of adaptation are largely unknown and potentially large. In a literature assessment, Schneider et al.. (2007:792) concluded, with high confidence, that climate change would likely result in reduced diversity of ecosystems and the extinction of many species. Definition of climate change This article refers to reports produced by the IPCC. In their usage, "climate change" refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified by changes in the mean and/or variability of its properties, and that persists for extended periods, typically decades or longer (IPCC, 2007d:30).[11] The climate change referred to may be due to natural causes or the result of human activity. Physical impacts Main article: Physical impacts of climate change This section describes some physical impacts of climate change. For some of these physical impacts, their effect on social and economic systems are also described. Effects on weather Increasing temperature is likely to lead to increasing precipitation [12][13] but the effects on storms are less clear. Extratropical storms partly depend on the temperature gradient, which is predicted to weaken in the northern hemisphere as the polar region warms more than the rest of the hemisphere.[14] Extreme weather See also: Extreme weather, Tropical cyclone#Global warming, and List of Atlantic hurricane records IPCC (2007a:8) predicted that in the future, over most land areas, the frequency of warm spells or heat waves would very likely increase.[3] Other likely changes are listed below: * Increased areas will be affected by drought * There will be increased intense tropical cyclone activity * There will be increased incidences of extreme high sea level (excluding tsunamis) Local climate change Main article: Regional effects of global warming The first recorded South Atlantic hurricane, "Catarina", which hit Brazil in March 2004 Regional effects of global warming vary in nature. Some are the result of a generalised global change, such as rising temperature, resulting in local effects, such as melting ice. In other cases, a change may be related to a change in a particular ocean current or weather system. In such cases, the regional effect may be disproportionate and will not necessarily follow the global trend. There are three major ways in which global warming will make changes to regional climate: melting or forming ice, changing the hydrological cycle (of evaporation and precipitation) and changing currents in the oceans and air flows in the atmosphere. The coast can also be considered a region, and will suffer severe impacts from sea level rise. Biogeochemical cycles See also: climate change feedback Climate change may have an effect on the carbon cycle in an interactive "feedback" process . A feedback exists where an initial process triggers changes in a second process that in turn influences the initial process. A positive feedback intensifies the original process, and a negative feedback reduces it (IPCC, 2007d:78).[11] Models suggest that the interaction of the climate system and the carbon cycle is one where the feedback effect is positive (Schneider et al.., 2007:792).[10] Using the A2 SRES emissions scenario, Schneider et al.. (2007:789) found that this effect led to additional warming by 2100, relative to the 1990-2000 period, of 0.1 to 1.5 °C. This estimate was made with high confidence. The climate projections made in the IPCC Forth Assessment Report of 1.1 to 6.4 °C account for this feedback effect. On the other hand, with medium confidence, Schneider et al.. (2007) commented that additional releases of GHGs were possible from permafrost, peat lands, wetlands, and large stores of marine hydrates at high latitudes. Glacier retreat and disappearance Main article: Retreat of glaciers since 1850 A map of the change in thickness of mountain glaciers since 1970. Thinning in orange and red, thickening in blue. IPCC (2007a:5) found that, on average, mountain glaciers and snow cover had decreased in both the northern and southern hemispheres.[3] This widespread decrease in glaciers and ice caps has contributed to observed sea level rise. With very high or high confidence, IPCC (2007d:11) made a number of predictions relating to future changes in glaciers:[11] * Mountainous areas in Europe will face glacier retreat * In Latin America, changes in precipitation patterns and the disappearance of glaciers will significantly affect water availability for human consumption, agriculture, and energy production * In Polar regions, there will be reductions in glacier extent and the thickness of glaciers. Oceans The role of the oceans in global warming is a complex one. The oceans serve as a sink for carbon dioxide, taking up much that would otherwise remain in the atmosphere, but increased levels of CO2 have led to ocean acidification. Furthermore, as the temperature of the oceans increases, they become less able to absorb excess CO2. Global warming is projected to have a number of effects on the oceans. Ongoing effects include rising sea levels due to thermal expansion and melting of glaciers and ice sheets, and warming of the ocean surface, leading to increased temperature stratification. Other possible effects include large-scale changes in ocean circulation. Acidification Main article: Ocean acidification Dissolving CO2 in seawater increases the hydrogen ion (H+) concentration in the ocean, and thus decreases ocean pH. Caldeira and Wickett (2003) placed the rate and magnitude of modern ocean acidification changes in the context of probable historical changes during the last 300 million years.[15] Since the industrial revolution began, it is estimated that surface ocean pH has dropped by slightly more than 0.1 units (on the logarithmic scale of pH; approximately a 30% increase in H+), and it is estimated that it will drop by a further 0.3 to 0.5 units (more than doubling ocean H+ concentrations) by 2100 as the oceans absorb more anthropogenic CO2.[15] [16][17] Oxygen depletion The amount of oxygen dissolved in the oceans may decline, with adverse consequences for ocean life.[18][19] Sea level rise Main article: Current sea level rise IPCC (2007a:5) reported that since 1961, global average sea level had risen at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3] mm/yr.[3] Between 1993 and 2003, the rate increased above the previous period to 3.1 [2.4 to 3.8] mm/yr. IPCC (2007a) were uncertain whether the increase in rate from 1993 to 2003 was due to natural variations in sea level over the time period, or whether it reflected an increase in the underlying long-term trend. IPCC (2007a:13, 14) projected sea level rise to the end of the 21st century using the SRES emission scenarios. Across the six SRES marker scenarios, sea level was projected to rise by 18 to 59 cm (7.1 to 23.2 inches). This projection was for the time period 2090-2099, with the increase in level relative to average sea levels over the 1980-1999 period. Due to a lack of scientific understanding, this sea level rise estimate does not include all of the possible contributions of ice sheets (see the section on abrupt or irreversible changes). Temperature rise From 1961 to 2003, the global ocean temperature has risen by 0.10 °C from the surface to a depth of 700 m. There is variability both year-to-year and over longer time scales, with global ocean heat content observations showing high rates of warming for 1991 to 2003, but some cooling from 2003 to 2007.[20] The temperature of the Antarctic Southern Ocean rose by 0.17 °C (0.31 °F) between the 1950s and the 1980s, nearly twice the rate for the world's oceans as a whole [21]. As well as having effects on ecosystems (e.g. by melting sea ice, affecting algae that grow on its underside), warming reduces the ocean's ability to absorb CO2.[citation needed] Social systems Main article: Climate change, industry and society Food supply Main article: Climate change and agriculture See also: Food security, Food vs fuel, and 2007–2008 world food price crisis Climate change will impact agriculture and food production around the world due to: the effects of elevated CO2 in the atmosphere, higher temperatures, altered precipitation and transpiration regimes, increased frequency of extreme events, and modified weed, pest, and pathogen pressure (Easterling et al.., 2007:282).[22] In general, low-latitude areas are at most risk of having decreased crop yields (Schneider et al.., 2007:790).[10] With low to medium confidence, Schneider et al.. (2007:787) concluded that for about a 1 to 3°C global mean temperature increase (by 2100, relative to the 1990-2000 average level) there would be productivity decreases for some cereals in low latitudes, and productivity increases in high latitudes. With medium confidence, global production potential was predicted to: * increase up to around 3°C, * very likely decrease above about 3 to 4°C. Most of the studies on global agriculture assessed by Schneider et al.. (2007:790) had not incorporated a number of critical factors, including changes in extreme events, or the spread of pests and diseases. Studies had also not considered the development of specific practices or technologies to aid adaptation. Health Human beings are exposed to climate change through changing weather patterns (temperature, precipitation, sea-level rise and more frequent extreme events) and indirectly through changes in water, air and food quality and changes in ecosystems, agriculture, industry and settlements and the economy (Confalonieri et al.., 2007:393).[23] According to a literature assessment by Confalonieri et al.. (2007:393), the effects of climate change to date have been small, but are projected to progressively increase in all countries and regions. With high confidence, Confalonieri et al.. (2007:393) concluded that climate change had altered the seasonal distribution of some allergenic pollen species. With medium confidence, they concluded that climate change had: * altered the distribution of some infectious disease vectors * increased heatwave-related deaths With high confidence, IPCC (2007d:48) projected that:[11] * the health status of millions of people would be affected through, for example, increases in malnutrition; increased deaths, diseases and injury due to extreme weather events; increased burden of diarrhoeal diseases; increased frequency of cardio-respiratory diseases due to high concentrations of ground-level ozone in urban areas related to climate change; and altered spatial distribution of some infectious diseases. * climate change would bring some benefits in temperate areas, such as fewer deaths from cold exposure, and some mixed effects such as changes in range and transmission potential of malaria in Africa. Overall, IPCC (2007d:48) expected that benefits would be outweighed by negative health effects of rising temperatures, especially in developing countries. With very high confidence, Confalonieri et al. (2007:393) concluded that economic development was an important component of possible adaptation to climate change. Economic growth on its own, however, was not judged to be sufficient to insulate the world's population from disease and injury due to climate change. The manner in which economic growth occurs was judged to be important, along with how the benefits of growth are distributed in society. Examples of other important factors in determining the health of populations were listed as: education, health care, and public-health infrastructure.

Wednesday, February 2, 2011

Justice Encyclopedia

Justice
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the concept of justice. For other uses, see Justice (disambiguation).
Lady Justice depicts justice as equipped with three symbols: a sword symbolizing the court's coercive power; a human scale weighing competing claims in each hand; and a blindfold indicating impartiality.[1]

Justice is the concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, fairness, or equity, along with the punishment of the breach of said ethics.[2]
Contents
[hide]

1 Concept of justice
2 Variations of justice
3 Understandings of justice
3.1 Justice as harmony
3.2 Justice as divine command
3.3 Justice as natural law
3.4 Justice as human creation
3.4.1 Justice as authoritative command
3.4.2 Justice as trickery
3.4.3 Justice as mutual agreement
3.5 Justice as a subordinate value
4 Theories of distributive justice
4.1 Egalitarianism
4.2 Giving people what they deserve
4.3 Fairness
4.4 Property rights (non-coercion)/Having the right history
4.5 Welfare-maximization
5 Theories of retributive justice
5.1 Utilitarianism
5.2 Retributivism
5.3 Mixed theories
6 Institutions
7 See also
8 References
9 Further reading
10 External links

[edit] Concept of justice

According to most theories of justice, it is overwhelmingly important: [John Rawls] claims that "Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought."[3] Justice can be thought of as distinct from and more fundamental than benevolence, charity, mercy, generosity or compassion. Justice has traditionally been associated with concepts of fate, reincarnation or Divine Providence, i.e. with a life in accordance with the cosmic plan. The association of justice with fairness has thus been historically and culturally rare and is perhaps chiefly a modern innovation [in western societies].[4]

Studies at UCLA in 2008 have indicated that reactions to fairness are "wired" into the brain and that, "Fairness is activating the same part of the brain that responds to food in rats... This is consistent with the notion that being treated fairly satisfies a basic need".[5] Research conducted in 2003 at Emory University, Georgia, involving Capuchin Monkeys demonstrated that other cooperative animals also possess such a sense and that "inequity aversion may not be uniquely human."[6] indicating that ideas of fairness and justice may be instinctual in nature.
[edit] Variations of justice

Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, where punishment is forward-looking. Justified by the ability to achieve future social benefits resulting in crime reduction, the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome.

Retributive justice regulates proportionate response to crime proven by lawful evidence, so that punishment is justly imposed and considered as morally correct and fully deserved. The law of retaliation (lex talionis) is a military theory of retributive justice, which says that reciprocity should be equal to the wrong suffered; "life for life, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."[7]

Restorative justice is concerned not so much with retribution and punishment as with (a) making the victim whole and (b) reintegrating the offender into society. This approach frequently brings an offender and a victim together, so that the offender can better understand the effect his/her offense had on the victim.

Distributive justice is directed at the proper allocation of things — wealth, power, reward, respect — among different people.

Oppressive Law exercises an authoritarian approach to legislation that is "totally unrelated to justice", a tyrannical interpretation of law is one in which the population lives under restriction from unlawful legislation.

Some theorists, such as the classical Greeks and Romans, conceive of justice as a virtue—a property of people, and only derivatively of their actions and the institutions they create. Others emphasize actions or institutions, and only derivatively the people who bring them about. The source of justice has variously been attributed to harmony, divine command, natural law, or human creation.
[edit] Understandings of justice
Justice by Luca Giordano

Understandings of justice differ in each culture, as cultures are dependent on a religion and its ethics that create values which influence the notion of justice. Although there can be found some justice principles that are one and the same in all or most of the cultures, there are insufficient to create a unitary justice apprehension.
[edit] Justice as harmony
Main article: Republic (dialogue)

In his dialogue Republic, Plato uses Socrates to argue for justice that covers both the just person and the just City State. Justice is a proper, harmonious relationship between the warring parts of the person or city. Hence Plato's definition of justice is that justice is the having and doing of what is one's own. A just man is a man in just the right place, doing his best and giving the precise equivalent of what he has received. This applies both at the individual level and at the universal level. A person's soul has three parts – reason, spirit and desire. Similarly, a city has three parts – Socrates uses the parable of the chariot to illustrate his point: a chariot works as a whole because the two horses’ power is directed by the charioteer. Lovers of wisdom – philosophers, in one sense of the term – should rule because only they understand what is good. If one is ill, one goes to a doctor rather than a psychologist, because the doctor is expert in the subject of health. Similarly, one should trust one's city to an expert in the subject of the good, not to a mere politician who tries to gain power by giving people what they want, rather than what's good for them. Socrates uses the parable of the ship to illustrate this point: the unjust city is like a ship in open ocean, crewed by a powerful but drunken captain (the common people), a group of untrustworthy advisors who try to manipulate the captain into giving them power over the ship's course (the politicians), and a navigator (the philosopher) who is the only one who knows how to get the ship to port. For Socrates, the only way the ship will reach its destination – the good – is if the navigator takes charge.[8]
[edit] Justice as divine command
Main article: Divine command theory

Justice as a divine law is commanding, and indeed the whole of morality, is the authoritative command. Killing is wrong and therefore must be punished and if not punished what should be done? A famous paradox called the Euthyphro dilemma essentially asks: is something right because God commands it, or does God command it because it's right? If the former, then justice is arbitrary; if the latter, then morality exists on a higher order than God, who becomes little more than a passer-on of moral knowledge. Some Divine command advocates respond by pointing out that the dilemma is false: goodness is the very nature of God and is necessarily expressed in His commands.
[edit] Justice as natural law
Main article: Natural law

For advocates of the theory that justice is part of natural law (e.g., John Locke), it involves the system of consequences that naturally derives from any action or choice. In this, it is similar to the laws of physics: in the same way as the Third of Newton's laws of Motion requires that for every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction, justice requires according individuals or groups what they actually deserve, merit, or are entitled to. Justice, on this account, is a universal and absolute concept: laws, principles, religions, etc., are merely attempts to codify that concept, sometimes with results that entirely contradict the true nature of justice.
[edit] Justice as human creation

In contrast to the understandings canvassed so far, justice may be understood as a human creation, rather than a discovery of harmony, divine command, or natural law. This claim can be understood in a number of ways, with the fundamental division being between those who argue that justice is the creation of some humans, and those who argue that it is the creation of all humans.
[edit] Justice as authoritative command
Injustice by Giotto di Bondone

According to thinkers including Thomas Hobbes, justice is created by public, enforceable, authoritative rules, and injustice is whatever those rules forbid, regardless of their relation to morality. Justice is created, not merely described or approximated, by the command of an absolute sovereign power. This position has some similarities with divine command theory (see above), with the difference that the state (or other authority) replaces God.
[edit] Justice as trickery

In Republic, the character Thrasymachus argues that justice is the interest of the strong—merely a name for what the powerful or cunning ruler has imposed on the people.
Further information: Republic (dialogue), Master-slave morality
[edit] Justice as mutual agreement
Main article: Social contract

According to thinkers in the social contract tradition, justice is derived from the mutual agreement of everyone concerned; or, in many versions, from what they would agree to under hypothetical conditions including equality and absence of bias. This account is considered further below, under ‘Justice as fairness’.
[edit] Justice as a subordinate value

According to utilitarian thinkers including John Stuart Mill, justice is not as fundamental as we often think. Rather, it is derived from the more basic standard of rightness, consequentialism: what is right is what has the best consequences (usually measured by the total or average welfare caused). So, the proper principles of justice are those that tend to have the best consequences. These rules may turn out to be familiar ones such as keeping contracts; but equally, they may not, depending on the facts about real consequences. Either way, what is important is those consequences, and justice is important, if at all, only as derived from that fundamental standard. Mill tries to explain our mistaken belief that justice is overwhelmingly important by arguing that it derives from two natural human tendencies: our desire to retaliate against those who hurt us, and our ability to put ourselves imaginatively in another's place. So, when we see someone harmed, we project ourselves into her situation and feel a desire to retaliate on her behalf. If this process is the source of our feelings about justice, that ought to undermine our confidence in them.[9]
[edit] Theories of distributive justice
Main article: Distributive justice
Allegory or The Triumph of Justice by Hans von Aachen

Theories of distributive justice need to answer three questions:

What goods are to be distributed? Is it to be wealth, power, respect, some combination of these things?
Between what entities are they to be distributed? Humans (dead, living, future), sentient beings, the members of a single society, nations?
What is the proper distribution? Equal, meritocratic, according to social status, according to need, based on property rights and non-aggression?

Distributive justice theorists generally do not answer questions of who has the right to enforce a particular favored distribution. On the other hand, property rights theorists argue that there is no "favored distribution." Rather, distribution should be based simply on whatever distribution results from non-coerced interactions or transactions (that is, transactions not based upon force or fraud).

This section describes some widely held theories of distributive justice, and their attempts to answer these questions.
[edit] Egalitarianism
Main article: Egalitarianism

According to the egalitarian, justice can only exist within the coordinates of equality. This basic view can be elaborated in many different ways, according to what goods are to be distributed—wealth, respect, opportunity—and what they are to be distributed equally between—individuals, families, nations, races, species. Commonly held egalitarian positions include demands for equality of opportunity and for equality of outcome. It affirms that freedom and justice without equality are hollow and that equality itself is the highest justice.

At a cultural level, egalitarian theories have developed in sophistication and acceptance during the past two hundred years. Among the notable broadly egalitarian philosophies are socialism, communism, anarchism, left-libertarianism, and progressivism, all of which propound economic, political, and legal egalitarianism, respectively. Several egalitarian ideas enjoy wide support among intellectuals and in the general populations of many countries. Whether any of these ideas have been significantly implemented in practice, however, remains a controversial question. One argument is that liberalism provides democracy with the experience of civic reformism. Without it, democracy loses any tie─argumentative or practical─to a coherent design of public policy endeavoring to provide the resources for the realization of democratic citizenship.
[edit] Giving people what they deserve

In one sense, all theories of distributive justice claim that everyone should get what they deserve. Theories disagree on the basis for deserving. The main distinction is between theories that argue the basis of just deserts is held equally by everyone, and therefore derive egalitarian accounts of distributive justice—and theories that argue the basis of just deserts is unequally distributed on the basis of, for instance, hard work, and therefore derive accounts of distributive justice by which some should have more than others. This section deals with some popular theories of the second type.

According to meritocratic theories, goods, especially wealth and social status, should be distributed to match individual merit, which is usually understood as some combination of talent and hard work. According to needs-based theories, goods, especially such basic goods as food, shelter and medical care, should be distributed to meet individuals' basic needs for them. Marxism can be regarded as a needs-based theory on some readings of Marx's slogan "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".[10] According to contribution-based theories, goods should be distributed to match an individual's contribution to the overall social good.
[edit] Fairness
Main article: A Theory of Justice
J. L. Urban, statue of Lady Justice at court building in Olomouc, Czech Republic

In his A Theory of Justice, John Rawls used a social contract argument to show that justice, and especially distributive justice, is a form of fairness: an impartial distribution of goods. Rawls asks us to imagine ourselves behind a veil of ignorance that denies us all knowledge of our personalities, social statuses, moral characters, wealth, talents and life plans, and then asks what theory of justice we would choose to govern our society when the veil is lifted, if we wanted to do the best that we could for ourselves. We don’t know who in particular we are, and therefore can’t bias the decision in our own favour. So, the decision-in-ignorance models fairness, because it excludes selfish bias. Rawls argues that each of us would reject the utilitarian theory of justice that we should maximize welfare (see below) because of the risk that we might turn out to be someone whose own good is sacrificed for greater benefits for others. Instead, we would endorse Rawls's two principles of justice:

Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all.
Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both
to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just savings principle, and
attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.[11]

This imagined choice justifies these principles as the principles of justice for us, because we would agree to them in a fair decision procedure. Rawls's theory distinguishes two kinds of goods – (1) liberties and (2) social and economic goods, i.e. wealth, income and power – and applies different distributions to them – equality between citizens for (1), equality unless inequality improves the position of the worst off for (2).
[edit] Property rights (non-coercion)/Having the right history

Robert Nozick's influential critique of Rawls argues that distributive justice is not a matter of the whole distribution matching an ideal pattern, but of each individual entitlement having the right kind of history. It is just that a person has some good (especially, some property right) if and only if they came to have it by a history made up entirely of events of two kinds:

1. Just acquisition, especially by working on unowned things; and
2. Just transfer, that is free gift, sale or other agreement, but not theft (i.e. by force or fraud).

If the chain of events leading up to the person having something meets this criterion, they are entitled to it: that they possess it is just, and what anyone else does or doesn't have or need is irrelevant.

On the basis of this theory of distributive justice, Nozick argues that all attempts to redistribute goods according to an ideal pattern, without the consent of their owners, are theft. In particular, redistributive taxation is theft.

Some property rights theorists also take a consequentialist view of distributive justice and argue that property rights based justice also has the effect of maximizing the overall wealth of an economic system. They explain that voluntary (non-coerced) transactions always have a property called pareto efficiency. A pareto efficient transaction is one where at least one party ends up better off and neither party ends up worse off. The result is that the world is better off in an absolute sense and no one is worse off. Such consequentialist property rights theorists argue that respecting property rights maximizes the number of pareto efficient transactions in the world and minimized the number of non-pareto efficient transactions in the world (i.e. transactions where someone is made worse off). The result is that the world will have generated the greatest total benefit from the limited, scarce resources available in the world. Further, this will have been accomplished without taking anything away from anyone by coercion.
Further information: Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Libertarianism, Constitutional economics
[edit] Welfare-maximization
Main article: Utilitarianism

According to the utilitarian, justice requires the maximization of the total or average welfare across all relevant individuals. This may require sacrifice of some for the good of others, so long as everyone's good is taken impartially into account. Utilitarianism, in general, argues that the standard of justification for actions, institutions, or the whole world, is impartial welfare consequentialism, and only indirectly, if at all, to do with rights, property, need, or any other non-utilitarian criterion. These other criteria might be indirectly important, to the extent that human welfare involves them. But even then, such demands as human rights would only be elements in the calculation of overall welfare, not uncrossable barriers to action.
[edit] Theories of retributive justice

Theories of retributive justice are concerned with punishment for wrongdoing, and need to answer three questions:

why punish?
who should be punished?
what punishment should they receive?

This section considers the two major accounts of retributive justice, and their answers to these questions. Utilitarian theories look forward to the future consequences of punishment, while retributive theories look back to particular acts of wrongdoing, and attempt to balance them with deserved punishment.
[edit] Utilitarianism

According to the utilitarian, as already noted, justice requires the maximization of the total or average welfare across all relevant individuals. Punishment is bad treatment of someone, and therefore can’t be good in itself, for the utilitarian. But punishment might be a necessary sacrifice that maximizes the overall good in the long term, in one or more of three ways:

Deterrence. The credible threat of punishment might lead people to make different choices; well-designed threats might lead people to make choices that maximize welfare.
Rehabilitation. Punishment might make bad people into better ones. For the utilitarian, all that ‘bad person’ can mean is ‘person who's likely to cause bad things (like suffering) ’. So, utilitarianism could recommend punishment that changes someone such that they are less likely to cause bad things.
Security/Incapacitation. Perhaps there are people who are irredeemable causers of bad things. If so, imprisoning them might maximize welfare by limiting their opportunities to cause harm and therefore the benefit lies within protecting society.

So, the reason for punishment is the maximization of welfare, and punishment should be of whomever, and of whatever form and severity, are needed to meet that goal. Worryingly, this may sometimes justify punishing the innocent, or inflicting disproportionately severe punishments, when that will have the best consequences overall (perhaps executing a few suspected shoplifters live on television would be an effective deterrent to shoplifting, for instance). It also suggests that punishment might turn out never to be right, depending on the facts about what actual consequences it has.[12]
[edit] Retributivism
Main article: Retributive justice

The retributivist will think the utilitarian's argument disastrously mistaken. If someone does something wrong, we must respond to it, and to him or her, as an individual, not as a part of a calculation of overall welfare. To do otherwise is to disrespect him or her as an individual human being. If the crime had victims, it is to disrespect them, too. Wrongdoing must be balanced or made good in some way, and so the criminal deserves to be punished. Retributivism emphasizes retribution – payback – rather than maximization of welfare. Like the theory of distributive justice as giving everyone what they deserve (see above), it links justice with desert. It says that all guilty people, and only guilty people, deserve appropriate punishment. This matches some strong intuitions about just punishment: that it should be proportional to the crime, and that it should be of only and all of the guilty. However, it is sometimes argued that retributivism is merely revenge in disguise.[13] Despite this criticism, there are numerous differences between retribution and revenge: the former is impartial, has a scale of appropriateness and corrects a moral wrong, whereas the latter is personal, unlimited in scale, and often corrects a slight.
Further information: Deontological ethics
[edit] Mixed theories

Some modern philosophers have argued that Utilitarian and Retributive theories are not mutually exclusive. Fore example, Andrew Von Hirsch, in his 1976 book Doing Justice, suggested that we have a moral obligation to punish greater crimes more than lesser ones. However, so long as we adhere to that constraint then utilitarian ideals would play a significant secondary role.
[edit] Institutions
The Justices of the United States Supreme Court with President George W. Bush, October 2005
Main article: Law

In a world where people are interconnected but they disagree, institutions are required to instantiate ideals of justice. These institutions may be justified by their approximate instantiation of justice, or they may be deeply unjust when compared with ideal standards — consider the institution of slavery. Justice is an ideal the world fails to live up to, sometimes despite good intentions, sometimes disastrously. The question of institutive justice raises issues of legitimacy, procedure, codification and interpretation, which are considered by legal theorists and by philosophers of law.

Another definition of justice is an independent investigation of truth. In a court room, lawyers, the judge and the jury are supposed to be independently investigating the truth of an alleged crime. In physics, a group of physicists examine data and theoretical concepts to consult on what might be the truth or reality of a phenomenon.
[edit] See also

Other pages

Criminal justice
Ethics
Global justice
Injustice
Just war
Just-world phenomenon
Justice (economics)
Morality
Napoleonic code
Rationality
Social justice
Rule of law
Rule according to higher law
Teaching for social justice



Types of justice

Commutative justice
Distributive justice
Restorative justice
Retributive justice
Spatial justice

[edit] References

^ Luban, Law's Blindfold, 23
^ Konow, James. 2003. "Which Is the Fairest One of All? A Positive Analysis of Justice Theories." Journal of Economic Literature 41, no. 4: page 1188
^ John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (revised edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 3
^ Daston, Lorraine (2008). ""Life, Chance and Life Chances"". Daedalus: 5–14.
^ Brain reacts to fairness as it does to money and chocolate, study shows / UCLA Newsroom
^ Nature 425, 297–299 (18 September 2003)
^ Exodus 21.xxiii-xxv.
^ Plato, Republic trans. Robin Waterfield (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984).
^ John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism in On Liberty and Other Essays ed. John Gray (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), Chapter 5.
^ Karl Marx, 'Critique of the Gotha Program' in Karl Marx: Selected writings ed. David McLellan (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977): 564–70, p. 569.
^ John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (revised edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 266.
^ C. L. Ten, ‘Crime and Punishment’ in Peter Singer ed., A Companion to Ethics (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 1993): 366–72.
^ Ted Honderich, Punishment: The supposed justifications (London: Hutchinson & Co., 1969), Chapter 1.

[edit] Further reading

Anthony Duff & David Garland eds, A Reader on Punishment (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994)
Barzilai Gad, Communities and Law: Politics and Cultures of Legal Identities (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2003)
Brian Barry, Theories of Justice (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989)
C. L. Ten, Crime, Guilt, and Punishment: A philosophical introduction (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987)
Colin Farrelly, An Introduction to Contemporary Political Theory (London: Sage, 2004)
David Gauthier, Morals By Agreement (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986)
James Konow (2003) "Which Is the Fairest One of All? A Positive Analysis of Justice Theories", Journal of Economic Literature, 41(4), p. 1188-1239
David Schmidtz, Elements of Justice (New York: Columbia University Press, 2006)
Harry Brighouse, Justice (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2004)
John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (revised edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999)
John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism in On Liberty and Other Essays ed. John Gray (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991)
Nicola Lacey, State Punishment (London: Routledge, 1988)
Peter Singer ed., A Companion to Ethics (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993), Part IV
Plato, Republic trans. Robin Waterfield (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994)
Robert E. Goodin & Philip Pettit eds, Contemporary Political Philosophy: An anthology (2nd edition, Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell, 2006), Part III
Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia (Oxford: Blackwell, 1974)
Ted Honderich, Punishment: The supposed justifications (London: Hutchinson & Co., 1969)
Will Kymlicka, Contemporary Political Philosophy: An introduction (2nd edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002)

[edit] External links
Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Justice

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entries:
Distributive justice, by Julian Lamont
Justice as a virtue, by Michael Slote
Punishment, by Hugo Adam Bedau
Justice for the World
United Nations Rule of Law: Informal Justice, on the relationship between informal/community justice, the rule of law and the United Nations
Video:Balkan Justice YouTube

A series of videos on the subject of justice:
/ Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? by Harvard University's Michael Sandel. This is a wonderful series on this subject and from this site you are referred to all 12 episodes as well as to reading materials and comments from participants.

[show]v · d · ePhilosophy
[show]v · d · eSocial and political philosophy
[show]v · d · eEthics
[show]v · d · eJurisprudence
Categories: Justice | Philosophy of law | Political philosophy | Ethical principles

Log in / create account

Article
Discussion

Read
Edit
View history

Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia

Interaction

Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact Wikipedia

Toolbox
Print/export
Languages

العربية
Bân-lâm-gú
Български
Català
Česky
Cymraeg
Dansk
Deutsch
Eesti
Ελληνικά
Español
Esperanto
فارسی
Français
한국어
Bahasa Indonesia
Interlingua
Italiano
עברית
ქართული
Kiswahili
Kreyòl ayisyen
Lietuvių
മലയാളം
मराठी
Nederlands
日本語
Nouormand
Occitan
Polski
Português
Русский
Scots
Sicilianu
Simple English
Slovenčina
Suomi
Svenska
Tagalog
తెలుగు
Türkçe
Українська
اردو
ייִדיש
中文

This page was last modified on 2 February 2011 at 03:21.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details.
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Contact us

Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers

Powered by MediaWiki
Wikimedia Foundation