Essay代写：Absolute justice does not exist－r51due

下面为大家整理一篇优秀的essay代写范文- Absolute justice does not exist，供大家参考学习，这篇论文讨论了绝对正义的问题。正义是人类长期追求的一种美德，一种做事的原则。当我们在审判案件时，倾向于先把正义放在第一位。但从某种意义上讲，绝对正义在现实生活中是不存在的。因为我们权衡事情并作出最终决定时，不可能阻止个人的思考。而一旦考虑到个人因素，那么正义是无法实现的。因此，绝对公正是不存在。

Justice, a virtue that has been long pursued by man, stays as a principle when social interactions come along. This word has been gilded by man’ s desire. When we judge cases in our life, we tend to put the principle of justice first. In particular, when people have encountered some social inequalities, justice would be upheld as an assumption on which judgement needs to be made. People seem to, however, live under the illusion that justice has been spread into every little bit of society. From my perspective, justice is a relative concept. In this sense, absolute justice can not be found in real life.

To begin with, it is worth mentioning that justice does not amount to equality (Rawls, 1999). A sense of emotion or mentality creeps on the word of “justice” so that it could be seen as a subjective noun. On the other hand, equality appears more objective. It could be judged from visible facts such as balance sheet and allocation of revenue. As such, it is fair to say equality, to some extent, can be measured from facts. When we judge whether a phenomenon is equal, there are many standards serving our measurement. However, the judgement on justice needs to be traced back to subjectivity for each person holds his own opinion about this virtue. In a word, how justice can be judged depends on personal thinking and individual condition. Different persons have different views on justice. It is common that even a matter has been judged as equal, it could trigger massive debate——for example, “'Runner Fan”, nickname of Fan Meizhong who was a Chinese teacher leaving his students in class and running to the playground when the terrible Wen Chuan earthquake happened in 2008 (People’ s Daily Online, 2008). His irresponsible escapement conformed to the principle of equality for he absolutely had the right to run and no one could deny this fact. Nevertheless, his act by no means could be defined justified. In other words, it was a practice of equality but in no way of justice. If Fan was a man of justice and self-sacrifice, he would urged and guided students to run out of classroom first rather than just left them. Consequently, he was condemned by the general public for his selfish decision, even his life was as equal as students’ and what he did was just to use his right of protecting himself.

http://www.51due.net/writing/essay/sample32420.html

Rawls believes that justice stays as the principal value for social system and it calls for equality all the times. As such, social wealth, freedom, opportunities and income need to be equally distributed to ensure each one could enjoy them and only the most needed could enjoy more (Rawls, 1999). As I understand, social equality is the very basis of justice and this means equality is just a part of justice but not all of it. Justice touches upon a long list of aspects including bailout, assistance and equality. If we have achieved equality, that does not mean justice exists everywhere. Equality is just a step toward justice. If we are eager for justice, then equality needs to be ensured. In the sense of equality, both the rich and poor shall be treated impartially; however, in the sense of justice, it seems that the poor need to capture more attention. It is because justice is a subjective concept that can be judged, to some degree, by compassion and humanity.

The concept of “veil of ignorance” is put forward to illustrate under what circumstances could real justice exist (Rawls, 1999). And this concept indicates how subjective the judgement on justice is bound up with individual thoughts. In this concept, only those who have no idea of their social statuses or identities can make judgements of justice. Their ignorance of abilities, positions and social class would ensure them to express impartial views on distribution of wealth and resources for only under such circumstance could they shrug off the limited thinking that can be traced back to individual conditions. This is because people are inclined to safeguard their own interests even at the expense of others’. In this sense, they tend to make decisions that go a long way back to themselves. And this is so unfair that the most needed could not be attended to for the rich at the advantage have more power. As such, only if people get rid of the understanding of respective status could they make fair decisions.

However, it can not be denied that we always know who we are and where we are. There is no likelihood that we live under a totally ignorant environment. It is unrealistic that we have no consideration about ourselves. To couple with, our mentality also has a great deal to do with our decision. And our mentality is shaped by living experience, environment and personal social class. Therefore, it is impossible to block personal thinking away when we weigh plans and make final decisions. The personal factors have to be taken into account. And then justice can not be achieved. As such, it is safe to say the absolute justice in no way exists for decision makers have emotions, feelings, thinking and other subjective factors.

Apart from that, Nozick (1974) explains utopia as a minimal state, even from the traditional view, utopia stands isolated from a state. Utopia is what Nozick is eager for. In the sense of utopia, the state is not entitled to intervene civil rights and has power at a minimum level. Such state with minimum power, however, can do more than any other kind of state does. From Nozick’ s perspective, meta-utopia consists of three parts: nation, community and individual. In this sense, nation is under a neutral condition where it has no right to interfere with individual business. Waves of individuals can voluntarily gather together to build up numerous communities. Only when all individuals can be assured of complete freedom and rights can we put a label of justice on the state. Rights stand as the paramount principle when social justice is measured. And this is the framework of a minimal state.

As such, it is safe to make a conclusion that Rawls places emphasis on morality and injects his compassion about the poor into his views on justice. He takes into consideration moral weakness and inherent selfishness in a bid to prevent justice from the impact from personal factors. Arguably, his theory was put forward on the basis where the dark side of human has been blocked away. Nevertheless, this is by no means practical and realistic for it is unlikely to block off dark human natures as a human can not be totally kind and unselfish. On the other hand, Nozick builds up a concept of utopia where a state of justice has no political right to impact individuals. In such a state, individuals possess infallible freedom and their rights can absolutely ensured. Individual rights draw a limit for national power so that the nation has to run without interventions in individual rights and interests. However, it can not be denied that such state in no way exists. Therefore, full freedom cannot be ensured in Nozick’ s view. And then it is hard to see justice spread out in this state. In a word, from whether Rawls’ s or Nozick’ s perspective, justice seems never realistic because both of them exaggerate the bright possibilities and ignore the dark ones——Rawls puts the “veil of ignorance” first while Nozick, individual rights. That is to say, if justice is to be achieved, moral weakness and national intervention have to be minimized into nothing. And this can’t come into being.

Dworkin (1981) elaborates his opinions on equality of resources, which run against how Rawls thinks about this issue. He recognizes a few deficiencies in his theory. And to make an improvement, what the heart of Dworkin’ s opinions lies at is a distributive plan according to which resources are transferred or distributed through auction or until such distribution can’ t be more equal. However, I dare say, such distribution is an endless process so that a fully equal distribution never comes along. As such, Dworkin’ s theory shares the similar problem with Rawls’ s and Nozick’ s. Equality of resources is just an extremely ideal thing as utopia.

As I understand, even Rawls, Nozick and Dworkin have a long list of differences in the views on justice, all of them, essentially, put forward their respective ideal models of justice, as Rawls comes up with the “veil of ignorance”; Nozick, “a minimal state”; Dworkin, “equality of resources”. Regrettably, the three models of justice are all beyond social matters. In this sense, absolute justice, as they describe in their theories, is unlikely to exist in human society.

References

Dworkin, R. “Equality of Resources.”Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 10, No. 4. (Autumn, 1981), pp. 283-345.

Nozick, R. “Distributive Justice.”Anarchy, State and Utopia. New York: basic books. 1974. pp. 149-182

Rawls, J. A Theory of Justice. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts. 1999.

“Runner Fan prompts change”. People’ s Daily Online. June 27 2008. Retrieved: http://en.people.cn/90001/90776/90882/6437963.html January 25 2017

想要了解更多英国留学资讯或者需要英国代写，请关注51Due英国论文代写平台，51Due是一家专业的论文代写机构，专业辅导海外留学生的英文论文写作，主要业务有essay代写、paper代写、assignment代写。在这里，51Due致力于为留学生朋友提供高效优质的留学教育辅导服务，为广大留学生提升写作水平，帮助他们达成学业目标。如果您有essay代写需求，可以咨询我们的客服QQ：800020041。