...Unjust Justice: The Reasons behind Uncivil Acts of Violence Justified violence. The very words themselves conjure up images of righteous, justified acts, picture your stereotypical law enforcement officer taking down a violent criminal, or military personnel firing upon insurgents and terrorists. These are the prototypical acts that we imagine upon encountering the idea of ‘justified violence’. But when one takes a different perspective on the malleable definition of what constitutes an act of violence being ‘justified’, a fine line is often crossed over legality of the violence that ensues. “Uncivil disobedients” is a term coined by scholar Jennet Kirkpatrick in her book Uncivil Disobedience: Studies in Violence and Democratic Politics, describing these ‘disobedients’ as citizens that break the law because of their belief that their violence is truly done because they believe their efforts are honorable and justified, despite issues of legality or immorality as perceived by others (13). Thus a complex relationship arises between these uncivil disobedients and the law and the treading of the fine line between what is legal and illegal with their actions. Kirkpatrick provides numerous examples of these disobedients, namely western frontier vigilantes and southern lynch mobs. What these unique groups had, despite having varying agendas, was a similar mindset in accomplishing their goals, using violence to meet their demands, often times going above and beyond the grasp of...
Words: 1584 - Pages: 7
...Restitution an old concept Restitution v Compensation (most cases) i.e.: remedy of compensation Unjust enrichment has 4 main elements (confirmed in Banque Financiere) **** sets out the structure. i) defendant’s enrichment (money is very clearly a benefit to you) (can spend it, can use it) ii) at the claimant’s expense? (did the money come from the bank?) transfer of value from the C or substraction from C … didn’t lose money, but lost time and expertise i.e.: repairing a table iii) was the enrichment unjust? (unjust factors: i.e.: could be a mistake, failure of consideration benefit has passed, but had failed to provide consideration., exploitation) iv) Are there any valid defences? We don’t want the defendant to suffer as well. The claimant doesn’t necessarily gain back everything. (CHANGE OF POSITION THE DEFENDANT RELIED ON THE ENRICHMENT). Reliance, detrimental reliance, links with estoppel. i.e.: textbook, nightout, books. Instead of buying new textbooks, could have bought 2nd hand. Instead of spending the nightout, could have paid individually. The court only look at the gain you still HAVE. They might take away your books, laptop (require to sell off the laptop) depends on REASONABLENESS /SENSIBILITY. So, i.e.: if you spend on HOLIDAY, on other things, i.e.: spend on nightout dinner, the court cant take back anything! Chase Manhanttan. made 2 payments, only should made 1. After being made, the bank went bankrupt, found a constructive trust...
Words: 416 - Pages: 2
... King for hypocrisy and breaking the law. In response to the article, Dr. King wrote the “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” in which he clarified the difference between a just and unjust law, stating we, as human beings, have “not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust...
Words: 965 - Pages: 4
...Plato we find various renditions of what specifically justice is. Socrates begins the conversation of justice with an elder statesman by the name of Cephalus and furthers the discussion with the son of Cephalus, Polemarchus. Socrates is seemingly “toying” with or having fun at the disposal of Polemarchus by challenging his argument and every point and he identifies various inconsistencies in the stories of both men regarding justice. By now the story turns to Thrasymachus which is where this paper begins. I will attempt to dissect Thrasymachus’ s argument and demonstrate where Socrates finds his argument lacking. During the course of book we hear various meanings from various characters regarding the true meaning of justice; Thrasymachus seems to take the view of a pessimist regarding the topic. Both Cephalus and Polemarchus are rather defeated in their arguments with Socrates and are unable to adequately provide Socrates with a satisfactory answer regarding what justice is. Thrasymachus enters the conversation and is seemingly annoyed or upset about the discourse between Socrates and Polemarchus. Moreover, Thrasymachus reverses the question to Socrates by demanding to know what his version of justice is. Thrasymachus seems to be frustrated with the audacity of Socrates of questioning everyone without providing and real answers himself. Thrasymachus then asserts his view of justice and in so doing, questions whether or not being a just...
Words: 1505 - Pages: 7
...Philosophy Paper Sally Margarit Sep, 27th 2014 What is Justice? How do we know what justice is? This has been the question that we have essentially been discussing throughout all of our classes this semester. The idea that the normalities of society are the pillars for what defines what is right and what is just, is one argument that in most cases holds true. As children in our culture, we are all taught a very generic set of rules. At a very young age we learn not to harm others, steal, lie, or cheat. As children we cultivate this idea of criminals as bad people, who have somehow broken the moral code that society has so easily instilled in us as youth. However, despite society's moral code, I believe that the notion of morality, justice, and what is right is something that is personal, as well as societal and permanent as well as circumstantial. I believe that true justice considers all of these aspects. "Integrity, institutions, and laws are the most precious possessions of man kind" Plato 49d G.M.A. Grube. Throughout history, laws have been put in place, to tell us what is right and wrong and to punish us when we commit an unjust act. Modern society acts as one large institution that creates the accepted idea of justice and morality. Socrates argues that these pillars put in place by society are of exceptional value. It seems that Socrates has more than just a respect for justice as defined by the law, but he so reveres it that he is willing to give up...
Words: 1444 - Pages: 6
...Justice has always been an interesting topic for philosophers and also for ordinary people. Justice can be defined briefly as “the fairness in the way that people are treated” (Collins Cobuild, p. 910). Plato and Aristotle, two leading figures of ancient Greek civilization, were earliest philosophers who thought about justice and developed theories about the sublime aspects of being just. This assignment is an attempt to prove that pursuing a life of justice would make living more worthwhile than being unjust or a combination of just and unjust life. In order to reach this point, I am going to explain the concept of justice and its superior aspects from the perspective of both Plato and Aristotle by taking help from their famous works “The Republic” and “The Nicomachean Ethics”. I will also give place to counter arguments and their rebuttals. I will make my own comments at the final part of the assignment. Plato (427 BC-347 BC) was one of the earlier and most important philosophers of the world and is also known as the founder of “The Academy”. Plato’s most famous work is “The Republic” in which he tries to draw the qualities of a just individual and a just state by explaining the sublime nature of justice. In the first two books of The Republic, dialogues between different characters focus on different meanings of justice. During the conversation two conventional definitions of justice (“giving a man’s due” and “doing good to your friends, harm to your enemies”) are refuted...
Words: 1724 - Pages: 7
...first objection, that justice is no more than a compromise is not a valid statement in the following three points. First, I will briefly explain the objection of Glaucon, that justice is no more than a compromise. Secondly, I will explain Plato’s reply to Glaucon’s first objection. Next, I will show the weaknesses on Plato’s claim based on one of the three parts of soul that he stands, desire. Thirdly, I will convince that Plato’s view of justice is indeed too narrow since his definition of justice is only limited to human beings. Finally, I will argue on Plato’s idea of rule of reason would lead to result of no more internal conflict. In this paragraph, I am going to state about Glaucon’s objection that justice is no more than a compromise and briefly explain Plato’s reply on Glaucon’s objection. The statement of “justice is no more than a compromise” comes from Glaucon’s second class of good: good that “are onerous but beneficial to us, and we wouldn’t choose them for their own sakes, but for the sake of the rewards and other things that come from them” [357C]. This illustrates the idea that people might do “just” things (according to the mainstream of that time, law, conventions) while they have outweigh the consequence of doing the “unjust” thing. Which Glaucon concludes that it is just a compromise of being just instead of its initial goal was to be just. People could act unjustly if they could accept or willing to take the consequence of being unjust according to Glaucon’s...
Words: 1560 - Pages: 7
...In Plato’s “The Republic” Book II, a philosopher by the name of Glaucon is introduced. He believes that the value of justice needs to be examined further. He does not agree with what Socrates’ defines as justice. Socrates believes that justice is a worthy goal as both an end and as a means to an end. Glaucon offers to play the devil's advocate to Socrates’ view of justice by saying that justice has no intrinsic value and only the consequences matter. Glaucon uses Thrasymachus’ argument, from Book I, as the basis for his first point. Thrasymachus believed that anything ‘good’ could be separated into three categories. The first represented anything that was a “good we like for its own sake (Plato 33)”. The second category represents things that are good based...
Words: 1281 - Pages: 6
...provided them with the examples from “The Republic Book I”. In the book, Socrates wants to find the definition for justice and the just life. He first test the definition with Cephalus to see if that’s a satisfy definition, if not, he will have to keep question until he gets the right definition. Cephalus’s definition of just is that as long as we always tell the truth and always pay back what is owed, we are doing the right thing. Socrates then asks if your definition is right, what if a friend of yours asks you to hold on to a weapon for him and then comes back one day in a state of rage asks for it back, will you give him the weapon back? Cephalus then realizes that can’t be the right definition. Then he continues on testing the definition with Polemarchus but Socrates, in his way of thinking, always questions against Polemarchus. Meanwhile, Thrasymachus can’t stand Socrates and accuses that Socrates never gives his own definition of justice but keep questioning others. Thrasymachus’s definition of justice is nothing more than whatever that gives benefits to the stronger and argues that unjust is better than just. Socrates argues back that the ruler’s purpose is to rule, same as a doctor’s purpose is to take care of his patients. He doesn’t concur that the unjust is better than just. He responds that if everyone is unjust in an unjust city, the soldiers are also unjust and unable to...
Words: 821 - Pages: 4
...Throughout “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”, King makes a similar statement about civil disobedience and the law. He states that civil disobedience must occur after four steps are taken. Collection of facts to determine whether there are injustices, negotiation, self purification, and direct action must occur before civil disobedience transpires. He argues that “there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes an injustice when it is used to maintain segregation” (5). Ultimately, a law becomes unjust when it promotes injustice. This is when civil disobedience can occur as laws that promote segregation and inequality are unjust. King appeals to a higher law whenever a command of the state conflicts with his moral principles. Natural law can be described as King’s guide to civil disobedience. When the state does not conform with natural law, civil...
Words: 1609 - Pages: 7
...attempts to correlate the human sentiments of justice with the principles of his Utilitarian doctrine. His task is to identify whether justice exists by itself or is derived by other sentiments. In so doing, he must also identify the range of our conceptions of justice to determine whether his theory can suitably address the demands of moral thinking. Mill does not describe every variety of the human notion of justice -- he could not have. The point of this exercise has been to bring into view a more complete picture of justice, and to demonstrate that a good deal of it may be served on the basis of utility. There are circumstances where the bonds of the doctrine as a whole are stretched, and that is to be expected, as far as moral theories are concerned. In many cases, choosing right action can be simplified by referring to the events and outcomes in human history. Human affairs have long required moral thinking and to ensure stability within our societies, certain standards of morally-correct behavior have emerged. Mill outlines these common elements of justice beginning with the moral impositions of our societies, namely, laws. A law is a system of rules which protect certain personal liberties or property and are enforced through a set of institutions. A law is usually intended to protect a person's or peoples moral right, though the stipulations of a law may not always receive unanimous agreement. Mill finds justice in conformity to laws (and in turn to the protected...
Words: 1113 - Pages: 5
...Mill’s utilitarian theory of justice Utilitarians tend to be among those who see no major divide between justice and morality. Utilitarians see justice as part of morality and don’t see justice to have a higher priority than any other moral concern. In particular, utilitarians think that we should promote goodness (things of value), and many think that goodness can be found in a single good; such as happiness, flourishing, well-being, or desire satisfaction. Utilitarian ideas of justice connect morality to the law, economic distribution, and politics. What economic or political principles will utilitarians say we should accept? That is not an easy question to answer and is still up in the air. We have to discover the best economic and political systems for ourselves by seeing the effects they produce (90). Utilitarians often advocate for social welfare because everyone’s well-being is of moral interest and social welfare seems like a good way to make sure everyone flourishes to a minimal extent. On the other hand utilitarians often advocate free trade because (a) free trade can help reward people for hard work and encourage people to be productive, (b) the free market allows for a great deal of freedom, (c) freedom has a tendency to lead to more prosperity, and (d) taking away freedom has a tendency to cause suffering. One conception of utilitarian justice can be found in the work Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill (91). Mill said that justice was a subset of morality—“injustice...
Words: 6146 - Pages: 25
...Punishment In Plato’s The Republic, Socrates has many conversations with people in order to further understand concepts such as justice and the way things are ideally supposed to be done. When I think about justice the definition that comes to mind is: the administration of a just action because of an unjust or immoral act being done by a human or group of humans. The issue of proper punishment has also been discussed in those conversations with Socrates and his peers. There must be a punishment for immoral or unjust actions committed by any human otherwise everything in our world would turn into complete chaos. In Socrates’s time people believed heavily in the afterlife and that his or her actions on Earth determined the quality of that life. The gods played a huge role in deciding the fates of everyone depending on how one lived while one was alive. If one lived an unjust and reckless life then it will show because the gods in one’s afterlife will punish him or her. Socrates states, “…bad people are wretched because they are in need of punishment, and that in paying the penalty they are benefited by that god.” There is a problem with waiting until the afterlife for people to be punished because then there would be no order in society. Bad people who are actually bad can get away with living well in the afterlife because during their Earthly life they gained enough wealth to pay the gods to give them a good afterlife. Meanwhile the good people of the world who did a bad...
Words: 1240 - Pages: 5
...of nature was very different from that used by traditional natural law theorists. They saw natural law as the basic moral precepts that every civilized nation acknowledged. Many equated Natural Law with the Ten Commandments. Self preservation will decrease the interest to search for peace. Natural law command is suppose to be designed to search for peace and personal security. | | | Glaucon believes that justice is good solely as means but not in itself. Glaucon wants Socrates to prove to him how it can be good both as means and in itself. Glaucon says that no one is willingly just, but rather compelled to act justly caused by nature, while they try to better themselves, ultimately saying that the life of the unjust is also better. Glaucon’s argument contains three parts; justice being good in itself, purely as means, the third dealing with its goodness for both reasons. Glaucon says that justice is a mean between doing what is best; which is doing injustice without paying the penalty and suffering injustice without being able to avenge oneself. Therefore, justice is not cared for because it is good, however, it is honored due to a want of vigor in doing injustice. He makes a second point on why people are unwillingly just, saying that the only reason the just are just is because they follow the rules and are afraid of being caught. However, if such a person were invisible and free to do whatever he or she wished, then they too would...
Words: 660 - Pages: 3
...Thrasymachus claims that justice is “what is advantageous for the stronger” (338c). The “stronger” can be likened to a ruler. In his view, if rulers say that their laws are just, then it is so, because their power makes it such. The amount of suffering inflicted upon the weaker does not change this, because in any case, it is those who are strongest who establish the meaning of justice. According to Thrasymachus, being unjust is more profitable than being just. By saying this, he is not abandoning his initial claim that justice is “what is advantageous for the stronger” (338c), rather, he is distinguishing injustice as being something which is “advantageous for oneself” (344c). If stealing is committed by a commoner it is unjust, yet still...
Words: 500 - Pages: 2
