Justice is about ideas regarding legitimate distributions of things we value. Justice and freedom are connected: which distribution we find most compelling will vary depending on our favoured view about freedom.

I think Justice is the requirement of consistency between what a person does and what he receives in return.

justice is following the truth, the truth, the norm.

the concept of due, corresponding to a certain understanding of the essence of a person and his inalienable rights. S. is a category of moral and legal, as well as socio–political. consciousness, as it evaluates societies. the validity to be preserved or changed,


справедливость означает отведение всему должного места и равное отношение ко всем.

Justice (ar. ٌعددْل ['adl] — "justice", "decency") — the concept of the proper order of interaction between members of society, corresponding to certain ideas about the essence of a person, his rights and duties. At all times, the idea of justice has been one of the main factors of social harmony, and the understanding of justice has been associated with the maintenance of the existing order and order. In social practice, this was expressed in penalties for violating established norms, redistribution of wealth, etc. The ethics of justice was determined by the need to restore the disturbed balance.
the social contract is a theory or model that originated during the Age of Enlightenment and usually, although not always, concerns the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual.^[1]

The arguments of the social contract usually come down to the fact that individuals have agreed, explicitly or tacitly, to give up some of their freedoms and submit to the authority (the ruler or the decision of the majority) in exchange for the protection of their remaining rights or the maintenance of social order.[2][3] The relationship between natural and legal rights is often a topic of social contract theory.

the social contract is a theory or model that originated during the Age of Enlightenment and usually, although not always, concerns the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual.^[1]The general will is the substantive interest shared by every citizen in the community. Because it is shared by everyone, it can serve as a common basis for resolving disputes.

The general will is distinguished from a common will. The common will is determined by asking citizens to vote for the option that best satisfies their private self-interest. Perhaps one option receives more votes than another. This can only be justified as a legitimate obligation on all members if, in fact, the winning option is determined by its connection to the general will that everyone shares.

 The problem is we must each separate our private self-interests from our collective, general will. I should only vote for tax cuts where it benefits the substantial interest of all and not because I will benefit personally from it. But nor is the general will meant to be idealised. 

Rawls accepts the need for a social contract, but he develops it with a twist. Rawls uses a simple thought experiment that you and I can engage with at any time which can make the idea of a social contract more relevant and alive to our present concerns.

Rawls asks us to imagine we’re in the original position. Our goal in the original position is to agree principles of political justice that will constrain the legitimate activities of our community. He asks us to imagine ourselves in the original position with others, but behind a veil of ignorance. The veil of ignorance is symbolic. We are to have no knowledge of features about ourselves that are arbitrary from a moral point of view. So what kinds of features are morally arbitrary? These are to include our age, gender, wealth, sexual orientation and particular talents. Everyone in the original position is to be ignorant about which might apply to them when they lift the veil of ignorance, leave the original position and enter their shared political community.

---

Важно!

The purpose of the veil of ignorance is that it forces us to think about which principles of justice we might all endorse if we did not know certain morally arbitrary features about ourselves. If we knew that we were male or wealthy, then we would run the risk of supporting principles of justice favouring rich men because of our private self-interest. But this would be contrary to identifying what satisfies a general will that is common to all. Instead, we are to choose principles without knowing whether we will benefit from them or not. This is because our morally arbitrary features are hidden from us.
The principles we choose are to be decided unanimously. This is an important condition. It is because they are to be binding on all. Rawls accepts the idea that all must be bound by a social contract, but disagrees with Rousseau about how we should do it. Instead of a fictional past contract agreed by others, Rawls’s thought experiment is something we can do at any time to confirm and reaffirm which principles we would choose.


ПРИНЦИПЫ!

Rawls defends two principles of justice that we can discover through entering an original position behind a veil of ignorance. The first principle is that each person must have an equal share of basic rights and liberties. The second principle states that any socio-economic inequalities can only be justified if the first principle is satisfied and every person enjoys a fair equality of opportunity in addition to the difference principle. These principles are rational constitutional constraints.

Rawls argues we would choose two principles of justice:

a  Each person has the same indefeasible claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme of liberties for all; and

b  Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: first, they are to be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; and second, they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society.
The first principle of justice is that each individual has the same set of ‘equal basic liberties’. None should have more than any other. In the original position and behind a veil of ignorance, we would affirm unanimously that each of us should have an equal share of basic liberties.

The first principle has priority over the second, and the latter concerns a particular circumstance. This is the justification of socio-economic inequality. Rawls’s claim is that we must each have an equal share of basic rights and liberties no matter what. If we don’t have that, then our political arrangement is unjust. But if we do enjoy equal liberties, then socio-economic inequality can be justified should certain conditions be satisfied

The second principle of justice should be understood in two parts. The first part is that we must each enjoy fair equality of opportunity. Someone occupying a public office, such as a President or Prime Minister, can enjoy more privileged opportunities than many other citizens. Rawls claims this inequality can be justified if everyone has the same equal share of basic liberties and each one of us has the same fair equality of opportunity to become President or Prime Minister. Otherwise, this privileged difference is unjust.
Политический либерализм

Rawls’s political liberalism develops his ideas on justice, including the claim that we should deliberate publicly through the use of public reasons that any individual endorsing any reasonable comprehensive doctrine could, but might not, accept. These reasons can build an overlapping consensus making possible political stability despite our many differences over which view of the good is best.

Now think about their relation to political justice. The more common way to think about disagreement in political affairs is to hold a vote, but one potential problem is that one group representing a particular comprehensive doctrine can outnumber others and so come to dominate decision-making with preferences more closely aligning themselves to their particular doctrine.

Rawls also maintains that each citizen should be conceived as free and equal. This highlights the real importance of guarding against one reasonable doctrine dominating over others. This is because it would undermine the equality of citizens. So what we require is some means to accommodate the equality of citizens with the reasonable differences they will have about the comprehensive doctrines they support. Rawls calls this the fact of reasonable pluralism

---

The use of public reasons to form an overlapping consensus ensures that no one comprehensive doctrine dominates others. What rules is a consensus supported by reasons accessible to all, even if they do not accept them. In this way, Rawls argues he can achieve political stability for the right reasons. In other words, political stability can be achieved in other ways, such as a brutal dictatorship with a tight grip on its power. However, such a form of government would deny the equality of persons and the fact of reasonable pluralism. An overlapping consensus can overcome these problems. Rawls calls his views on public reason and an overlapping consensus political liberalism. 

Capability approach

The capability approach (also referred to as the capabilities approach) is a normative approach to human welfare that concentrates on the actual capability of persons to achieve lives they value rather than solely having a right or freedom to do so

Multiculturalists, such as Parekh, reject the idea that pluralism in society is a problem. Parekh is critical of Rawls’s claim that we can and should distinguish between the private and public spheres in the way that Rawls does. Parekh argues differences are to be embraced.

Под «достоинством человека» Пико делла Мирандола имел в виду высокое благородство дисциплинированного разума и воображения, человеческую природу, искупленную Христом, возвышающую

истинно человеческой личности через упражнение души и разума. Он не имел в виду

технологический или чувственный триумф. "

достоинство человека" - это фраза, сорвавшаяся с уст

современные люди, в том числе

публицисты-коммунисты; и по ней всякие

людей означают просто удовлетворение

эго, эгалитаристы утверждают, что «один

человек так же хорош, как и другие, или, может быть, немного

Однако Пико знал, что никто

может величать себя: достоинство есть качество

XVII

ВВЕДЕНИЕ

в который инвестируется; это должно быть присвоено. Чтобы существовало человеческое достоинство,

должен быть Мастером, который может поднять Человека выше

зверское творение. Если этот Мастер отвергнут,

тогда достоинство для человека недостижимо.

Mirandola's speech on human dignity, also known as the "Oration on the Dignity of Man," was delivered in 1486 and remains one of the most important Renaissance works on the nature of human beings and their place in the universe. In this speech, Mirandola argues that humans are unique and special creatures who possess a dignity and worth that is unmatched in the natural world.

Mirandola begins by describing the creation of humans as a special act of God, in which God created them in his own image and bestowed upon them the power to choose their own destiny. Unlike other creatures who are bound by instinct, humans are free to choose their own path in life, and they are responsible for their own actions.

---

Mirandola goes on to argue that humans are not limited by their physical bodies or their social status. Instead, they are capable of transcending these limitations through their intellect and their ability to reason. By using their minds to contemplate the mysteries of the universe, humans can connect with God and achieve a higher state of being.

Ultimately, Mirandola argues that the dignity of human beings comes from their ability to choose their own destiny and to strive for greatness. By using their God-given gifts to pursue knowledge, virtue, and wisdom, humans can achieve a level of excellence that is unmatched by any other creature.

In conclusion, Mirandola's speech on human dignity is a powerful affirmation of the uniqueness and worth of human beings. It reminds us that we are not just mere animals or products of our environment, but rather, we are capable of transcending our limitations and achieving greatness through our own efforts and our connection to the divine.

---

Смотрите также файлы

• 2 Виды, формы и содержание воспитательной деятельности.docx

• Лабораторная работа 2 Цель работы.doc

• Вопросы к коллоквиуму по физике.doc

• Статьи на русском и английском языках.pdf

• Особенности тушения пожаров в сельской местности.docx