Justice by Virtue

Justice by Virtue

Sandel posits that opinions against price gouging revolve around welfare maximization, virtue promotion, and respecting freedom. However, with the concept of virtue in place, it is undeniable that while price gouging advocates emphasize respecting freedom and promoting social welfare, virtue as an aspect is unignorable (Sandel, 2016). In this, greed, a feature of the price gougers, is considered a vice, often resulting in social suffering, indicating a lost sense of positive attitudes and character qualities. However, while this stands, Sandel posits that with the government playing a significant role in justice administration, a devotion towards prosperity or social welfare and freedom cannot be achieved in the absence of virtue. This triggers the debate surrounding the law arm of government, questioning whether the government should focus on nurturing the virtues of the society members or maintaining neutrality, as Kant and Rawls posited.

Kant developed ideologies surrounding justice based on the fact that justice was founded on freedom rather than the controversial virtue arguments discussed by Sandel. Therefore, Kant and other modern justice theorists supported justice in society as an element of freedom and welfare (Sandel, 2016). With a shared value with Kant, Rawls conceptualized the “veil of ignorance” as a lens to test societal fairness. As such, individuals’ perception of fairness is only acceptable based on how and what they perceive as just and moral. Contrary to this, I believe that allowing people to define what is just based on individual interpretations is not the correct way to pass judgment. Therefore, in administering social justice, personal opinions should be disregarded to create room for a defined and structured society operating within the established definitions of justice by the government. The government, therefore, plays a vital role in justice administration, which should involve defining the basic virtuous behaviours of the society members as a benchmark for determining injustice and justice. Therefore, political neutrality is unachievable given the government’s crucial role in justice administration in society and the indispensability of virtue in justice administration.

Reference

Sandel, M. J. (2016). Justice: What’s the right thing to do? Langara College.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

Justice by Virtue

Consider what Sandel says about virtue. Also, consider the theories of Kant and the utilitarians.

So now, what do you think about Rawls?

Is political ‘neutrality’ really possible? Is the ‘veil of ignorance’ the proper procedure to use when figuring out principles of justice?

Overall, what do you think about Rawls?