Introduction to Justice Concepts

Holding someone responsible for causing harm, even if they didn't intend it or act carelessly. It focuses on the cause-and-effect relationship, not the actor's state of mind.

Distributing benefits and burdens fairly, focusing on the outcomes or results.

Ensuring the process used to reach a decision is fair, regardless of the outcome.

A process guarantees a fair outcome, like cutting a cake yourself to ensure you get the biggest slice.

A process is likely to lead to a fair outcome, but it's not guaranteed, making it less certain.

The process itself determines the outcome, like flipping a coin to choose who goes first.

Justice theories that prioritize the fairness of the process over the outcome.

A theory of justice focused on the relationships between people in a society, emphasizing mutual respect and equal treatment, regardless of social status, wealth, or any other factors.

A type of egalitarianism that aims to equalize outcomes by compensating for factors beyond individual control, like natural abilities or social circumstances.

The idea that justice can sometimes necessitate unequal outcomes, when doing so is deemed fair or necessary based on specific circumstances.

Egalitarianism that focuses on equal outcomes and distributive justice.

Refers to the unequal distribution of resources and opportunities within a society.

A theory of justice that prioritizes helping those who are most disadvantaged in society, even if it means others might get less. The goal is to maximize the benefits to those at the lowest economic level.

A social or economic system that distributes benefits in a way that raises the well-being of the worst off individual to the greatest extent possible.

Comparing the impact of different social systems on the well-being of the least advantaged, not comparing individuals.

Theories of justice that focus on the structure or framework of a society, and how this affects the overall distribution of benefits, rather than individual actions.

The conditions under which principles of justice apply, who they apply to, and what kinds of things they govern. For example, when are resources scarce enough to warrant applying principles of justice?

The question of whether non-human animals should be included in our moral considerations, particularly when thinking about principles of justice.

The principle of justice applies to all individuals within a society, regardless of their position, status, or relationship to others. This means everyone deserves equal treatment under the law, for example.

The principle of justice applies only within specific social relationships or contexts. For instance, certain obligations might only apply to members of the same family or to citizens of the same country.

The type of claim being made influences the scope of justice. Claims about property rights might have a different scope than claims about basic necessities like food and shelter.

The idea that animals are not included in the scope of principles of justice, even though we have duties of compassion towards them.

Humans have a special power over animals because animals can only possess things with human permission. This power means we don't have to be just to animals, but only kind.

Principles of justice apply among people who participate in a shared effort with mutual benefits, like a society.

Humans and animals can cooperate, but this cooperation doesn't necessarily mean they participate in a 'cooperative venture for mutual advantage' , thus not establishing justice.

The idea that justice should apply to all individuals who can be affected by the actions of others, regardless of ability, location, or time.

A framework for understanding ethical considerations when it comes to individuals who are not part of the traditional 'justice' sphere, such as animals or future generations.

The exclusion of animals from justice can also apply to individuals with significant disabilities, isolated communities, and future generations, raising concerns about its scope and fairness.

The argument that justice applies only to participants in cooperative ventures is weakened because it could exclude many individuals from its scope. This raises questions about its validity as a universal principle.

The concept of justice should be thought of as applying more broadly to all individuals, including animals and those beyond the current scope, while embracing the importance of compassion and ethical considerations.

The idea that justice for animals requires considering whether they should be included within the scope of moral principles, even if they are not considered equal citizens.

A concept suggesting that justice is only relevant within specific relationships and doesn't apply universally.

Principles of justice that compare the treatment of individuals within a specific relationship, like fairness in distributing resources.

Justice that applies to everyone, regardless of their relationship with others, based on fundamental moral principles.

The idea that justice only exists when an individual or group is responsible for creating an inequality.

A hypothetical scenario where the universe is responsible for unfairness, but no person or group can be blamed.

The idea that through social interaction and shared responsibility, individuals become responsible for ensuring justice within their relationship.

The principle of distributing resources fairly between different societies or nations.

Unequal conditions between rich and poor countries that may be considered unjust.

The question of whether inequalities are inherently unjust, or only unjust when they hinder people's ability to live decent lives.

The principle of fairness in distributing resources within a society or nation.