By Sang-Bonn Soth*
August 23, 2011, Phnom Penh
We have recently discussed in class about theories of justice by philosophers namely Aristotle, Bentham, Norick, Immanuet Khant and John Rawls. Each theory has its advantages and disadvantages. However, I am in favor of John Rawls’s theory of justice for the following reasons:
1. According to John Rawls’s theory of justice, it is a form of fairness. John Rawls used the term social contract with his argument to show that justice particularly the distributive justice is a form of fairness. From the outset, we can distinguish between law and justice. Law is the legal rule that applies in a certain area at a certain period of time. The question regarding to the law can be best answered by lawyers, whereas Justice is the question of fairness. This question cannot be answered by lawyers. It is a question of philosophy. Mostly: Just / fair = good, Unjust / unfair = bad and in conclusion, Law has to be just = good.
2. In order to obtain justice John Rawls required the respect of basic rights of individuals shall absolutely be protected. The legal rights are not subject of abuses, but instead, it is to be promoted by a catalog of basic rights and guaranteed by the Constitution as a supreme law of the nation. Rawls also required individuals to enjoy equal opportunities.
3. Rawls viewed that in order to make fair contract unless the parties don’t know the backgrounds. Likewise, a fair decision can be made if the judge sticks to the core value of moral and don’t know the background of the parties to the dispute.
Example:
Recently, there was a case of violence in Oudong District of Kompong Speu Province. Hundreds of armed police and villagers clashed over a land dispute. At least 10 people were injured on both sides, including seven seriously. The armed forces mobilized to protect private interests, at the expense of the public interest.
The clash caused casualties and the casualties were the result of the enforcement of the court order made by the Supreme Court. The decision of the court made with less clear investigation and was not based on the core value of moral and respect of basic rights as required by John Rawls, thus, unfairness occurred and violence erupted.
Disclaimer: The view points from the articles posted in this academic forum do not reflect the opinions or ideas provided by the Nokor Khmer. They are genuinely the opinions of the article author.
No comments:
Post a Comment