The Elements Of Justice

Theories of justice depend on the conceptualizing of the elements of justice.However, in the contemporary theories of justice, there are only a few researches aboutthe concepts of the elements of justice, and even the research of concepts was ignoredby the researchers generally. This is because the commonly used concepts researchingmethod, namely ordinary language analysis, is not fit for the research of value concepts.There are two basic beliefs about value facts:(1) the disputes about the value facts aresubstantial, which means value concepts can be wrong;(2) value facts are facts aboutpractical reasons, which means that these facts are normative. The Authors work onlanguage analysis treat the value concepts as linguistic concepts, this kind of conceptsare based on conventions and their borderlines are fuzzy, so it’s impossible for them tobe erroneous, correspondingly, the disputes on these concepts are only debates in theliteral sense. Someone argue that if values are facts about reasons, they must be desiredependence, so the value facts are also facts based on conventions. But this thoughtdoesn’t consider the reasons which are not depend on desires. Those reasons implicitthat people’s basic beliefs are credible, what we need is a more suitable theory ofconcepts and its research method.Moral realism theorists take the value facts as natural kinds, and they believe thatexplanative research is the method of researching value concepts. In their eyes, the substantiality of the disputes on concepts can be proved only when the value conceptswere viewed as natural kind concepts. Natural kinds are things that all of theirconceptual paradigms have common substantiality, which will never change howeverthe surface appearances have changed. The substantiality of natural kinds is not basedon human knowledge, so the concepts about natural kinds can be wrong. Because of thelaws of nature, there are inevitable casual connections between the conceptual featuresand non-conceptual ones. So we can study natural kind concepts through explanativeresearch. Since in the area of natural sciences, the objectivity of concepts is equal to thecoherence of explanation, moral realism theorists also claim that the facts which canexplain moral experiences are the conceptual features of values. However, there existtwo defects of this theory: on the one hand, the assumption of the causal connectionsbetween value facts and moral experiences are incredible; on the other hand, if valueconcepts are natural kind concepts, they will lose normativity, which is a necessaryfeature of value concepts.It can be inferred from the two basic beliefs about value facts that values aredesirable ends themselves. There are two formal features of value facts, namelycoherence and integrity, and the substantive contents of value facts come from people’spractical creations. Values are ends of moral practices, there are necessary connectionsbetween values and practices in the interpretive sense. So the value concepts can belearned by interpreting practices. The research of value concepts can be divided into twosteps: step one is finding the best ends the practical paradigms realize by interpretiveconstruction of them; step two is testifying the value attribute of the ends by the criteriaof coherence and integrity with other values. From chapter two to chapter five, thismethod will be applied to the researching of the concepts of impartiality, desert, needand fairness, which are the elements of justice. According to the linguistic analysis of the concept of impartiality,“A treats Gimpartially on the matter R” implies that “on this matter(R), A’s behavior is notinfluenced by some particular member’s benefits or lost.” According to this definition,not all impartial treat are moral, for some behaviors disobeying the principle ofimpartiality can be seen as moral. For example, as non-official, when a person isconfronted with a choice between saving their wife or a stranger, it’s morally permittedfor him to make the former choice just because that is his wife. By interpreting someparadigms of impartiality, scholars offered these concepts of impartiality:(1)impartiality as a way to realize the principle of utility;(2) impartiality as a cognitivestyle of getting normative truth. For the former interpretation, first, taking theapproaches of achieving utility maximization as a value is doubtful because the value ofutility maximization is questionable itself; second, there are some paradigms ofimpartiality which do not take utility maximization as their moral ends, so this is not thebest interpretation of the paradigms of impartiality. The later interpretation is also notthe best interpretation, because the demand of treating others impartially can’t assurethat people can make right judges about values. By contrast, defining impartiality as“eliminating the influences of non-moral elements” can make a best interpretation of theparadigms of impartiality, for this concept can pass the test of the coherence andintegrity of values.According to the linguistic analysis of the concept of desert,"A deserves Y"means "A deserves Y in virtue of X that is relevant to A ". Similarly, not all deserts aremoral, it is not morally wrong that some deserts do not realized. For instance TaishanMountain is not the Most Sacred Mountain, good man does not get blessings, helplessone does not have good luck. Based on the interpretation of paradigms of desert, somescholars deny desert is one kind of values for the foundation of desert inevitably consisting of moral arbitrariness as well as the dilemma between desert and eliminatingmoral arbitrariness. However, it provides the concept of desert which is may be justifiedrather than deny it. Some claim that kind of definition of desert make it instrumentalwhile it is the way to realize fairness which can be reverted to fairness. Nevertheless theinterpretation can not tell the moral attributes of work and crime which make it not thebest desert paradigm. Overall, defining desert as “A deserves rewards or punishments invirtue of something for that he could take responsible” can make a best interpretation ofthe paradigms of desert, for this concept can pass the test of the coherence and integrityof values.According to the linguistic analysis of the concept of need,“Someone X needssomething Y” means “X needs Y to achieve a purpose Z”.Y is a necessary condition forZ as well as X can not meet the need Y by himself”.Again, this definition includes theneeds which do not have moral significance. For instance Tom needs a dictionary tocomplete the crossword. Generally needs should be meet only when it does not andcause serious injury, which have moral significance and can be applied to meet theobligation to give to others. Moral realists believe needs have moral significance invirtue of the relationship, such as connection or dependency relationship that caninterpret the obligation of meeting needs. However, as we note in the first chapter, theconcepts of values should be interpretative not explanative. In interpretative research,some deny the moral significance of needs since meeting needs can violate propertyright. From the point of the conditions of property right, the deny is not sufficient. Someinterpret the principle of needs with help-no-risk principle and the priority of preventinginjury principle. It is not convincing for neglecting the individual separation in terms ofutilitarianism. Some believe the interpretation of needs should be the principle ofuniversality. The nature of the former is the principle of reciprocity which can not interpret the principle of non-reciprocity. Overall, the best interpretation of the principleof needs is “ought implies can”. The concept of needs is “the one under the guide ofjustice can obey the principle of justice” which can pass the test of the coherence andintegrity of values.A paradigm of the principle of fairness is the proportionality in repaying debt.Some argue the interpretation of proportionality principle through individuality andnon-priority. However it is applicable to non-proportionality principle as well. Thereforethis interpretation can be taken as the best interpretation of proportionality principle.Non-favoritism is the best which can pass the test of the coherence and integrity ofvalues.