In its broadest sense,justice is the idea that individuals should be treatedfairly. According to theStanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the most plausible candidate for a core definition comes from theInstitutes ofJustinian, a 6th-century codification ofRoman law, where justice is defined as "the constant and perpetual will to render to each his due".[1]
A society where justice has been achieved would be one in which individuals receive what they "deserve". The interpretation of what "deserve" means draws on a variety of fields and philosophical branches including ethics,rationality, law, religion, and fairness. The state may pursue justice by operating courts and enforcing their rulings.
Early Western theories of justice were developed in part by Ancient Greek philosophers such asPlato in his workThe Republic, andAristotle, in hisNicomachean Ethics andPolitics. Modern-day Western notions of justice also have their roots inChristian theology, which largely follows thedivine command theory, according to which God dictatesmorality and determines whether or not an action is seen as morally "good". This, in turn, determines justice.[2]
Western thinkers later advanced different theories about where the foundations of justice lie. In the 17th century, philosophers such asJohn Locke said justice derives fromnatural law.Jean-Jacques Rosseau was a prominent advocate ofsocial contract theory, which holds that justice arises from a mutual agreement among members of society to be governed within a political system.
In broad terms, distributive justice considers what is fair based on what goods are to be distributed, between whom they are to be distributed, and what the proper distribution is,utilitarian theories look forward to the future consequences of punishment,retributive theories look back to particular acts of wrongdoing and attempt to match them with appropriate punishment, andrestorative theories look at the needs of victims and society and seek to repair the harms from wrongdoing. Theories of retributive justice say justice is served by punishing wrongdoers, whereas restorative justice (also sometimes called "reparative justice") is an approach to justice that focuses on the needs of victims and offenders.[citation needed]
Justice, according toPlato, is about balance and harmony. It represents the right relationship between conflicting aspects within an individual or a community. He defines justice as everyone having and doing what they are responsible for or what belongs to them.[3] In other words, a just person is someone who contributes to society according to their unique abilities and receives what is proportionate to their contribution. They are in the right place, always striving to do their best, and reciprocating what they receive fairly and equitably. This applies both at the individual level and at the organizational and societal levels.[4]
To illustrate these ideas, Plato describes a person as having three parts: reason, spirit, and desire. These parallel the three parts of a city in his philosophy, which he describes through the metaphor of a chariot: it functions effectively when the charioteer, representative of reason, successfully controls the two horses, symbolizing spirit and desire.[citation needed] Continuing on these themes, Plato theorizes that those who love wisdom, orphilosophers, are the most ideal to govern because only they truly comprehend the nature of the good. Just like one would seek a doctor's expertise in matters of health rather than a farmer's, so should the city entrust its governance to someone knowledgeable about the good, rather than to politicians who might prioritize power over people's genuine needs.Socrates later used the parable of the ship to illustrate this point: the unjust city is like a ship in open ocean, crewed by a powerful but drunken captain (the common people), a group of untrustworthy advisors who try to manipulate the captain into giving them power over the ship's course (the politicians), and anavigator (the philosopher), the latter of whom being the only one who knows how to get the ship to port.[4]
Advocates of divine command theory say that justice and the whole of morality is the authoritative command of God. Murder is wrong and must be punished, for instance, because God says it so. Some versions of the theory assert that God must be obeyed because of the nature of God's relationship with humanity, others assert that God must be obeyed because God is goodness itself, and thus doing God's command would be best for everyone.[5]
An early meditation on the divine command theory byPlato can be found in his dialogue,Euthyphro. Called theEuthyphro dilemma, it goes as follows: "Is what is morally good commanded by the gods because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by the gods?" The implication is that if the latter is true, then justice is beyond mortal understanding; if the former is true, then morality exists independently from the gods and is therefore subject to the judgment of mortals.[5] Aresponse, popularized in two contexts byImmanuel Kant andC. S. Lewis, is that it is deductively valid to say that the existence of an objective morality implies the existence of God and vice versa.[citation needed]
Jewish, Christian, andMuslim theology traditionally follow that justice is a present, real, right, and specifically, governing concept, along withmercy, and that justice is ultimately derived from and held by God.[citation needed] According to the Bible, such institutions like theMosaic Law were created by God to require theIsraelites to live by and apply God's standards of justice.[citation needed]
The Hebrew Bible describes God as saying about theJudeo-Christian-Islamic patriarchAbraham: "No, for I have chosen him, that he may charge his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice;...." (Genesis 18:19,NRSV). ThePsalmist describes God as having "Righteousness and justice [as] the foundation of [His] throne;...." (Psalms 89:14, NRSV).[citation needed]
TheNew Testament also describes God andJesus Christ as having and displaying justice, often in comparison with God displaying and supportingmercy (Matthew 5:7).[6]
InBuddhist ethics, justice is not defined by individuals "receiving their due," as in some frameworks, but by the transformation of suffering for all sentient beings by addressing their ignorance and leading them toenlightenment with skillful actions rooted in generosity, virtue, and the development of universal goodwill andcompassion.[7][8][9][10] The concept ofkarma is understood not as a system of rewards and punishments, but as the continuation of actions, thoughts, and intentions that shape future experience within an interconnected web of life.[11][12][13] Central to this view are the principles of all beings havingBuddha nature,interbeing with a deep interdependence of all things,dependent origination, which states phenomena arise in dependence upon other phenomena, andnon-duality, which challenges rigid distinctions between self and other, or right and wrong as fixed absolutes.[14][15][16][17] Justice, from this perspective, does not consist of assigning blame or enforcing penalties, but of recognizing shared responsibility and cultivating compassion, mindfulness, and understanding that leads beings to enlightenment and a Buddhist form of restorative justice.[18][19][20] The notion that individuals inherently deserve either suffering or reward is often critiqued as a misinterpretation of karma that reinforces ego and separation. Instead, Buddhist justice emphasizes developing compassion, reducing suffering for all sentient beings, and supporting conditions that can lead being to enlightenment.[21][22] This restorative and transformative orientation contrasts with retributive models focused on individual deserts, offering a vision of justice rooted in collective liberation rather than reparation.[7][8][9][10]
Many have claimed that justice is a part of natural law.[24] Natural law[25] is aphilosophical and legal theory that posits the existence of a set of inherent laws derived from nature and universal moral principles, which are discoverable throughreason. Inethics,natural law theory[26] asserts that certain rights and moral values are inherent inhuman nature and can be understood universally, independent of enacted laws or societal norms. Injurisprudence, natural law holds that there are objective legal standards based onmorality that underlie and inform the creation, interpretation, and application of human-made laws. This contrasts withpositive law (as inlegal positivism),[27] which emphasizes that laws are rules created by human authorities and are not necessarily connected to moral principles. Aquinas argues that because human beings havereason, and because reason is a spark of the divine, all human lives are sacred and of infinite value compared to any other created object, meaning everyone is fundamentally equal and bestowed with an intrinsic basic set of rights that no one can remove.
Modern natural law theory was used in challenging the theory of thedivine right of kings, and became an alternative justification for the establishment of a social contract, positive law, andgovernment—and thus legal rights—in the form ofclassical republicanism.John Locke was a proponent of natural law, stressing its role in the justification ofproperty rights and theright to revolution.[28] Natural law is closely related to the concept ofnatural rights.[29] Indeed, many philosophers,jurists and scholars use natural law synonymously with natural rights ornatural justice;[30] others distinguish between natural law and natural right.[31] Some scholars note natural law has been used by philosophers in a different sense from those mentioned above, e.g. for the law of the strongest, which can be observed to hold among all members of the animal kingdom, or as the principle of self-preservation, inherent as an instinct in all living beings.[32]
InRepublic by Plato, the characterThrasymachus argues that justice is the interest of the strong – merely a name for what the powerful or cunning ruler has imposed on the people.[33]
Advocates of the social contract say that justice is derived from the mutual agreement of everyone; or, in many versions, from what they would agree to underhypothetical conditions including equality and absence of bias. This account is considered further below, under 'Justice as Fairness'. The absence of bias refers to an equal ground for all people involved in a disagreement (or trial in some cases).[citation needed]
According to utilitarian thinkers includingJohn Stuart Mill, justice is not as fundamental as we often think. Rather, it is derived from the more basic standard of rightness,consequentialism: what is right is what has the best consequences (usually measured by the total or averagewelfare caused).[citation needed] So, the proper principles of justice are those that tend to have the best consequences. These rules may turn out to be familiar ones such as keeping contracts; but equally, they may not, depending on the facts about real consequences. Either way, what is important is those consequences, and justice is important, if at all, only as derived from that fundamental standard.[citation needed] Mill tries to explain our mistaken belief that justice is overwhelmingly important by arguing that it derives from two natural human tendencies: our desire to retaliate against those who hurt us, or the feeling of self-defense and our ability to put ourselves imaginatively in another's place, sympathy. So, when we see someone harmed, we project ourselves into their situation and feel a desire to retaliate on their behalf. If this process is the source of our feelings about justice, that ought to undermine our confidence in them.[34]
It has been said[35] that 'systematic' or 'programmatic' political and moral philosophy in the West begins, inPlato'sRepublic, with the question, 'What is Justice?'[36] According to most contemporary theories of justice, justice is overwhelmingly important:John Rawls claimed that "Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought."[37] In classical approaches, evident fromPlato through to Rawls, the concept of 'justice' is always construed in logical or 'etymological' opposition to the concept of injustice. Such approaches cite various examples of injustice, as problems which a theory of justice must overcome. A number of post-World War II approaches do, however, challenge that seemingly obvious dualism between those two concepts.[38] Justice can be thought of as distinct frombenevolence,charity,prudence,mercy,generosity, orcompassion, although these dimensions are regularly understood to also be interlinked. Justice is one of thecardinal virtues.[39] Metaphysical justice has often been associated with concepts offate,reincarnation orDivine Providence, i.e., with a life in accordance with a cosmic plan.
The equivalence of justice and fairness has been historically and culturally established.[40]
According to the utilitarian, justice is the maximization of the total or average welfare across all relevant individuals. Utilitarianism fights crime in three ways:[41]
Deterrence. The crediblethreat of punishment might lead people to make different choices; well-designed threats might lead people to make choices that maximize welfare. This matches some strongintuitions about just punishment: that it should generally be proportional to the crime. Successful deterrence would reducecrime statistics.[42]
Rehabilitation. Punishment might make "bad people" into "better" ones. For the utilitarian, all that "bad person" can mean is "person who's likely to cause unwanted things (like suffering)". So, utilitarianism could recommend punishment that changes someone such that they are less likely to cause bad things. Successful rehabilitation would reducerecidivism.[43]
Security/Incapacitation. Perhaps there are people who are irredeemable causers of bad things. If so,imprisoning them might maximize welfare by limiting their opportunities to cause harm and therefore the benefit lies within protecting society.
So, the reason for punishment is the maximization of welfare, and punishment should be of whomever, and of whatever form and severity, are needed to meet that goal. This may sometimes justify punishing the innocent, or inflicting disproportionately severe punishments, when that will have the best consequences overall (perhaps executing a few suspectedshoplifters live on television would be an effective deterrent to shoplifting, for instance). It also suggests that punishment might turn outnever to be right, depending on the facts about what actual consequences it has.[44]
Retributive justice argues that consequentialism is wrong, as it argues that all guilty individuals deserve appropriate punishment, based on the conviction that punishment should be proportional to the crime and for all the guilty.[45] However, it is sometimes said that retributivism is merelyrevenge in disguise.[46] However, there are differences between retribution and revenge: the former is impartial and has a scale of appropriateness, whereas the latter is personal and potentially unlimited in scale.[47]
Restorative justice attempts to repair the harm that was done to the victims.[48] It encourages active participation from victims and encourages offenders to take responsibility for their actions. Restorative justice fosters dialogue between victim and offender and shows the highest rates of victim satisfaction and offender accountability.[49]Meta-analyses of the effectivity of restorative justice show no improvement inrecidivism.[50][51]
According to the utilitarian, justice requires the maximization of the total or average welfare across all relevant individuals.[52] This may require sacrifice of some for the good of others, so long as everyone's good is taken impartially into account. Utilitarianism, in general, says that the standard of justification for actions, institutions, or the whole world, isimpartial welfare consequentialism, and only indirectly, if at all, to do withrights,property,need, or any other non-utilitarian criterion. These other criteria might be indirectly important, to the extent that human welfare involves them. But even then, such demands as human rights would only be elements in the calculation of overall welfare, not uncrossable barriers to action.[citation needed]
Some modern philosophers have said that Utilitarian and Retributive theories are not mutually exclusive. For example,Andrew von Hirsch, in his 1976 bookDoing Justice, suggested that we have a moral obligation to punish greater crimes more than lesser ones.[53][page needed] However, so long as we adhere to that constraint then utilitarian ideals would play a significant secondary role.
Theories of distributive justice need to answer three questions:[citation needed]
What goods are to be distributed? Is it to be wealth,power,respect, opportunities or some combination of these things?
Between what entities are they to be distributed? Humans (dead, living, future),sentient beings, the members of a single society, nations?
What is theproper distribution? Equal,meritocratic, according tosocial status, according toneed, based on property rights and non-aggression?
Distributive justice theorists generally do not answer questions ofwho has the right to enforce a particular favored distribution, while property rights theorists say that there is no "favored distribution". Rather, distribution should be based simply on whatever distribution results from lawful interactions or transactions (that is, transactions which are not illicit).[citation needed]
In hisA Theory of Justice,John Rawls used asocial contract argument to show that justice, and especially distributive justice, is a form of fairness: an impartial distribution of goods.[citation needed] Rawls asks us to imagine ourselves behind aveil of ignorance that denies us all knowledge of our personalities, social statuses, moral characters, wealth, talents and life plans, and then asks what theory of justice we would choose to govern our society when the veil is lifted, if we wanted to do the best that we could for ourselves.[citation needed] We do not know who in particular we are, and therefore can not bias the decision in our own favor. So, the decision-in-ignorance models fairness, because it excludes selfishbias.[citation needed] Rawls said that each of us would reject theutilitarian theory of justice that we should maximize welfare (see above) because of the risk that we might turn out to be someone whose own good is sacrificed for greater benefits for others. Instead, we would endorse Rawls'stwo principles of justice:
Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all.
Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both
to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just savings principle, and
attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.[54]
This imagined choice justifies these principles as the principles of justice for us, because we would agree to them in a fair decision procedure. Rawls's theory distinguishes two kinds of goods –the good of liberty rights and social and economic goods, i.e. wealth, income, and power – and applies different distributions to them – equality between citizens for liberty rights and equality unless inequality improves the position of the worst off for social and economic goods.[citation needed]
In one sense, theories of distributive justice may assert that everyone should get what they deserve. Theories vary on the meaning of what is "deserved". The main distinction is between theories that say the basis of just deserts ought to be held equally by everyone, and therefore derive egalitarian accounts of distributive justice – and theories that say the basis of just deserts is unequally distributed on the basis of, for instance, hard work, and therefore derive accounts of distributive justice by which some should have more than others.[citation needed]
Studies atUCLA in 2008 have indicated that reactions to fairness are "wired" into the brain and that, "Fairness is activating the same part of the brain that responds to food in rats... This is consistent with the notion that being treated fairly satisfies a basic need".[55] Research conducted in 2003 atEmory University involving capuchin monkeys demonstrated that other cooperative animals also possess such a sense and that "inequity aversion maynot be uniquely human".[56][full citation needed]
Justacquisition, especially by working on unowned things; and
Justtransfer, that is free gift, sale or other agreement, but not theft (i.e. by force or fraud).
If the chain of events leading up to the person having something meets this criterion, they are entitled to it: that they possess it is just, and what anyone else does or does not have or need is irrelevant.[citation needed]
On the basis of this theory of distributive justice, Nozick said that all attempts to redistribute goods according to an ideal pattern, without the consent of their owners, are theft. In particular,redistributive taxation is theft.[citation needed]
Some property rights theorists (such as Nozick) also take a consequentialist view of distributive justice and say that property rights based justice also has the effect of maximizing the overall wealth of an economic system. They explain that voluntary (non-coerced) transactions always have a property calledPareto efficiency. The result is that the world is better off in an absolute sense and no one is worse off.[citation needed] They say that respecting property rights maximizes the number of Pareto efficient transactions in the world and minimized the number of non-Pareto efficient transactions in the world (i.e. transactions where someone is made worse off). The result is that the world will have generated the greatest total benefit from the limited, scarce resources available in the world. Further, this will have been accomplished without taking anything away from anyone unlawfully.[citation needed]
According tomeritocratic theories, goods, especially wealth andsocial status, should be distributed to match individualmerit, which is usually understood as some combination of talent and hard work. According toneeds-based theories, goods, especially such basic goods as food, shelter, and medical care, should be distributed to meet individuals'basic needs for them.[citation needed] According tocontribution-based theories, goods should be distributed to match an individual's contribution to the overall social good.[citation needed]
In political theory, liberalism includes two traditional elements: liberty and equality. Most contemporary theories of justice emphasize the concept of equality, including Rawls' theory of justice as fairness. ForRonald Dworkin, a complex notion of equality is the sovereign political virtue.[57] Dworkin raises the question of whether society is under a duty of justice to help those responsible for the fact that they need help. Complications arise in distinguishing matters of choice and matters of chance, as well as justice for future generations in the redistribution of resources that he advocates.[58]
Law raises important and complex issues about equality, fairness, and justice. There is an old saying that 'All are equal before the law'. The belief in equality before the law is called legal egalitarianism. In criticism of this belief, the authorAnatole France said in 1894, "In its majestic equality, the law forbidsrich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread."[59] With this saying, France illustrated the fundamental shortcoming of a theory of legal equality that remains blind to social inequality; the same law applied to all may have disproportionately harmful effects on the least powerful.
Proportionality in justice refers to the principle that rewards and punishments should correspond directly and appropriately to the merit or gravity of actions. Rooted in ancient philosophical and legal traditions, proportionality ensures fairness and balance by aligning consequences with responsibility.Plato articulated an early philosophical basis for proportionality, describing justice as a harmonious state in which each individual fulfills the role best suited to them and receives what corresponds to their actions and nature (Republic, Book IV, 433a–b). This principle has significantly influenced modern legal doctrines, particularly in criminal law, ethics, and human rights, emphasizing fairness and avoiding arbitrary or excessive punishment.[60][61]
Social justice encompasses the just relationship between individuals and their society, often considering how privileges, opportunities, and wealth ought to be distributed among individuals.[62] Social justice is also associated withsocial mobility, especially the ease with which individuals and families may move betweensocial strata.[63] Social justice is distinct fromcosmopolitanism, which is the idea that all people belong to a single global community with a shared morality.[64] Social justice is also distinct fromegalitarianism, which is the idea that all people are equal in terms of status, value, or rights, as social justice theories do not all require equality.[65] For example, sociologistGeorge C. Homans suggested that the root of the concept of justice is that each person should receive rewards that are proportional to their contributions.[66][67]
EconomistFriedrich Hayek said that the concept of social justice was meaningless, saying that justice is a result of individual behavior and unpredictable market forces.[68] Social justice is closely related to the concept of relational justice, which is about the just relationship with individuals who possess features in common such as nationality, or who are engaged in cooperation or negotiation.[69][70]
Equality of outcome, equality of condition, or equality of results is a Communistic concept which is central to some far-left politicalideologies and is used in some political discourse, often in contrast to the termequality of opportunity.[75] It describes a state in which all people have approximately the same material wealth and income, or in which the general economic conditions of everyone's lives are alike, regardless of intelligence or ability.
Relational justice examines individual connections and societal relationships, focusing on normative and political aspects. Rawls' theory of justice aims to distribute social goods to benefit the poor, but does not consider power relations, political structures, or social meanings. Even Rawls' self-respect is not compatible with distribution.[76] Iris Marion Young charges that distributive accounts of justice fail to provide an adequate way of conceptualizing political justice in that they fail to take into account many of the demands of ordinary life and that a relational view of justice grounded upon understanding the differences among social groups offers a better approach, one which acknowledges unjust power relations among individuals, groups, and institutional structures.[77] Young Kim also takes a relational approach to the question of justice, but departs from Iris Marion Young's political advocacy of group rights and instead, he emphasizes the individual and moral aspects of justice.[78][page needed] As to its moral aspects, he said that justice includes responsible actions based on rational and autonomous moral agency, with the individual as the proper bearer of rights and responsibilities. Politically, he maintains that the proper context for justice is a form of liberalism with the traditional elements of liberty and equality, together with the concepts of diversity and tolerance.
Incriminal law, asentence forms the final explicit act of a judge-ruled process, and also the symbolic principal act connected to his function.[81] The sentence can generally involve a decree ofimprisonment, afine and/or otherpunishments against adefendantconvicted of a crime. Laws may specify the range of penalties that can be imposed for various offenses, and sentencing guidelines sometimes regulate what punishment within those ranges can be imposed given a certain set of offense and offender characteristics.[82] The most common purposes of sentencing in legal theory are:
Punishment imposed for no reason other than an offense being committed, on the basis that ifproportionate, punishment is morally acceptable as a response that satisfies the aggrieved party, their intimates and society.
Society expressing its disapproval reinforcing moral boundaries
Reflects blameworthiness of offense
punishment in public
punishment reported to public
Incivil cases the decision is usually known as averdict, or judgment, rather than a sentence.[83] Civil cases are settled primarily by means of monetary compensation for harm done ("damages") and orders intended to prevent future harm (for exampleinjunctions). Under some legal systems an award of damages involves some scope for retribution, denunciation and deterrence, by means of additional categories of damages beyond simple compensation, covering apunitive effect, social disapprobation, and potentially, deterrence, and occasionallydisgorgement (forfeit of any gain, even if no loss was caused to the other party).
Evolutionary ethics andevolution of morality suggestevolutionary bases for the concept of justice.[84]Biosocial criminology research says that human perceptions of what is appropriate criminal justice are based on how to respond to crimes in the ancestral small-group environment and that these responses may not always be appropriate for today's societies.[85]
There has been research into victim's perspective of justice following crimes. Victims find respectful treatment, information and having a voice important for a sense of justice as well as the perception of afair procedure.[86]
Pemberton et al. proposed a "Big 2" model of justice in termsagency, communion and membership in a society. Victims experience a loss of perception of agency due to a loss of control, as well as a loss of communion if the offender is a member of their social group, but may also lose trust in others or institutions. It can shatter an individual's trust that they live in ajust and moral world. This suggests that a sense of justice can be restored by increasing a sense of communion and agency, rather than through retribution or restoration.[86]
In a world where people are interconnected but they disagree, institutions are required to instantiate ideals of justice. These institutions may be justified by their approximate instantiation of justice, or they may be deeply unjust when compared with ideal standards – consider the institution ofslavery. Justice is an ideal the world fails to live up to, sometimes due to deliberate opposition to justice despite understanding, which could be disastrous. The question of institutive justice raises issues oflegitimacy,procedure,codification andinterpretation, which are considered by legal theorists and byphilosophers of law.[87] The United NationsSustainable Development Goal 16 emphasizes the need for strong institutions in order to uphold justice.[88]
^Miller, David (2021)."Justice".Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Department of Philosophy,Stanford University. Retrieved28 December 2024.The most plausible candidate for a core definition comes from the Institutes of Justinian, a codification of Roman Law from the sixth century AD, where justice is defined as 'the constant and perpetual will to render to each his due'. This is of course quite abstract until further specified, but it does throw light upon four important aspects of justice.
^Hare, John E. (2015).God's Command. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 32–49.ISBN978-0-19-960201-8.
^"Natural Law".Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.Archived from the original on 23 February 2022. Retrieved19 October 2020.
^Murphy, Mark (2019)."The Natural Law Tradition in Ethics". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.).The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2019 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved30 January 2025.
^Finnis, John (2020)."Natural Law Theories". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.).The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2020 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.Archived from the original on 10 September 2021. Retrieved19 October 2020.
^Locke, John (22 April 2003) [1690].Second Treatise of Government.Archived from the original on 30 May 2024. Retrieved11 June 2024 – via Project Gutenberg.
^Kleingeld, Pauline; Brown, Eric (2014),"Cosmopolitanism", in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.),The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2014 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved14 December 2018
^Hayek, F.A. (1976).Law, legislation and liberty: a new statement of the liberal principles of justice and political economy. Routledge & Kegan Paul. p. 78.ISBN978-0-7100-8403-3.OCLC769281087.
John Stuart Mill,Utilitarianism inOn Liberty and Other Essays ed. John Gray (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991)
Robert Nozick,Anarchy, State, and Utopia (Oxford: Blackwell, 1974)
Amartya Sen (2011).The Idea of Justice. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.ISBN978-0-674-06047-0.
Marek Piechowiak,Plato's Conception of Justice and the Question of Human Dignity (2nd edition, revised and extended, Berlin: Peter Lang Academic Publishers, 2021), ISBN 978-3-631-84524-0.
C.L. Ten,Crime, Guilt, and Punishment: A philosophical introduction (Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1987)
Plato,Republic trans. Robin Waterfield (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994)
_(cropped).svg)
