JUSTICE AND INJUSTICE

It can be applied to a particular event, situation or a larger status quo. According to the four philosophers namely; Kant, Buddha, Plato and Jean-Paul Sartre, justice and injustice are viewed differently. Some viewed it in a more contradicting manner whereby they supported injustice and saw justice inapplicable in their lives. However, other philosophers tried to promote justice and had many things to justify their stand. It has been proved that without injustice there can't be justice at all and injustice is like the mother of justice. He condemned these views on the fact that, it was merely easy to talk about doing virtuous deeds to friends and malicious ones to nemeses as compared to actually performing the actions. Therefore doing foul to anyone together with the adversaries, varied by the maximum rudimentary perception of goodness.

All these concepts of impartiality only controlled amongst persons regarding personality ideologies, and snobs the social order in entirety. Therefore, after Plato had criticized all these theories, he gave his own concept of the theory of justice. He strikes an equivalence between the human organism and social organism. To show justice, he also said that one cannot find true happiness because of him, but simply because it is how the cause and effect perspective works in the world. Buddha again shows justice to all when his authority came, not from a claim to power, but from the honesty and efficacy of his own search for a deathless happiness. This is to mean that he was in no position to impose ideas on anyone who didn't voluntarily accept the ideas.

He refused Mara's request and advised others to refute such kind of requests as well because of various reasons. The first reason was uniform, whereby if one tried to reign over in a just way, there would continuously be individuals unhappy with the statute just as Mara. Kant's allusion to the injustice of the regime echoes his declaration in the Critique of Practical Reason that, some influential disappointment is denunciation for this injustice. Furthermore, Kant, therefore, makes obvious what was only implied in the preceding negotiations of inequality. Additionally, the general injustice forms a structural dependence among residents where some citizens are in need of help and some are in a position to help, because of the injustices. Kant noteworthy remarks concerning general injustice appear in the context of discussions of virtue, and not in the context of juridical right.

They also appear to be fundamentally concerned with instilling a kind of moral humility. This is calmest to see with the help of one of Sartre’s unforgettable examples. Majority of individuals are not this contemplatively alert of themselves. Sartre assumed this was because human beings have an affinity to see themselves as able, open-ended, incomplete and work in progress. Individuals think of themselves as having complete personalities with immobile features, but they also think of themselves as being metastable and pluripotent. Nevertheless, whenever a person takes up one of these perceptions, he or she has concealments over the other. Mun, Chanju, and Ronald S Green.  Buddhist Exploration Of Peace And Justice. Blue Pine, 2006. The Persuit Of Justice In Plato's Republic.