Kant's 3 Categories Of Justice

The first formulation of Kant’s categorical imperative states that one should only act on reasons we would be willing to have anyone in a similar situation act on. This formulation requires universalizability and reversibility. On the other hand, the second formulation states that one should never use people only as a means to your ends. We must always treat others as they freely and rationally consent to be treated. Under this formulation it is also stated that we must help others pursue their freely and rationally chosen ends. I would say that the two formulations are quite similar since they both talk about treating others the right way. The first formulation tells us that we shouldn’t do something that we wouldn’t like to be done to us.
What are the three categories of justice? How are they distinguished?
The three categories of justice are distributive justice, retributive justice, and compensatory justice. The distributive justice requires the just distribution of benefits and burdens. The retributive justice requires the just imposition of punishments and penalties. In other words, it refers to the justice of blaming or punishing persons for doing wrong. The compensatory justice requires just compensation for wrongs or injuries. It refers to the justice of restoring to a person what the person lost when someone wronged them.
9. What are the differences between Capitalist, Socialist, Fairness, and Libertarian notions of justice? What are the strongest and weakest parts of each
The first one states that we exist in a web of relationships and should preserve and nurture those concrete and valuable relationships we have with specific persons. The second on states that we should exercise special care for those with whom we are concretely related by attending to their particular needs, values, desires, and concrete well-being as seen from their own personal perspective. I personally think that Malden Mills company did a good thing when the owner rebuilt and paid his workers when they were not working. The owner maintained that he had a responsibility to his workers and to his community. I think that what he did was good because he helped his workers when they needed him the most. His actions exemplify the principles of the ethics of care because he exercised special care for his workers by attending to their needs and by preserving the valuable relationship he had with his workers. He attended their needs by giving them paying them even when they weren’t working because he understood that these people needed the money to survive. He also preserved a good relationship with them by demonstrating that he cared about them and was there for