The Main Difference Between Philosophy And The Criminal Justice System

1. Based on the opening paragraph of the article “What is Justice?” the main difference between philosophical and legal laws is their origin. Legal laws are created and changed to reflect the needs of society which are ever changing. They are put in place by a governing body to ensure the security of all the members of the state and the wellbeing of the state. On the other hand, philosophical laws differ in the sense that they focus less on the wellbeing of a society in terms of its politics and economics are more on its wellbeing in terms of its general functionality and ensures fair treatment of all citizens.
2.
a) Rules and laws are generally created to keep order in society and to ensure the general security of the majority of the public.
However, all laws cannot be in the best interest of everybody all the time. Within once society may reside several different cultures or groups with varying ethics and morals. Each group or even individual may have a different idea of right and wrong, just and unjust. Due to differing moral and ethical values it is highly unlikely that every member of a society will agree that the laws and rules set in place by a governing body are truly just and fair to all they govern. I do not believe that a rule or law can be considered fair and just by everyone, if it is not accepted by everyone it affects. The term ‘accepted’ suggests that those whom the law affects are willing to abide by it and understand its purpose and that it’s for the betterment of society as a whole as well as the security of the individual. There are many people in Canada who disagree with some of our laws, for varying reasons, but because everyone has different morals and ethics, no two people will believe in the exact same set of laws for the same reasons. Therefore, the statement regarding the fairness and justice of laws and rules uses language to convey a specific message. I don’t believe that all rules and laws are fair and just to those they govern, but I also believe that certain laws and rules are necessary in order to maintain a certain amount of order in society.
b) Currently western culture is becoming more and more the dominant culture in the world, but we have yet to reach the point where we have a ‘global culture.’ Because there are many different cultures across the world, there is no universal set of values or morals.
There are certain things they can generally be agreed upon, such as ‘killing is wrong’; most countries in the world have laws against murder. Even though it is a generally considered wrong to kill by most, there are still groups and individuals who do not believe this, or who would believe that it depends on the situation. For example, if you woke up in the middle of the night to see a serial killer standing at the end of your bed and they said that they were going to kill your entire family, if you had the opportunity to kill them, would you take it? I think that many people would take the opportunity. Many legal systems have trouble with situations like this, where laws have been broken and therefore those guilty must be punished, but situationally they would not say they did anything wrong. Another example where cultural relativism may contradict laws could be conflicts between people with differing interests. There is a groomed ski trail in the woods used by skiers, dog walkers also found the trail and thought that because of the hard packed snow it would be a great place to walk their dogs. In walking their dogs on the trail they wreck the groomed trail for the skiers, and they frequently get upset when a skier skis by at high speeds. In the skiers mind, the dog walker is at fault, they would not believe that the dog walker has the right to be walking on the trail, wrecking it. From the dog walker’s perspective, the skier is being disrespectful to other trail users by skiing at such high speeds. This is less so an issue in overarching cultural relativism and more a smaller scale problem in the cultures of specific groups within one
society.
c) In the movie The Gods Must Be Crazy the bushman, Xi, gets in trouble with the law. He is arrested for poaching. However in his culture there is no sense of ownership, all animals are fair game. Everyone is free to catch whatever they need in order to feed their family. When he came across and herd of goats, despite wondering what kind of strange animal they were, he shot once with a tranquilizing arrow because he had to eat. Xi didn’t understand that he had done something wrong, when the shepherd boy yelled at him, when the police man yelled at him, even when the police man shot him in the leg. I believe that it is unfair for Xi to be sentenced to 3 months in jail for carrying out a task that would have been completely acceptable if he was surrounded by other members of his culture. This brings up the issue of criminal negligence which is still a valid argument, but I would be surprised if Xi even knew that he lived in South Africa, and I doubt he would be recognized as a legal citizen either. This doesn’t exempt him from following all rules and laws made by the state, but again it requires situational considerations. It’s also important to consider that by shooting one of the shepherd boy’s goats, he would be taking away from their income, because in their culture ownership of livestock is a common practice. It would then be unfair to his family to let Xi get away with it completely, but for the reasons previously mentioned it would also be unfair to punish Xi. This is the main problem caused by cultural relativity.
3. The fourth paragraph suggests two definitions of justice; “conformity to the law” and “the quality, or fact of being just.” The first definition leaves very little room for interpretation of situational exemptions. If justice is following the laws, then it is assumed that the judicial body of a state is corruption free and is ultimately at the center of all knowing and knows the pure truth, something that is often argued to be an illusion. Personally, I strongly disagree that justice can possibly mean conforming to the law. I believe that justice extends far past the courthouses. The second definition leaves more room for interpretation, but almost too much. Defining justice as “the quality, or fact of being just” brings up the question of what is just? Just being the root of the word justice, it is easy to see how the two are linked; generally it is bad practice to define a word using its root. What is just is relative. What is just? Is anything truly just? If the second definition of justice is used justice really hasn’t been defined, because what is just is not a universal agreement. While I agree more strongly with the second definition of justice, it lacks the specifics and language to a strong definition.