Name – Akash Kantilal Gujar

Course Name – Law and Justice in Globalizing World

Course Teacher – Prof. Apurva Bhilare
SRN No. – 31232045

1) Explore and explain the interrelation between Justice,Law,Morality

and Ethics.Give examples wherever necessary.

INTRODUCTION:
Law, justice, and morality are foundational concepts that underpin the functioning of societies. While
they are interconnected, they are not synonymous. The law represents a system of rules and regulations
a governing authority establishes. Justice embodies notions of fairness, equality, and ethical rightness.
Morality encompasses principles of right and wrong conduct, often shaped by cultural, religious, and
philosophical beliefs. The coexistence of law, justice, and morality forms the cornerstone of a just and
equitable society. While they are interconnected, each concept maintains its distinctiveness. Law entails
a system of established rules, justice embodies fairness, and morality encompasses ethical principles.

MEANING OF LAW:
The law is legislation created and enforced through social or governmental institutions to regulate
behaviour, with its precise definition a matter of longstanding debate. Law is a rule made by a
government that states how people may and may not behave in society and in business, and that often
orders particular punishments if they do not obey, or a system of such rules. It has been variously
described as a science and the art of justice. Until now, there is no definition that is universally accepted.
Jurists have tried to define it on the basis of ‘source’, ‘effect’, ‘purpose’, ‘nature’ and other factors. Law
are the rules which are enforced by society. Violations may bring a loss of or reduction in freedom and
possessions.

The law is legislation created and enforced through social or governmental institutions to regulate
behavior, with its precise definition a matter of longstanding debate. Law is a rule made by a
government that states how people may and may not behave in society and in business, and that often
orders particular punishments if they do not obey, or a system of such rules. It has been variously
described as a science and the art of justice. Until now, there is no definition that is universally accepted.
Jurists have tried to define it on the basis of ‘source’, ‘effect’, ‘purpose’, ‘nature’ and other factors. Law
are the rules which are enforced by society. Violations may bring a loss of or reduction in freedom and
possessions. Society is one of the major factors in explaining the law. The law tells people what they
should and should not do. For example, the law tells people that they should not hurt people and that
they will be punished if they do so. In the same way, even society tells us what to do, for example,
respect elders. Law is a social science and in order to keep up with change in society it has to change
because there can be no right definition of law due to ever changing society.

Realist Definition of Law: The realist law definition describes the law in terms of judicial processes.
Oliver Wendell Holmes stated: “Law is a statement of the circumstances in which public force will be
brought to bear upon through courts.”

According to Benjamin Nathan Cardozo who stated “A principle or rule of conduct so established as
to justify a prediction with reasonable certainty that it will be enforced by the courts if its authority is
challenged, is a principle or rule of law.”

As per the above law definitions, human behaviour in the society is controlled with the help of law. It
aids in the cooperation between members of a society. Law also helps to avoid any potential conflict of
interest and also helps to resolve them.

 WHAT IS JUSTICE?

Meaning of Justice: – The term justice has been derived from the Latin word ‘Jungere’ which
means to bind or tie together, thus in this way it can be stated as justice is the key element
which ties the individuals in the society together and harmonizes a balance between them and
enhances human relation. Justice means following of norms (customs). Justice stands for just
conduct, fairness or exercise of authority in maintenance or right. Therefore, justice generally
means the recognition, application and enforcement of laws by courts. Justice is ideally
representing something that is just and right. It basically means being just, impartial, fair and
right. What is just may depend on the context, but its requirement is essential to the idea of
justice.
Society demands that people should live in peace in the society. While in society we experience a
conflict of interest and expect other people to behave rightly in the society. But on the contrary, people
are very selfish by nature, and may not be fair to others.

Kinds of Justice

The concept of justice and its administration can be of the following types: –

Public Justice and Private Justice: –

Public justice is basically that kind of justice which the state administers through its tribunals
and courts. It explains the relationship between courts and citizens of a state. Courts usually
enforce laws that states make under public justice.
On the other hand, private justice regulates the legal relationship between individuals. It is
limited to people enforcing concepts of justice amongst each other without approaching
courts.
For example, let’s imagine that A and B entered into a business transaction in which A paid
money to B as promised. B, instead of selling goods to A for the money, refused to fulfill his
obligation. If A and B decide to settle their dispute through means of arbitration or
negotiation, it is private justice. However, if A approaches a court and sues B, we refer to that
as public justice.

Civil Justice and Criminal Justice: –

In terms of the subject matters of justice, we can categorize it as civil and criminal. Civil
justice generally refers to private wrongs that affect specific people or entities.
 For example, breach of a contract between two parties will affect only one of them.
Trespassing of property is another example. In order to get justice in case of civil wrong a
person should approach civil courts.
Criminal justice, on the other hand, affects society in general even if specific people are
victims. For example, the murder affects specific victims only but the law treats it as a crime
against society. Another feature of criminal justice is that it relates to laws made by a
legislature. Only acts that are defined as crimes can be the subject matter of criminal justice.

Social Justice:

Social justice is another name for equal social rights. Social Justice aims to provide equal
opportunities to every individual to develop his inherent qualities. In contemporary times a
large number of scholars use prefer to describe the concept of Justice as Social Justice. Social
Justice is taken to mean that all the people in a society are to be equal and there is be no
discrimination on the basis of religion, caste, creed, colour, sex or status. Social democrats and
modern liberal thinkers define social justice as the attempt to reconstruct the social order in
accordance with moral principles. Attempts are to be continuously made to rectify social
injustice. It also stands for a morally just and defensible system of distribution of reward and
obligations in society without any discrimination or injustice against any person or class of
persons.

Economic Justice: –

Economic Justice is indeed closely related to social justice because economic system is always
an integral part of the social system. Economic rights and opportunities available to an
individual are always a part of the entire social system. Economic justice demands that all
citizens should have adequate opportunities to earn their livelihood and get fair wages as can
enable they to satisfy their basic needs and help them to develop further. The state should
provide them economic security during illness, old age and in the event of a disability.

Political Justice:

Political justice means giving equal political rights and opportunities to all citizens to take
part in the administration of the country. Citizens should have the right to vote without any
discrimination on the basis of religion, colour, caste, creed, sex, birth or status. Every citizen
should have an equal right to vote and to contest elections. Legal justice has two dimensions-
the formulation of just laws and then to do justice according to the laws. While making laws,
the will of the rulers is not to be imposed upon the ruled. Laws should be based on public
opinion and public needs.

 WHAT IS MORALITY?

Meaning of Morality:

Tort Law started just from the morality of the society and has some moral values as its underpinnings.
In its most basic terms, the source of tort law is to shield society from chaos and pandemonium by
establishing a court in which one individual can bring a claim against another, without resorting to
private revenge. Like the morals of society construes that no person should do anything wrong with
anyone and if he has done anything wrong, then he must be punished, just to get the victim back to a
decent position.
In ancient times, there was no difference between law, justice and morality. In Hindu law, there was
Smriti and Vedas. In the name of ‘natural rights’ the Greeks laid the theoretical moral foundation of the
law. The recognition of moral laws is done by Romans on the basis of ‘natural law’. In the Middle Ages,
churches came to power and Christian morality was considered the basis of law.

The modern trend in morality: –

Strong distinction made between Laws and Morals by Analytical school in 19th Century.

John Austin maintained that law has nothing to do with morals.

The analytical school believed that all considerations including morals should be separated from the
study of law.

But analytical school did not refuse to accept the existence of morality.

This school just did not agree on the fact that morals and law are the same thing. Austin differentiates
law and morality as ‘positive law’ and ‘positive morality’. Law and Justice in Modern Society.

“Justice by law” is the modern view of justice in society. Dicey called this theory “the rule of law”. This
includes that everyone is equal before the law and there should be no arbitrariness and the law should
be equally applicable to all without any discrimination. ‘No one is above the law’.

a. Civil Justice: – Citizens can enforce and protect their legal civil rights and resolve disagreements
between two or more parties through the civil justice system. The system ensures the protection of
rights rather than punishment.

b. Criminal Justice: – The main purpose of criminal justice is to punish the offender. It is the state that
punishes the offender. The objective of criminal justice is to punish the criminal and create an
example in the society so that there is no crime. Punishment is to set an example for the society just
to show the citizens of the state that the same will happen to them if they do not follow the law.
There are four principles of punishment:

 Deterrent: – To set an example in society.

 Retributive: – one eye for one eye and one tooth for one tooth
 Preventive: – Preventing the offender from repeating the crime through measures such as
imprisonment, capital punishment.
 Reformative: – Reformation of criminals through method of individualization power, it was
claimed that law and morality were different.

Law derives its authority from the state and not morality. In the 18th century ‘natural law’ theory was
gaining popularity and had a moral foundation. It was re-considered that the law and the rules are the
same. In the 19th century, Austin propounded his theory that morality had nothing to do with the law.

The law is the command of the sovereign supported by sanctions. In the 20th century, Kelsen stated
that only legal norms are subject to jurisprudence. He excluded all other external things, including
ethics, from the study of law.
Now it cannot be said that if the law does not confirm to morality, then it is not binding. However,
waking up more or less is in line with morality.

Morality as the End of Law:

Ethics is often considered the end of law. Many jurists have defined the law on the basis of ‘Justice’ and
thus there is a connection between law justice and morality.

Most of the jurists said that the objective of law is to secure justice. Justice is more or less defined as
‘morality’. Thus, law is used to consider both morality and justice.

a. Law is a system of the rules that are applied Morality is a body of system of values and
in a particular country or community as principles derived from the code of conduct.
regulating the actions of its members and it
can be enforced by the imposition of
penalties.
b. The law is deliberately changed by Morals cannot be intentionally changed, rather it
Parliament and/ or the courts. develops slowly.
c. Sanctions are invariably imposed for There is no official sanction for unethical
violations of legal obligations. behaviour, although society often creates its own
form of censorship.
d. Laws must be followed as necessary for They are good in itself that’s why people follow
proper functioning of society. them.

 Case law under Law, Justice and Morality:

Queen vs. Dudley and Stephen’s Case: 14 Queens Bench Division 273 (1884)

Facts of the case: Defendant, Thomas Dudley (Mr. Dudley) and Edwin Stephens (Mr. Stephens)
(Defendant), and two other gentlemen, Mr. Brooks and the victim, Richard Parker (Mr. Parker), sat on
the boat for several days. When it was revealed that everyone would die of thirst and starvation, the
defendants decided to sacrifice Mr. Parker for the good of the rest. A man who, in order to avoid
starvation death, kills another to eat his flesh, is guilty of murder; However, at the time of the act he is
in such circumstances that he believes and has reasonable grounds to believe that it gives him the only
chance to preserve his life.

Judgment of the case: In this case, the court applied the principle of ‘Ratio Decidendi’ which means one
person cannot sacrifice another person’s life to save his or her own. And on these facts, there was no
evidence of any necessity that could justify the prisoners in killing the boy and they were
guilty of murder.
 Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)

Often regarded as the cornerstone of modern tort law in the UK, this case established the "neighbour
principle," which set the foundation for the duty of care concept. The case relied on moral principles,
highlighting the importance of considering the reasonably foreseeable consequences of one's actions on
others.

R v Dudley and Stephens (1884)

In this controversial case, the defendants were convicted of murder for killing and eating a fellow sailor
to survive after a shipwreck. The court rejected the necessity defence, stating that the killing could not
be morally justified, despite the extreme circumstances.

 CONCLUSION:

It's simple to mix up morality and justice, in part because we do it on purpose when dealing with young
children. It's easier to categorise everything into right and wrong and to teach children what to do and
what to avoid based solely on these terms. Although I don't believe it will benefit kids in the long run,
most people do it because it requires less effort. Children are taught to greet others when they do so for
the same moral reasons, they are taught not to steal Johnny's toys− because it is polite to do so.
However, the first is neither unfair nor likely immoral, whereas the second is unquestionably both.
Children are also taught to follow the law because doing so is morally correct.

They aren't frequently informed that justice requires defiance of force even when the law doesn't or
that the law might require them to perform an action, they deem to be profoundly immoral. Atrocity
could come from this simplification and categorization of everything as either right or wrong. For
instance, those who use the law as a crutch for morality or justice may end up collecting up their
neighbours and throwing them in jail, or worse.

2) Write note on Plato’s concept of ‘Philosopher King’

Plato's concept of the "Philosopher King" is a central theme in his seminal work, "The Republic." This
philosophical idea lays the foundation for his vision of an ideal society governed by wise and just rulers.
In this note, we will explore the concept of the Philosopher King, its significance, and its implications
for governance and leadership.

Plato, a student of Socrates and teacher of Aristotle, lived in ancient Greece during a tumultuous period
marked by political instability and social unrest. In response to these challenges, he sought to formulate
a blueprint for an ideal society that would be characterized by justice, harmony, and wisdom. The
concept of the Philosopher King is integral to this vision.
At the heart of Plato's idea is the belief that the best rulers for a society are those who possess the highest
form of knowledge and wisdom, which he believed could only be attained through rigorous
philosophical education. In his view, philosophers were uniquely equipped to grasp the eternal and
unchanging truths that underlie reality. Thus, they were best suited to govern because their decisions
would be guided by an unwavering commitment to the pursuit of the common good and the principles
of justice.

Plato argued that the ideal leader should not seek power for personal gain or prestige. Instead, the
Philosopher King should be chosen based on their intellectual abilities, moral character, and a deep
sense of responsibility towards the well-being of the citizens. This concept challenges the prevailing
notion of leadership in his time, which often prioritized wealth, military prowess, or political cunning.

The Philosopher King, according to Plato, would undergo a rigorous and extensive education in
philosophy, mathematics, and ethics. This education was intended to shape their souls, purging them
of base desires and cultivating a love for wisdom, truth, and virtue. Only those who had successfully
completed this transformative education would be considered eligible to rule.

One of the key arguments in favor of the Philosopher King is Plato's belief that true knowledge leads
to the recognition of the Forms or Ideas—abstract, unchanging, and perfect representations of reality.
Because philosophers have access to this higher realm of truth, their rule would be characterized by a
pursuit of justice, equality, and the common good, rather than the pursuit of personal interests or
power.

Moreover, Plato envisioned a society in which the rulers, the guardians (a warrior class), and the
producers (the working class) each played their respective roles harmoniously. The Philosopher King
would act as a guardian of justice and would ensure that the state's laws and policies were aligned with
the ultimate truth and virtue they had come to understand through their philosophical education.

However, critics have argued that Plato's concept of the Philosopher King is inherently elitist and
impractical. They contend that the selection of rulers based solely on intellectual prowess and
philosophical aptitude could lead to a detachment from the needs and concerns of the general populace.

In conclusion, Plato's concept of the Philosopher King represents a utopian vision of governance, where
wisdom and virtue guide the actions of rulers. While his ideas have been both celebrated and critiqued
over the centuries, they continue to be a subject of philosophical debate and have left a lasting legacy
in the realm of political thought. Whether or not the concept of the Philosopher King is attainable or
desirable in practice remains a matter of ongoing discussion, but it undeniably underscores the
importance of wisdom and morality in leadership.