Obstacles to Achieving Greater Justice in Collective Life
This paper reviews scholarly literature to identify the greatest obstacles to achieving greater justice in collective life, focusing on class, race, gender, and ability — both individually and in combination. Beginning with a survey of justice as defined in legal and philosophical traditions, the paper evaluates how people are acculturated to perceive these categories and why meaningful change remains elusive. It then assesses three theoretical frameworks — Utilitarianism, Libertarianism, and Kant's categorical imperative — for their capacity to advance social, distributive, and commutative justice. The paper concludes that complex, intersecting obstacles require equally complex solutions, and that a utilitarian approach offers the most viable path toward meaningful improvement in justice across American society.
- Introduction: Persistent inequalities and the paper's scope
- Defining Justice and Its Many Forms: Legal and philosophical definitions of justice
- Theoretical Frameworks for Achieving Greater Justice: Utilitarianism and Libertarianism as paths to justice
- Utilitarianism and Libertarianism Compared: Critiques and limitations of both frameworks
- Kant's Categorical Imperative and Its Limits: Kantian ethics and why instinct falls short
- Conclusion: Complex obstacles require complex, combined solutions
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper grounds its analysis in a precise legal definition of justice from Black's Law Dictionary before moving to philosophical frameworks, giving the argument a firm conceptual foundation.
- It evaluates three distinct philosophical traditions — Utilitarianism, Libertarianism, and Kantian ethics — systematically, weighing their strengths and weaknesses against the real-world obstacles identified at the outset.
- The paper acknowledges counterarguments (e.g., both Utilitarianism and Libertarianism failing to respect human dignity) before arriving at a reasoned conclusion, demonstrating intellectual honesty.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective comparative philosophical analysis: it defines a central concept (justice), identifies real-world barriers, then applies three competing theoretical lenses to evaluate which framework best addresses those barriers. This technique — concept definition followed by multi-framework evaluation — is a strong model for social science and ethics essays.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a problem statement identifying persistent inequalities, moves into a definitional section on types of justice, then surveys three philosophical theories (Utilitarianism, Libertarianism, Kantian ethics) for their practical utility. A brief conclusion synthesizes findings and recommends the utilitarian approach as the most viable. The Works Cited section uses MLA-style formatting with print sources.
Introduction
Today, major disparities continue to exist between the rich and poor in terms of money, political access, healthcare access, and treatment by the criminal justice system. Although these and other fundamental inequalities have existed throughout history, the fact that such disparities remain firmly in place in the 21st century suggests that they are resistant to change unless aggressive steps are taken to overcome them. This paper reviews the literature to identify the greatest obstacles to achieving greater justice in our collective lives today, including class, race, gender, and ability, as well as the potential for a combination of these factors to represent the greatest obstacle of all.
An examination of how people are acculturated to view these categories — and how that acculturation interferes with meaningful change — is followed by a survey of philosophical frameworks that may point the way forward. A summary of the research and important findings concerning these issues appears in the conclusion.
Defining Justice and Its Many Forms
Despite what many people might believe, the United States is characterized by several distinct classes — lower, middle, and upper — as well as subdivisions within each. Each class is largely defined by income, which is frequently a function of ability but is also shaped by race and gender, both of which affect the types of opportunities available to individuals. If the United States were a true meritocracy, it would enjoy the best leadership possible, but the historical record does not confirm that this has been the case. Although progress has been made in overcoming these constraints, many individuals remain marginalized from mainstream American society due to one or a combination of these factors. Blacks and women continue to earn less than white males for the same type of work, and people who are economically disadvantaged have correspondingly fewer opportunities available to them. Many Americans grow up without learning about the impact that these differences in opportunity have on their fellow citizens, and wrongly assume that with hard work, anyone can succeed.
It is therefore reasonable to suggest that a combination of these factors represents the greatest obstacle to achieving greater justice in our collective lives — but what, precisely, is justice? According to Black's Law Dictionary, in jurisprudence, justice means "the constant and perpetual dispositions of legal matters or disputes to render every man his due" (864). By contrast, "commutative justice" refers to "obligations as between persons and requires proportionate equalities in dealings of person to person" (864). Other types include distributive justice, which concerns "obligations of the community to the individual, and requires fair distribution of common advantages and sharing of common burdens," and social justice, which concerns "obligations of individual to community and its end is the common good" (864). Taken together, these definitions indicate that the concept of justice is broad and depends heavily on the context in which it is applied. Achieving "greater justice" could therefore mean an across-the-board improvement in all of these areas, or targeted improvements in one or more of them.
Theoretical Frameworks for Achieving Greater Justice
The search for theories that can promote greater justice is certainly not new. As Lloyd reports, "Throughout the pages of human history, philosophers have arduously endeavored to formulate a comprehensive theory of justice that explains the proper relationship between individuals and society, as well as the proper relationship of individuals among one another" (229). Some theories advanced in recent years have taken the realities of 21st-century life into account and may help chart a path forward. For instance, Michael Sandel calls for "a communitarian or civic republican alternative" and "a reinvigoration of the republican strand," intimating a republican constitutional theory (Fleming and McClain 510). These alternatives, however, are not entirely viable in a nation of more than three hundred million citizens, and there remains a need for a more robust theoretical approach.
Identifying the optimal approach to achieving greater justice is clearly a daunting enterprise, but an examination of Utilitarianism, Libertarianism, and Kant's categorical imperative can provide fresh insights. Maximizing the utility of social resources such as healthcare and education would represent the optimal approach from a Utilitarian perspective, since these goals have historically been cited as desirable for the majority of Americans. As Lloyd explains, "The system of justice that emerges will necessarily be predicated upon the subjective preferences of the majority" (230). Conversely, Libertarians would likely advocate for greater access to employment opportunities and the political arena as the best means of achieving greater justice.
Conclusion
The research showed that there are several types of justice, and each type has a different goal as its outcome. The research also showed that, irrespective of the type of justice involved, obstacles remain that prevent equitable access to justice systems — obstacles directly related to factors such as race, gender, and class, as well as combinations of these factors. In the final analysis, it is reasonable to conclude that complex problems such as achieving greater justice in our collective lives require complex solutions, and that a combination of approaches will be necessary to bring about meaningful improvements in the future.
Works Cited
Fleming, James E. and McClain, Linda C. "In Search of a Substantive Republic." Texas Law Review 76.2 (1997): 509–511. Print.
Lloyd, Jason. "Let There Be Justice: A Thomistic Assessment of Utilitarianism and Libertarianism." Texas Review of Law & Politics 8.1 (2003): 229–233. Print.
Manos, Mary Ann. "The Moral Compass of Bi-Polar Ethics." Phi Kappa Phi Forum 88.2 (2008): 34–36. Print.
Russello, Gerald J. "Liberalism's Greatest Critic." The American Conservative 12.5 (2013): 49–52. Print.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.