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.
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.