The dictionary defines power as "control and influence exercised over others". With positions of management, and leadership, comes power and it seems to sit more comfortably with some than others. It is increasingly recognised that organisations need good leaders if they are to go forward successfully. Their people will feel motivated, empowered and want to contribute. Leaders who are not using their power positively and abusing will act in a way which will be coercive and, in extremes, could be bullying. This latter situation is one which appears to be on the increase and is creating further problems in the workplace such as stress. This article will look at what is "power" and how it can be used productively. We want to consider how leaders can become more confident in their positions and with their power and explore the benefits for all parties when they do.

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Lord Acton

There are two elements of power in an organisational context - "position power" and "personal power". The leader has "position power" given from the organisation. This comes from the authority which the job role has to do things or make things happen. The "personal power" is about the degree of influence the individual has and is given by the followers. The two are interlinked to an extent. People will look to the leader's "position power" and give them a degree of "personal power" based on how they perceive the leader might influence them. Equally, when organisations are looking to promote someone, the more aware ones will look to see how well individuals can seem to influence others around them - and give them some "position power".

Problems arise when people are put into roles where they have considerable "position power" but feel out of their depth and under-confident. What starts to happen is that they feel a need to cover their discomfort and they begin to do this by abusing the power they hold. Over my years of working with organisations, I have heard and seen so many examples of poor or inappropriate behaviour from various levels of management and leadership. This is despite the amount of training which many of these people have participated in! I wonder how many times you have been on the receiving end of such behaviour? More to the point, how many of you have been guilty of using them? Sometimes, these abuses of power are obvious:

• shouting, screaming even, at staff;• threats being used;• unreasonable demands;• intimidating body language;• being a time-stealer to staff;• setting unreasonable levels of expectation, etc.

The list can go on beyond this - and could expand to include some less obvious behaviours. Why is it that so many previously reasonable people can start to behave so unreasonably? Experience suggests that one factor is that they are often merely carrying on a trend from their bosses! If there are not good role models, it can be difficult to behave correctly. However, this is something of an excuse. What is really

going to be achieved with abuse of power? The daily reports of problems with bullying in the workplace, increasing stress-related problems in the workplace are clear indicators of that this is an on-going issue.

The consequences for the organisation, and the leaders, can be significant. There are probably issues with productivity and effectiveness, absenteeism (or just presenteeism!), and possibly staff retention is also a problem? If these things are happening, there as a potential for a vicious spiral - the manager feels under more pressure and passes this on with even more inappropriate use of their "position power".

The flip-side is to consider what can happen when the leader is able to use their power in a constructive manner. Why are they able to do this? Partly it is because they are comfortable with their "personal power" and adjust to the additional "position power". Maybe they have the right role models, or suitable training. They do recognise that they can get more from their people by supporting and encouraging rather than coercing!

Power does not corrupt. Fear corrupts... perhaps the fear of a loss of power. John Steinbeck

For me, this quotation says a great deal about the two types of leader - the abusers of power are frequently out of their depth in their role. They fear losing their position and the likely loss of face, status and money. They do not feel that they can ask for help or support to improve the way they operate. Possibly, they believe it will be seen as a sign of weakness and so they aim to compensate with what they think is a show of strength.

Leaders have a right to ask things of their followers. There are many different ways they can go about this and there is no, one right way. At times a leader may need to be more directive and authoritative - at others more inclusive and supportive. Whatever the situation, the leader still operates from "position power" - and the good one, remains aware of their own "personal power".

When you are in a position of leadership, stop and think about how you behave with those you are leading. You will gain far more "personal power" by treating people with respect - and earn it in return. Accept that with your position comes responsibility. Regardless of how your bosses may treat you, or colleagues treat their people, it is no excuse for you to abuse your power. Remember, the most effective way to engage people and to get them to work with and for you is to treat them as they want to be treated!! Pay attention to your behaviours and notice if you have any tendencies to make unreasonable demands or revert to authority to get things done. How difficult is it to think about the other person first and then ask for what you want in the most appropriate way?

As a leader, you have a choice about whether you abuse or use the power you are given. Many who are abusing their power do not always realise that they are doing it, or why. The reason is usually that they are struggling in their role. If you find yourself slipping towards this, do something about it! Think about what is making you feel like this and identify what areas you want to improve or develop. Now go and find out how

you can get the support or training you want and go and ask for it. Learn to be comfortable with your power, both "position" and "personal" and you will be pleasantly surprised what you can achieve as a leader!

In the criminal justice system, police, prosecutors, judges, and the jury are often able to exercise a degree of discretion in deciding who will be subject to criminal penalties and how they will be punished. For example, the police officer may decide whom to formally arrest for an offense. For a traffic violation, a police officer may simply issue a warning. A prosecutor may choose to pursue the same or different charges against the person a police officer has arrested. Discretion gives the prosecutor the power to dismiss a case against an arrestee based on factors such as the probability of conviction, the nature of the offense, the characteristics of the offender, and availability of adequate civil remedies. Plea bargaining also plays a major role in determining charges.

Civil[edit]

In civil actions, judges and juries are also deemed to have discretion in the matter of damages. Judges also have discretion in the grant or denial of certain motions, e.g. a motion for a continuance.

Abuse of discretion[edit]

The exercise of discretion by judges is an inherent aspect of judicial independence under the doctrine of the separation of powers. The standard of review applied to appeals from decisions involving the exercise of judicial discretion is "abuse of discretion."

An abuse of discretion is a failure to take into proper consideration the facts and law relating to a particular matter; an arbitrary or unreasonable departure from precedent and settled judicial custom.[1] On appeal of an exercise of judicial discretion, "abuse of discretion" is a standard of review requiring the appellate court to find that the lower court's decision would "shock the conscience" of a reasonable person in order to reverse the decision below.

Character assassination is a deliberate and sustained process that aims to destroy the credibility and reputation of a person, institution, social group, or nation.[1]

Agents of character assassinations employ a mix of open and covert methods to achieve their goals, such as raising false accusations, planting and fostering rumours, and manipulating information.

Character assassination is an attempt to tarnish a person's reputation. It may

involve exaggeration, misleading half-truths, or manipulation of facts to present an untrue picture of the targeted person. It is a form of defamation and can be a form of ad hominem argument.

For living individuals targeted by character assassination attempts, this may result in being rejected by his community, family, or members of his or her living or work environment. Such acts are often difficult to reverse or rectify, and the process is likened to a literal assassination of a human life. The damage sustained can last a lifetime or, for historical figures, for many centuries after their death.

In practice, character assassination may involve doublespeak, spreading of rumours, innuendo or deliberate misinformation on topics relating to the subject's morals, integrity, and reputation. It may involve spinning information that is technically true, but that is presented in a misleading manner or is presented without the necessary context. For example, it might be said that a person refused to pay any income tax during a specific year, without saying that no tax was actually owed due to the person having no income that year, or that a person was sacked from a firm, even though he may have been made redundant through no fault of his own, rather than being terminated for cause.

In politics, perhaps the most common form of character assassination is the spread of allegations that a candidate is a liar. Other common themes may include allegations that the candidate is a bad or unpopular member of his family, has a bad relationship with his spouse or children or is not respected by his colleagues. Another theme claims that the person routinely engages in disturbing, socially unacceptable behavior, such as sexual deviancy. The person may also be portrayed as holding beliefs widely considered despicable within society, such as supporting racism or other forms of bigotry.

Charging an opponent with character assassination may have political benefits. In the hearings for Clarence Thomas' nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States, supporters claimed that both Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill were victims of character assassination.[2]

The International Society for the Study of Character Assassination (ISSCA) specializes in the academic study and research of how character attacks and assassinations have been executed in both history and during contemporary times.[3]

Character assassination in a totalitarian regime[edit]

The effect of a character assassination driven by an individual is not equal to that of a state-driven campaign. The state-sponsored destruction of reputations, fostered by political propaganda and cultural mechanisms, can have more far-

reaching consequences. One of the earliest signs of a society’s compliance to loosening the reins on the perpetration of crimes (and even massacres) with total impunity is when a government favors or directly encourages a campaign aimed at destroying the dignity and reputation of its adversaries, and the public accepts its allegations without question. The mobilisation toward ruining the reputation of adversaries is the prelude to the mobilisation of violence in order to annihilate them. Official dehumanisation has always preceded the physical assault of the victims.[1]

Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a personality disorder[1] in which a person is excessively preoccupied with personal adequacy, power, prestige and vanity. This condition affects one percent of the population.[better source needed][2][3] First formulated in 1968, it was historically called megalomania, and is severe egocentrism.[citation needed]

History[edit]

The use of the term "narcissism" to describe excessive vanity and self-centeredness predates by many years the modern medical classification of narcissistic personality disorder. The condition was named after Narcissus, a mythological Greek youth who became infatuated with his own reflection in a lake. He did not realize at first that it was his own reflection, but when he did, he died out of grief for having fallen in love with someone that did not exist outside of himself.

The term "narcissistic personality structure" was introduced by Kernberg in 1967[4] and "narcissistic personality disorder" first proposed by Heinz Kohut in 1968.[5]

Description[edit]

Some people diagnosed with a Narcissistic Personality Disorder are characterized by unwarranted feelings of self-importance. They have a sense of entitlement and demonstrate grandiosity in their beliefs and behavior. They have a strong need for admiration, but lack feelings of empathy.[6]

Symptoms[edit]

Symptoms of this disorder, as defined by the DSM-IV-TR include:[1]

• Expects to be recognized as superior and special, without superior accomplishments

• Expects constant attention, admiration and positive reinforcement from others• Envies others and believes others envy him/her

• Is preoccupied with thoughts and fantasies of great success, enormous attractiveness, power, intelligence

• Lacks the ability to empathize with the feelings or desires of others• Is arrogant in attitudes and behavior• Has expectations of special treatment that are unrealisticOther symptoms in addition to the ones defined by DSM-IV-TR include: Is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends, has trouble keeping healthy relationships with others, easily hurt or rejected, appears unemotional, and exaggerating special achievements and talents, setting unrealistic goals for himself/herself.[7]

Narcissistic personality disorder is characterized by dramatic, emotional behavior, and an over-inflated sense of self-importance that is in the same category as antisocial and borderline personality disorders.[8]

In addition to these symptoms, the person may display arrogance, show superiority, and seek power.[9] The symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder can be similar to the traits of individuals with strong self-esteem and confidence; differentiation occurs when the underlying psychological structures of these traits are considered pathological. Narcissists have such an elevated sense of self-worth that they value themselves as inherently better than others, when in reality they have a fragile self-esteem, cannot handle criticism, and often try to compensate for this inner fragility by belittling or disparaging others in an attempt to validate their own self-worth. Comments and criticisms about others are vicious from sufferers of NPD, in an attempt to boost their own poor self-esteem.[10]

Another narcissist symptom is a lack of empathy. They are unable to relate, understand, and rationalize the feelings of others. Instead of behaving in a way that shows how they are feeling in the moment, they behave in the way that they feel they are expected to behave or what gives them the most attention.[7]

In children, inflated self-views and grandiose feelings, which are characteristics of narcissism, are part of the normal self-development. Children typically cannot understand the difference between their actual and their ideal self, which causes an unrealistic perception of the self. After about age 8, views of the self, both positive and negative, begin to develop based on comparisons of peers, and become more realistic. Two factors that cause self-view to remain unrealistic are dysfunctional interactions with parents that can be either excessive attention or a lack thereof. For example but not limited to, the excessive attention and lack of attention go hand in hand when a child’s parents are divorced. Usually, one is overindulgent (typically the one seeing the child less) and the other shows less affection.[7] The child either compensates for lack of attention or acts in terms of unrealistic self-perception.[11]

Causes[edit]

The cause of this disorder is unknown; however, Groopman and Cooper list the following factors identified by various researchers as possibilities:[2]

• An oversensitive temperament at birth;• Excessive admiration that is never balanced with realistic feedback;• Excessive praise for good behaviors or excessive criticism for bad behaviors in

childhood;• Overindulgence and overvaluation by parents, other family members, or peers;• Being praised for perceived exceptional looks or abilities by adults;• Severe emotional abuse in childhood;• Unpredictable or unreliable caregiving from parents;• Learning manipulative behaviors from parents;• Valued by parents as a means to regulate their own self-esteem.Some narcissistic traits are common and a normal developmental phase. When these traits are compounded by a failure of the interpersonal environment and continue into adulthood, they may intensify to the point where NPD is diagnosed.[12]

In addition, biological differences may cause narcissism as structural abnormalities in the brain have been recently documented. Specifically, researchers have noted narcissistic have less volume in gray matter in the left anterior insula, which is related to empathy (Schulze et al, 2013). [13]

Theories[edit]

Pathological narcissism occurs in a spectrum of severity. In its more extreme forms, it is narcissistic personality disorder (NPD). NPD is considered to result from a person's belief that they are flawed in a way that makes them fundamentally unacceptable to others.[14] This belief is held below the person's conscious awareness; such a person would, if questioned, typically deny thinking such a thing. To protect themselves against the intolerably painful rejection and isolation that (they imagine) would follow if others recognized their (perceived) defective nature, such people make strong attempts to control others’ views of them and behavior towards them.

Pathological narcissism can develop from an impairment in the quality of the person's relationship with their primary caregivers, usually their parents, in that the parents could not form a healthy and empathic attachment to them.[15] This results in the child's perception of himself/herself as unimportant and unconnected to others. The child typically comes to believe they have some personality defect that makes them unvalued and unwanted.[16]

To the extent that people are pathologically narcissistic, they can be controlling,

blaming, self-absorbed, intolerant of others’ views, unaware of others' needs and of the effects of their behavior on others, and insistent that others see them as they wish to be seen.[17]

Narcissistic individuals use various strategies to protect the self at the expense of others. They tend to devalue, derogate and blame others, and they respond to threatening feedback with anger and hostility.[18]

People who are overly narcissistic commonly feel rejected, humiliated and threatened when criticised. To protect themselves from these dangers, they often react with disdain, rage, and/or defiance to any slight criticism, real or imagined.[19] To avoid such situations, some narcissistic people withdraw socially and may feign modesty or humility. In cases where the narcissistic personality-disordered individual feels a lack of admiration, adulation, attention and affirmation, they may also manifest a desire to be feared and be notorious (narcissistic supply).

Although individuals with NPD are often ambitious and capable, the inability to tolerate setbacks, disagreements or criticism, along with lack of empathy, make it difficult for such individuals to work cooperatively with others or to maintain long-term professional achievements.[20] With narcissistic personality disorder, the individual's self-perceived fantastic grandiosity, often coupled with a hypomanic mood, is typically not commensurate with his or her real accomplishments.

Splitting[edit]

Main article: Splitting (psychology)People who are diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder use splitting as a central defense mechanism. According to psychoanalyst Kernberg, "The normal tension between actual self on the one hand, and ideal object on the other, is eliminated by the building up of an inflated self-concept within which the actual self and the ideal self and ideal object are confused. At the same time, the remnants of the unacceptable images are repressed and projected onto external objects, which are devalued."[21]

The merging of the "inflated self-concept" and the "actual self" is seen in the inherent grandiosity of narcissistic personality disorder. Also inherent in this process are the defense mechanisms of devaluation, idealization and denial.[22] Other people are either manipulated as an extension of one's own self, who serve the sole role of giving "admiration and approval"[23] or they are seen as worthless (because they cannot collude with the narcissist's grandiosity).[24]

Megalomania is a psychopathological disorder characterized by delusional fantasies of power, relevance, or omnipotence. "Megalomania is characterized by an inflated sense of self-esteem and overestimation by persons of their powers and beliefs."[1] Historically it was used as an old name for narcissistic personality disorder prior to the latter's first use by Heinz Kohut in 1968, and is used these

days as a non-clinical equivalent.[2][3] It is not mentioned in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)[4] or the International Statistical Classification of Diseases (ICD).

Etymology[edit]

The word megalomania is derived from the Greek words "μεγαλο": megalo-, meaning large or great, and "μανία": mania, meaning madness, frenzy. The first attested use of the word "megalomania" in English is in 1890 as a translation of the French word "mégalomanie".

Proposed distinction from narcissism: Bertrand Russell[edit]

A quotation by Bertrand Russell gives his interpretation of megalomania: "The megalomaniac differs from the narcissist by the fact that he wishes to be powerful rather than charming, and seeks to be feared rather than loved. To this type belong many lunatics and most of the great men of history."[5]

Early Freudianism[edit]

Russell's near-contemporary, Sigmund Freud, freely used the same term in a comparable way. Referring with respect to an adult neurotic to 'the omnipotence which he ascribed to his thoughts and feelings', Freud reckoned that 'this belief is a frank acknowledgement of a relic of the old megalomania of infancy'.[6] Similarly Freud concluded that 'we can detect an element of megalomania in most other forms of paranoic disorder. We are justified in assuming that this megalomania is essentially of an infantile nature and that, as development

proceeds, it is sacrificed to social considerations'.[7]

Edmund Bergler, one of his early followers, considered that 'as Freud and Ferenczi have shown, the child lives in a sort of megalomania for a long period; he knows only one yardstick, and that is his own over-inflated ego....Megalomania, it must be understood, is normal in the very young child'.[8] Bergler was of the opinion that in later life 'the activity of gambling in itself unconsciously activates the megalomania and grandiosity of childhood, reverting to the "fiction of omnipotence".[9]

Otto Fenichel states that, for those who react in later life to narcissistic hurt with

denial, ' a regression to narcissism is also a regression to the primary narcissistic omnipotence which makes its reappearance in the form of megalomania'.[10]

Object relations[edit]

Where Freud saw megalomania as an obstacle to psychoanalysis, in the second half of the 20th century object relations theory, both in the States and among British Kleinians, set about 'rethinking megalomania... intent on transforming an obstacle... into a complex organization that linked object relations and defence mechanisms' in such a way as to offer new 'prospects for therapy'.[11]

Heinz Kohut regarded 'the narcissistic patient's "megalomania"...as part of normal development. By contrast, Kernberg viewed the "grandiose self" as pathological, as an instance of development gone away',[12] as did Herbert Rosenfeld and John Steiner. Thus 'when it came to megalomania - Freud's term - or the grandiose self - Kohut and Kernberg's term - or the omnipotent self - Rosenfeld's term - there was disagreement....Developmental arrest or pathological formation?'[13]

Everyday[edit]

Arguably, however, 'in addition to its pathological forms, megalomania is a mental behavior that can be used by any individual as a way of coping with distress linked to frustration, abandonment, loss, or disappearance of the object'[14] in everyday life. In this sense, we may see 'megalomania as an extreme form of manic defense...against the anxiety resulting from separation from the object'.[15]

In the social world, 'megalomania...can be a characteristic of power-drunk or control-freak dictators, some executives, some politicians and some army generals'.[16] All such figures may be said to have 'a "Big Ego". A baby's ego, in fact, insufficiently shrunk....So they're much more likely to miscalculate. To offend people'.[17]

Therapy[edit]

Unfortunately, 'a person with megalomania may not be interested in self-reflection or personal change',[18] so the talking cures may be less effective than medication.

An additional complication with analysis is comprised by the transference: 'if the analyst has any tendencies toward megalomania or authoritarianism, the response of the patient to the analyst will strengthen them'.[19]

Sadistic personality disorder was a personality disorder diagnosis involving

sadism which appeared only in an appendix of the revised third edition of the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III-R).[1] The later versions of the DSM (DSM-IV, DSM-IV-TR and DSM-5) do not include it, so it is no longer considered a valid diagnostic category. Yet some still study the disorder.[2]

Sadism is a behavioral disorder characterized by callous, vicious, manipulative, and degrading behavior expressed towards other people. To date, the exact cause of sadism is not known. However, many theories have been given to explain the possible reasons underlying the development of a sadistic personality in an individual.

Contents  [hide] • 1 Definition of sadism• 2 Comorbidity with other personality disorders• 3 Familial patterns/childhood experiences and Sadistic Personality

Disorder• 4 DSM-III-R Criteria for Sadistic Personality Disorder• 5 Removal from the DSM• 6 Millon’s subtypes

6.1 Explosive sadist (Borderline features)6.2 Tyrannical sadist (Negativistic features)6.3 Enforcing sadist (Compulsive features)6.4 Spineless sadist (Avoidant features)

• 7 Subclinical Sadism in Personality Psychology• 8 See also• 9 References• 10 External links

Definition of sadism[edit]

Sadism involves gaining pleasure from seeing others undergo pain or discomfort. The opponent-process theory explains the way in which individuals not only display, but also take enjoyment in committing sadistic acts.[3][clarification needed] Individuals possessing sadistic personalities display recurrent cruel behavior and aggression.[4][5] Sadism can also include the use of emotional cruelty, purposefully manipulating others through the use of fear, and a preoccupation with violence.[6]

While some sadistic individuals do gain pleasure in imposing pain and suffering upon others, sadism does not always involve the use of physical aggression or violence. More often, sadistic individuals express aggressive social behaviors and enjoy publicly humiliating others in order to achieve a sense of power over

them.[7][not in citation given]

Comorbidity with other personality disorders[edit]

Sadistic Personality Disorder is often found to occur in unison with other personality disorders. In fact, studies have found that sadistic personality disorder is the personality disorder with the highest level of comorbidity to other types of psychopathologic disorders.[6][dubious – discuss] However, sadism has also been found in patients who do not display other forms of psychopathic disorders.[8] One personality disorder that is often found to occur alongside sadistic personality disorder is conduct disorder, not an adult disorder but one of childhood and adolescence.[6] In addition, anti-social and narcissistic personality disorders are sometimes found in individuals diagnosed with sadistic personality disorder.[citation needed] Other disorders that are also often found to exist with sadistic personality disorder include bipolar disorder, panic disorders, depression, borderline personality disorder, histrionic personality disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, self-defeating personality disorder and passive-aggressive behavior.[citation needed] Studies have found other types of illnesses, such as alcoholism, to have a high rate of comorbidity with sadistic personality disorder.[9]

Because of its high level of comorbidity with other disorders, researches have had some level of difficulty distinguishing sadistic personality disorder from other forms of personality disorder.[6] While sadistic personality disorder itself is no longer included in the DSM, partially for this reason, other types of disorders involving sadism, such as sexual sadism, are still found in the DSM as paraphilias.

Familial patterns/childhood experiences and Sadistic Personality Disorder[edit]

Most of these theories commonly point out the fact that sadism is mainly dependent on the upbringing of an individual. Although biological and environmental aspects are also known to contribute to the development of this behavioral disorder,[citation needed] less evidence is available about hereditary patterns or genetic causes.

Sadistic Personality Disorder is found more often in males than in females.[citation needed] In addition, studies have suggested that there are familial patterns in the presence of sadistic personality types. Specifically, people with Sadistic Personality Disorder often have relatives who have some type of psychopathology as well.[10][not in citation given]

Unfavorable experiences during childhood or in early stages of sexual development are believed[who?] to be one of the major contributing factors in the

development of a sadistic personality in an individual. It has also been observed that sadism or a sadistic personality can also develop in an individual through conditioning. For instance, continual connection of a particular stimulus with sexual enjoyment or of happiness with the anguish of others can cause sadism or sadomasochism.[citation needed]

DSM-III-R Criteria for Sadistic Personality Disorder[edit]

A) A pervasive pattern of cruel, demeaning and aggressive behavior, beginning by early adulthood, as indicated by the repeated occurrence of at least four of the following:• Has used physical cruelty or violence for the purpose of establishing

dominance in a relationship (not merely to achieve some noninterpersonal goal, such as striking someone in order to rob him or her)

• Humiliates or demeans people in the presence of others• Has treated or disciplined someone under his or her control unusually harshly

(e.g., a child, student, prisoner, or patient)• Is amused by, or takes pleasure in, the psychological or physical suffering of

others (including animals)• Has lied for the purpose of harming or inflicting pain on others (not merely to

achieve some other goal)• Gets other people to do what he or she wants by frightening them (through

intimidation or even terror)• Restricts the autonomy of people with whom he or she has close relationship

(e.g., will not let spouse leave the house unaccompanied or permit teenage daughter to attend social functions)

• Is fascinated by violence, weapons, martial arts, injury, or tortureB) The behavior in A has not been directed toward only one person (e.g., spouse, one child) and has not been solely for the purpose of sexual arousal (as in sexual sadism).[11]

Removal from the DSM[edit]

Numerous theorists and clinicians introduced Sadistic Personality Disorder to the DSM in 1987 and it was placed in the DSM-III-R as a way to facilitate further systematic clinical study and research. It was proposed to be included because of adults who possessed sadistic personality traits but were not being labeled, even though their victims were being labeled with a self-defeating personality disorder.[11][page needed] There were many concerns regarding confusion about which diagnoses were approved for clinical practice and which were not. SPD was removed from the DSM-IV because there have been so few studies of it, since not many people have sought treatment.[citation needed] For the most part, SPD is found in certain groups of people like sexual offenders and serial killers,

so it is not considered a helpful diagnosis.[citation needed] Theorists like Theodore Millon wanted to generate further study on SPD, and so proposed it to the DSM-IV Personality Disorder Work Group, who rejected it.[12] Since it was not included in the DSM-IV or DSM-5, it has been said that dimensional models of sadism might be more appropriate than SPD.

Sexual sadism disorder is considered a paraphilia and is listed as such in DSM-5. It is defined as "recurrent and intense sexual arousal from the physical or psychological suffering of another person, as manifested by fantasies, urges, or behaviors."[13]

Millon’s subtypes[edit]

Theodore Millon identified four subtypes of sadists. Any individual sadist may exhibit none, one, or more than one of the following:

Explosive sadist (Borderline features)[edit]

This type of sadistic personality is known for being unpredictably violent because they are disappointed and/or frustrated with their lives. When they are feeling humiliated or hopeless, they lose control and seek revenge for the mistreatment and deprecation to which they feel subjected.[12][page needed] These violent behaviors are revealed through tantrums, fearsome attacks on others, especially family members, and uncontrollable rage. Generally, explosive sadists will suddenly feel threatened in a certain situation and shock others with their abrupt changes. Explosive sadists do not, “move about in a surly and truculent manner,” so it is impossible to know when or what will set them off.[14][page needed] While the violence that is released is almost always directed at someone, it mainly serves as an emotional release and a way to get out all the feelings they are holding inside themselves.

Tyrannical sadist (Negativistic features)[edit]

Tyrannical sadists are among the more frightening and cruel of the subtypes by appearing to relish menacing and brutalizing others; forcing their victims to cower and submit seems to provide them with a special sense of satisfaction.[12][page needed] This subtype of SPD somewhat resembles the explosive sadist but more methodically use violence to terrorize and intimidate rather than release their frustration.[14][page needed] Moreover, tyrannical sadists very carefully select their victims, ensuring that their choice will not resist, and they generally have low self-esteem and insecurities that they hide from others; by overwhelming others they can feel superior to them.[12][page needed]

Enforcing sadist (Compulsive features)[edit]

Enforcing sadists can be found among military sergeants, deans of universities,

prison overseers, police officers or other authoritative functions because they are in a position where they feel they should be the ones controlling and punishing people who have broken rules, regulations, or laws.[12] Though they believe themselves to act in the common interest, they have deeper motives: these sadists generally seek rule-breakers in their domain of authority--or in society in general--and exercise the most severe punishments. Enforcing sadists who are police or prison staff are rarely perceived to be unjust and therefore have great freedom to dominate, victimize, or destroy others at will. Their personalities cannot appropriately respond to the emotions that drive their sadistically vicious behaviors.[12] As these sadists dominate and punish others, so increases satisfaction and power they feel, reinforcing their self-perception of righteousness and increasing their ego. This intoxication can unleash their behavior and blind them to reality, usually without attracting any negative attention because they act within their legal authority to exert power and normally behave in everyday situations.

Spineless sadist (Avoidant features)[edit]

Spineless sadists are opposite the other three by being deeply insecure and acting like cowards.[14] They anticipate real danger, projecting their hostile fantasies, and they strike first, hoping thereby to forestall their antagonist and ask questions later.[12] While these sadists are fearful of many things, when they experience panic they will counteract their enemies by doing the things that they fear. Spineless sadists use aggressive hostility to send the message to others that they aren’t intimidated or fearful, thus allowing themselves to control their inner feelings and help display the opposite. Their behavior can be counterphobic, allowing them to master their fears, but serves to divert and impress others with a false sense of confidence and self-assurance. Spineless sadists also seek out scapegoats to gang up on, enabling themselves to assault what they want to deny in themselves.

Subclinical Sadism in Personality Psychology[edit]

There is renewed interest in studying sadism as a non-disordered personality trait.[15] [5] Everyday sadism joins with subclinical psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism to form the so-called "Dark Tetrad" of personality.[16][5]

A double standard is the application of different sets of principles for similar situations, or by two different people in the same situation.[1] A double standard may take the form of an instance in which certain concepts (often, for example, a word, phrase, social norm, or rule) are perceived as acceptable to be applied by one group of people, but are considered unacceptable—taboo—when applied by another group.

The concept of a double standard has long been applied (as early as 1872) to the fact that different moral structures are often applied to men and women in society.[2][3]

A double standard can therefore be described as a biased or morally unfair application of the principle that all are equal in their freedoms. Such double standards are seen as unjustified because they violate a basic maxim of modern legal jurisprudence: that all parties should stand equal before the law. Double standards also violate the principle of justice known as impartiality, which is based on the assumption that the same standards should be applied to all people, without regard to subjective bias or favoritism based on social class, rank, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, age or other distinctions. A double standard violates this principle by holding different people accountable according to different standards. The phrase "life is not fair" may be invoked in order to mollify concerns over double standards.

Equal opportunityFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search"Equal opportunities" redirects here. For the Yes Minister episode, see Equal Opportunities (Yes Minister).

Thinkers often use the metaphor of a race to describe equality of opportunity. Photo: a sprinter at the starting block.Equal opportunity is a stipulation that all people should be treated similarly, unhampered by artificial barriers or prejudices or preferences, except when particular distinctions can be explicitly justified.[1] The aim according to this often complex and contested concept[2] is that important jobs should go to those “most qualified” – persons most likely to perform ably in a given task – and not go to persons for arbitrary or irrelevant reasons, such as circumstances of birth, upbringing, friendship ties to whoever is in power,[3] religion, sex,[4] ethnicity,[4] race, caste,[5] or involuntary personal attributes such as disability, age, or sexual orientation.[5][6] Chances for advancement should be open to everybody interested[7] such that they have “an equal chance to compete within the framework of goals and the structure of rules established.”[8] The idea is to remove arbitrariness from the selection process and base it on some “pre-agreed basis of fairness, with the assessment process being related to the type of position,”[3] and emphasizing procedural and legal means.[5][9] Individuals should succeed or fail based on their own efforts and not extraneous circumstances such as having well-connected parents.[10] It is opposed to nepotism[3] and plays a role in whether a social structure is seen as legitimate.[3][5][11]

Differing political viewpoints[edit]

People with differing political viewpoints often see the concept differently.[12] The meaning of equal opportunity is debated in fields such as political philosophy, sociology and psychology. It is being applied to increasingly wider areas beyond employment[9][13] including lending,[14] housing, college admissions, voting rights, and elsewhere.[1] In the classical sense, equality of opportunity is closely aligned with the concept of equality before the law and ideas of meritocracy.[15]

Generally the terms “equality of opportunity” and “equal opportunity” are interchangeable, with occasional slight variations: “equality of opportunity” has more of a sense of being an abstract political concept, while “equal opportunity” is sometimes used as an adjective, usually in the context of employment regulations, to identify an employer, a hiring approach, or law. Equal opportunity provisions have been written into regulations and have been debated in courtrooms.[16] It is sometimes conceived as a legal right against discrimination.[5][17][18] It is an ideal which has become increasingly widespread[19] in Western nations during the last several centuries and is intertwined with social mobility, most often with upward mobility and with rags to riches stories:

The coming President of France is the grandson of a shoemaker. The actual President is a peasant's son. His predecessor again began life in a humble way in the shipping business. There is surely equality of opportunity under the new order in the old nation.

—The Montreal Gazette, 1906[20]

Theory of equal opportunity[edit]

Outlines of the concept[edit]

In a factory setting, equality of opportunity is often seen as a procedural fairness along the lines of "if you assemble twice as many lamps, you'll be paid double". In this sense, the concept is in contrast to the concept of equality of outcome which might require that all workers be paid similarly regardless of how many lamps they made.According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the concept assumes that society is stratified with a diverse range of roles, some of which are more desirable than others.[3] And the benefit of equality of opportunity is to bring fairness to the selection process for coveted roles in corporations, associations, nonprofits, universities, and elsewhere.[21] There is no "formal linking" between

equality of opportunity and political structure, according to one view, in the sense that there can be equality of opportunity in democracies, autocracies, and in communist nations,[3] although it is primarily associated with a competitive market economy[3] and embedded within the legal frameworks of democratic societies.[22] People with different political perspectives see equality of opportunity differently: liberals disagree about which conditions are needed to ensure it; many "old-style" conservatives see inequality and hierarchy in general as beneficial out of a respect for tradition.[23] It can apply to a specific hiring decision, or to all hiring decisions by a specific company, or rules governing hiring decisions for an entire nation. The scope of equal opportunity has expanded to cover more than issues regarding the rights of minority groups, but covers practices regarding "recruitment, hiring, training, layoffs, discharge, recall, promotions, responsibility, wages, sick leave, vacation, overtime, insurance, retirement, pensions, and various other benefits."[21] The concept has been applied to numerous aspects of public life, including accessibility of polling stations,[24] care provided to HIV patients,[25] whether men and women have equal opportunities to travel on a spaceship,[26] bilingual education,[27] skin color of models in Brazil,[28] television time for political candidates,[29] army promotions,[30] admittance to universities,[31] and ethnicity in the United States.[32] The term is interrelated with and often contrasted with other conceptions of equality such as equality of outcome and equality of autonomy.

Basic model[edit]

American civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. was a staunch advocate of equal opportunity. Photo: King making his famous I Have A Dream speech in Washington, D.C. in 1963.People generally think of equality of opportunity in terms of the rules of a certain society and in situations where there is a certain job to be filled. For example, a call goes out for people to apply for a specific job. All persons who might be interested in this job learn about it, that is, they are informed in some way that the position is available. Then, they indicate that they want to apply for this position – all eligible people should have a chance to compete for this job. At this point the evaluation stage begins – this is the official starting point. The competition is often thought of using the metaphor of a running race.[33] Next, there is a formal process to determine which applicant gets the job, and this selection process should be related to what the job is about, that is, the evaluation should consider the "qualifications deemed relevant to successful performance in a position or program."[5] For example, if a firefighter position is open, then applicants may have to demonstrate their ability to carry a heavy sack up a flight of stairs; if a professor's post is open, then applicants may have to show that they have the requisite degrees. But the process of assigning "individuals to places in the social hierarchy is determined by some form of competitive process."[3] The selection

process should not be based on some arbitrary or irrelevant criterion such as religion or skin color, but rather should emphasize "individual abilities and ambition"[5] or, as Martin Luther King, Jr. said in his famous I Have a Dream speech that he hoped his four children would be judged not by the "color of their skin but by the content of their character."[1] Then, from this "starting gate" position, regardless of the particular view of equality of opportunity, applicants are seen as essentially accountable for the results from that point onwards – whether they succeed or fail is up to their own ability at this point.[34] And one applicant gets the job. In a usual conception, equality of opportunity logically implies unequal results afterwards, so there is support for the view that equality of opportunity and equality of outcome are philosophically incompatible.

Different types[edit]

There are differing senses of what equality of opportunity is and related notions, with slight variations and nuances.[2][19][35][36] What is common to most of the conceptions is that the individual is accountable when the race or examination or review begins, but senses of equality of opportunity differ most essentially on when the race should begin.

Formal equality of opportunity[edit]

Formal equality of opportunity,[2] sometimes referred to as the nondiscrimination principle[34] or described as the absence of direct discrimination,[2] or described in the narrow sense as equality of access,[2][37] is characterized by:

• Open call. Positions bringing superior advantages should be open to all applicants;[19] job openings should be publicized in advance giving applicants a "reasonable opportunity" to apply. Further, all applications should be accepted.[3]

• Fair judging. Applications should be judged on their merits[3] with procedures designed to identify those best-qualified.[19] The evaluation of the applicant should be in accord with the duties of the position; for example, for the job opening of choir director, the evaluation may judge applicants based on musical knowledge rather than some arbitrary criterion such as hair color.[3]

• An application is chosen. The applicant judged as "most qualified" is offered the position while others are not. There is agreement that the result of the process is again unequal, in the sense that one person has the position while another does not, but that this outcome is deemed fair on procedural grounds.

The formal approach is seen as a somewhat basic "no frills" or "narrow"[5] approach to equality of opportunity, a minimal standard of sorts, limited to the

public sphere as opposed to private areas such as the family, marriage, or religion.[5] What is considered "fair" and "unfair" is spelled out in advance.[38] An expression of this version appeared in The New York Times:

There should be an equal opportunity for all. Each and every person should have as great or as small an opportunity as the next one. There should not be the unfair, unequal, superior opportunity of one individual over another.

—Dr. Leonard Hirshberg, 1917[39]

The formal conception focuses on procedural fairness during the competition: are the hurdles the same height? Photo: athletes Ulrike Urbansky and Michelle Carey in Osaka.This sense was also expressed by economists Milton and Rose Friedman in their 1980 book Free to Choose.[40] The Friedmans explained that equality of opportunity was "not to be interpreted literally" since some children are born blind while others are born sighted, but that "its real meaning is ... a career open to the talents."[40] This means that there should be "no arbitrary obstacles" blocking a person from realizing their ambitions, and that "Not birth, nationality, color, religion, sex, nor any other irrelevant characteristic should determine the opportunities that are open to a person – only his abilities."[40]

A somewhat different view was expressed by John Roemer who used the term nondiscrimination principle to mean that "all individuals who possess the attributes relevant for the performance of the duties of the position in question be included in the pool of eligible candidates, and that an individual's possible occupancy of the position be judged only with respect to those relevant attributes."[34] Matt Cavanagh argued that race and sex shouldn't matter when getting a job, but that the sense of equality of opportunity should not extend much further than preventing straightforward discrimination.[41]

The ideal of a society in which people do not suffer disadvantage from discrimination on grounds of supposed race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation is widely upheld as desirable in itself.

—Richard Arneson in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2008[3]It is a relatively straightforward task for legislators to ban blatant efforts to favor one group over another and encourage equality of opportunity as a result. Japan banned gender-specific job descriptions in advertising as well as sexual discrimination in employment as well as other practices deemed unfair,[42] although a subsequent report suggested that the law was having minimal effect in securing Japanese women high positions in management.[43] In the United States, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued a private test preparation firm, Kaplan, for unfairly using credit histories to discriminate against African Americans in terms of hiring decisions.[16] According to one analysis, it is possible to imagine a democracy which meets the formal criteria (1 through 3)

but which still favors wealthy candidates who are selected in free and fair elections.[44]

Substantive equality of opportunity[edit]

This term, sometimes called fair equality of opportunity,[19] is a somewhat broader[5] and more expansive concept than the more limiting formal equality of opportunity and it deals with what is sometimes described as indirect discrimination.[2] It goes farther, and is more controversial[5] than the formal variant, and has been thought to be much harder to achieve, with greater disagreement about how to achieve greater equality,[5] and has been described as "unstable",[19] particularly if the society in question is unequal to begin with in terms of great disparity of wealth.[45] It has been identified as more of a left-leaning political position[46] but this is not a hard-and-fast rule. The substantive model is advocated by people who see limitations in the formal model:

Therein lies the problem with the idea of equal opportunity for all. Some people are simply better placed to take advantage of opportunity.

—Deborah Orr in The Guardian, 2009[47]There is little income mobility——the notion of America as a land of opportunity is a myth.

—Joseph E. Stiglitz, 2012[48]In the substantive approach, the starting point before the race begins is unfair, since people have had differing experiences before even approaching the competition. The substantive approach examines the applicants themselves before applying for a position, and judges whether they have equal abilities or talents, and if not, then it suggests that authorities (usually the government) take steps to make applicants more equal before they get to the point where they compete for a position, and fixing the before-the-starting-point issues has sometimes been described as working towards "fair access to qualifications."[19] It seeks to remedy inequalities perhaps because of an "unfair disadvantage" based sometimes on "prejudice in the past."[9] According to John Hills, children of wealthy and well-connected parents usually have a decisive advantage over other types of children, and he notes that "advantage and disadvantage reinforce themselves over the life cycle, and often on to the next generation" so that successful parents pass along their wealth and education to succeeding generations, making it difficult for others to climb up a social ladder.[49] But so-called positive action efforts to bring an underprivileged person up to speed before a competition begins are limited to the period of time before the evaluation begins; at that point, the "final selection for posts must be made according to the principle the best person for the job," that is, a less qualified applicant should not be chosen over a more qualified applicant.[2] And there are nuanced views too:

one position suggested that the unequal results following a competition were unjust if caused by bad luck but just if chosen by the individual, and that weighing matters such as personal responsibility was important; this variant of the substantive model has sometimes been called luck egalitarianism.[19] Still, regardless of the nuances, the overall idea is to give children from less fortunate backgrounds more of a chance,[49] or to achieve at the beginning what some theorists call equality of condition.[2] Writer Ha-Joon Chang expressed this view:

We can accept the outcome of a competitive process as fair only when the participants have equality in basic capabilities; the fact that no one is allowed to have a head start does not make the race fair if some contestants have only one leg.

—Ha-Joon Chang in The Guardian, 2010[50]

Issues about equal opportunity have been raised about the skin color of runway models at the São Paulo Fashion Week; in 2009, quotas requiring that at least 10% of models be "black or indigenous" were imposed as a substantive way to counteract a "bias towards white models," according to one account.[28]

In a sense, substantive equality of opportunity moves the "starting point" further back in time. Sometimes it entails the use of affirmative action policies to help all contenders become equal before they get to the starting point, perhaps with greater training, or sometimes redistributing resources via coercion or taxation to make the contenders more equal. It holds that all who have a "genuine opportunity to become qualified" be given a chance to do so. And it is sometimes based on a recognition that unfairness exists, hindering social mobility, combined with a sense that the unfairness should not exist or should be lessened in some manner.[51] One example postulated was that a warrior society could provide special nutritional supplements to poor children, offer scholarships to military academies, and dispatch "warrior skills coaches" to every village as a way to make opportunity substantively more fair.[3] The idea is give every ambitious and talented youth a chance to compete for prize positions regardless of their circumstances of birth.[3]

The substantive approach tends to have a broader definition of extraneous circumstances which should be kept out of a hiring decision. One editorial writer suggested that among the many types of extraneous circumstances which should be kept out of hiring decisions was personal beauty, sometimes termed lookism:

Lookism judges individuals by their physical allure rather than abilities or merit. This naturally works to the advantage of people perceived to rank higher in the looks department. They get preferential treatment at the cost of others. Which fair, democratic system can justify this? If anything, lookism is as insidious as any other form of bias based on caste, creed, gender and race that society buys into.

It goes against the principle of equality of opportunity.

—The Times of India 2011[52]The substantive position was advocated by Bhikhu Parekh in 2000 in Rethinking Multiculturalism who wrote that "all citizens should enjoy equal opportunities to acquire the capacities and skills needed to function in society and to pursue their self-chosen goals equally effectively" and that "equalising measures are justified on grounds of justice as well as social integration and harmony."[2][53] Parekh argued that equal opportunities included so-called cultural rights which are "ensured by the politics of recognition."[2]

Affirmative action programs usually fall under the substantive category.[5] The idea is to help disadvantaged groups get back to a normal starting position after a long period of discrimination. The programs involve government action, sometimes with resources being transferred from an advantaged group to a disadvantaged one, and these programs have been justified on the grounds that imposing quotas counterbalances the past discrimination[3] as well as being a "compelling state interest" in diversity in society.[5] For example, there was a case in Sao Paulo in Brazil of a quota imposed on the São Paulo Fashion Week to require that "at least 10 percent of the models to be black or indigenous", as a coercive measure to counteract a "longstanding bias towards white models."[28] It does not have to be accomplished via government action; for example, in the 1980s in the United States, President Reagan dismantled parts of affirmative action, but one report in the Chicago Tribune suggested that companies remained committed to the principle of equal opportunity regardless of government requirements.[54] In another instance, upper-middle class students taking the Scholastic Aptitude Test in the United States performed better, since they had had more "economic and educational resources to prepare for these test than others."[5] The test, itself, was seen as fair in a formal sense, but the overall result was seen as nevertheless unfair. In India, the Indian Institutes of Technology found that to achieve substantive equality of opportunity, the school had to reserve 22.5 percent of seats for applicants from "historically disadvantaged schedule castes and tribes."[5][55] Elite universities in France began a special "entrance program" to help applicants from "impoverished suburbs."[5]

Equality of fair opportunity[edit]

Philosopher John Rawls offered this variant of substantive equality of opportunity, and explained that it happens when individuals with the same "native talent and the same ambition" have the same prospects of success in competitions.[3][56][57][58] Gordon Marshall offers a similar view with the words "positions are to be open to all under conditions in which persons of similar abilities have equal access to office."[23] An example was given: If two persons X and Y have identical talent but X is from a poor family while Y is from a rich one,

then equality of fair opportunity is in effect when both X and Y have the same chance of winning the job.[3] It suggests the ideal society is "classless" without a social hierarchy being passed from generation to generation, although parents can still pass along advantages to their children by genetics and socialization skills.[3] One view suggests that this approach might advocate "invasive interference in family life."[3] Marshall posed this question:

Does it demand that, however unequal their abilities, people should be equally empowered to achieve their goals? This would imply that the unmusical individual who wants to be a concert pianist should receive more training than the child prodigy.

—Gordon Marshall, 1998[23]Economist Paul Krugman agrees mostly with the Rawlsian approach in that he would like to "create the society each of us would want if we didn’t know in advance who we’d be."[59] Krugman elaborated: "If you admit that life is unfair, and that there’s only so much you can do about that at the starting line, then you can try to ameliorate the consequences of that unfairness."[59]

Level playing field[edit]

The match's outcome is deemed legitimate if there is a level playing field and rules do not favor either player or team arbitrarily. Photo: Cesc Fàbregas duels with Anderson in a football match in 2008.Some theorists have posed a level playing field conception of equality of opportunity,[3][19] similar in many respects to the substantive principle, (although it has been used in different contexts to describe formal equality of opportunity[9]) and it is a core idea regarding the subject of distributive justice espoused by John Roemer[34][60][61] and Ronald Dworkin[62][63] and others. Like the substantive notion, the level playing field conception goes farther than the usual formal approach.[34] The idea is that initial "unchosen inequalities" – prior circumstances over which an individual had no control but which impact his or her success in a given competition for a particular post – these unchosen inequalities should be eliminated as much as possible, according to this conception. According to Roemer, society should "do what it can to level the playing field so that all those

with relevant potential will eventually be admissible to pools of candidates competing for positions.[34] Afterwards, when an individual competes for a specific post, he or she might make specific choices which cause future inequalities – and these inequalities are deemed acceptable because of the previous presumption of fairness.[64] And this system helps undergird the legitimacy of a society's divvying up of roles as a result in the sense that it makes certain achieved inequalities "morally acceptable," according to persons who advocate this approach.[3] This conception has been contrasted to the substantive version among some thinkers, and it usually has ramifications for how society treats young persons in such areas as education and socialization and health care. But this conception has been criticized as well.[65][66][67] Rawls postulated the difference principle which argued that "inequalities are justified only if needed to improve the lot of the worst off, for example by giving the talented an incentive to create wealth."[2][23][63]

Meritocracy[edit]

There is some overlap among these different conceptions with the term meritocracy which describes an administrative system which rewards such factors as individual intelligence, credentials, education, morality, knowledge or other criteria believed to confer merit. Equality of opportunity is often seen as a major aspect of a meritocracy.[2][3] One view was that equality of opportunity was more focused on what happens before the race begins, while meritocracy is more focused on fairness at the competition stage.[68]

Moral senses[edit]

There is general agreement that equality of opportunity is good for society, although there are diverse views about how it is good, since it is a value judgement.[23] It is generally viewed as a positive political ideal in the abstract sense.[3] In nations where equality of opportunity is absent, it can negatively impact economic growth, according to some views; one report in Al Jazeera suggested that Egypt, Tunisia, and other Middle Eastern nations were stagnating economically in part because of a dearth of equal opportunity.[69] The principle of equal opportunity can conflict with notions of meritocracy in circumstances in which individual differences in human abilities are believed to be determined mostly by genetics; in such circumstances, there can be conflict about how to achieve fairness in such situations.[70]

Practical considerations[edit]

Difficulties with implementation[edit]

There is general agreement that programs to bring about certain types of equality of opportunity can be difficult, and that efforts to cause one result often have

unintended consequences or cause other problems. There is agreement that the formal approach is easier to implement than the others, although there are difficulties there too.

A government policy that requires equal treatment can pose problems for lawmakers. A requirement for government to provide equal health care services for all citizens can be prohibitively expensive. If government seeks equality of opportunity for citizens to get health care by rationing services using a maximization model to try to save money, new difficulties might emerge. For example, trying to ration health care by maximizing the "quality-adjusted years of life" might steer monies away from disabled persons even though they may be more deserving, according to one analysis.[3][71] In another instance, BBC News questioned whether it was wise to ask female army recruits to undergo the same strenuous tests as their male counterparts, since many women were being injured as a result.[72]

Age discimination can present vexing challenges for policymakers trying to implement equal opportunity.[3][73][74] According to several studies, attempts to be equally fair to both a young and an old person are problematic because the older person has presumably fewer years left to live, and it may make more sense for a society to invest greater resources in a younger person's health.[75][76] Treating both persons equally, while following the letter of the equality of opportunity, seems unfair from a different perspective.

Another difficulty is that it is hard for a society to bring substantive equality of opportunity to every type of position or industry. If a nation focuses efforts on some industries or positions, then people with other talents may be left out. For example, in an example in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, a warrior society might provide equal opportunity for all kinds of people to achieve military success through fair competition, but people with non-military skills such as farming may be left out.[3]

Lawmakers have run into problems trying to implement equality of opportunity. In 2010 in Britain, a legal requirement "forcing public bodies to try to reduce inequalities caused by class disadvantage" was scrapped after much debate, and replaced by a hope that organizations would try to focus more on "fairness" than "equality"; fairness is generally seen as a much vaguer concept than equality,[77] but easier for politicians to manage if they are seeking to avoid fractious debate. In New York City, mayor Ed Koch tried to find ways to maintain the "principle of equal treatment" while arguing against more substantive and abrupt transfer payments called minority set-asides.[78]

Equal opportunity issues are discussed at an army roundtable in Alabama.Many countries have specific bodies tasked with looking at equality of opportunity

issues; in the United States, for example, it is the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission;[16][79] in Britain, there is the Equality of opportunity committee[24] as well as the Equality and Human Rights Commission;[38] in Canada, the Royal Commission on the Status of Women has "equal opportunity as its precept."[80] In China, the Equal Opportunities Commission handles matters regarding ethnic prejudice.[81] In addition, there have been political movements pushing for equal treatment, such as the Women's Equal Opportunity League which in the early decades of the twentieth century, pushed for fair treatment by employers in the U.S.[82] One of the group's members explained:

I am not asking for sympathy but for an equal right with men to earn my own living in the best way open and under the most favorable conditions that I could choose for myself.

—Mrs. Terryberry, 1920, in The New York Times[82]

Difficulties with measurement[edit]

The consensus view is that trying to measure equality of opportunity is difficult[68] whether examining a single hiring decision or looking at groups over time.

• Single instance. It is possible to reexamine the procedures governing a specific hiring decision, see if they were followed, and re-evaluate the selection by asking questions such as: was it fair? were fair procedures followed? was the best applicant selected? This is a judgment call and it is possible that biases may enter into the minds of decision-makers. The determination of equality of opportunity in such an instance is based on mathematical probability: if equality of opportunity is in effect, then it's seen as fair if each of two applicants has a 50% chance of winning the job, that is, they both have equal chances to succeed (assuming of course that the person making the probability assessment is unaware of all variables – including valid ones such as talent or skill as well as arbitrary ones such as race or gender.) But it is hard to measure whether each applicant had, in fact, a 50% chance, based on the outcome.

• Groups. When assessing equal opportunity for a type of job or company or industry or nation, then statistical analysis is often done by looking at patterns and abnormalities,[3] typically comparing subgroups with larger groups on a percentage basis. If equality of opportunity is violated, perhaps by discrimination which affects a subgroup or population over time, it is possible to make this determination using statistical analysis, but there are numerous difficulties involved.[3] Nevertheless, entities such as city governments[83] and universities[84] have hired full-time professionals with knowledge of statistics to ensure compliance with equal opportunity regulations. For example, Colorado State University requires their director of its Office of Equal Opportunity to maintain extensive statistics on its employees by job category as well as minorities and gender.[85] In Britain,

Aberystwyth University collects information including the "representation of women, men, members of racial or ethnic minorities and people with disabilities amongst applicants for posts, candidates interviewed, new appointments, current staff, promotions and holders of discretionary awards" to comply with equal opportunity laws.[86]

It is difficult to prove unequal treatment although statistical analysis can provide indications of problems, but it is subject to conflicts over interpretation and methodological issues. For example, a study in 2007 by the University of Washington examined its own treatment of women. Researchers collected statistics about female participation in numerous aspects of university life, including percentages of women with full professorships (23%), enrollment in programs such as nursing (90%) and engineering (18%).[87] There is wide variation in how these statistics might be interpreted. For example, the 23% figure for women with full professorships could be compared to the total population of women (presumably 50%) perhaps using census data,[88] or it might be compared to the percentage of women with full professorships at competing universities. It might be used in an analysis of how many women applied for the position of full professor compared to how many women attained this position. Further, the 23% figure could be used as a benchmark or baseline figure as part of an ongoing longitudinal analysis to be compared with future surveys to track progress over time.[86][89] In addition, the strength of the conclusions is subject to statistical issues such as sample size and bias. For reasons such as these, there is considerable difficulty with most forms of statistical interpretation.

A computerized statistical analysis suggested nepotism and a practice of unequal opportunity within Italy's academic community. Photo: University of Bari.[90]

Statistical analysis of equal opportunity has been done using sophisticated examinations of computer databases. An analysis in 2011 by University of Chicago researcher Stefano Allesina examined 61,000 names of Italian professors by looking at the "frequency of last names", doing one million random drawings, and he suggested that Italian academia was characterized by violations of equal opportunity practices as a result of these investigations.[90] The last names of Italian professors tended to be similar more often than predicted by random chance.[90] The study suggested that newspaper accounts showing that "nine relatives from three generations of a single family (were) on the economics faculty" at the University of Bari were not aberrations, but indicated a pattern of nepotism throughout Italian academia.[90]

There is support for the view that often equality of opportunity is measured by the criteria of equality of outcome,[91] although with difficulty. In one example, an analysis of relative equality of opportunity was done based on outcomes, such as

a case to see whether hiring decisions were fair regarding men versus women; the analysis was done using statistics based on average salaries for different groups.[92][93] In another instance, a cross-sectional statistical analysis was conducted to see whether social class affected participation in the United States Armed Forces during the Vietnam War; a report in Time Magazine by MIT suggested that soldiers came from a variety of social classes, and that the principle of equal opportunity had worked,[94] possibly because soldiers had been chosen by a lottery process for conscription. In college admissions, equality of outcome can be measured directly by comparing offers of admission given to different groups of applicants; for example, there have been reports in newspapers of discrimination against Asian-Americans regarding college admissions in the United States which suggest that Asian-American applicants need higher grades and test scores to win admission to prestigious universities than other ethnic groups.[95][96]

This article is about the area of law. For remedies offered by this area of law, such as injunctions and specific performances, see equitable remedy.

The Court of Chancery, London, in the early 19th centuryIn jurisdictions following the English common law, equity is the set of legal principles that supplement strict rules of law where their application would operate harshly. In civil legal systems, broad "general clauses" allow judges to have similar leeway in applying the code.[1]

Equity is commonly said to "mitigate the rigor of common law", allowing courts to use their discretion and apply justice in accordance with natural law. In practice, modern equity is limited by substantive and procedural rules, and English and Australian legal writers tend to focus on technical aspects of equity. There are 12 "vague ethical statements", known as the Maxims of equity,[2][3] that guide the application of equity, and an additional five can be added.[2]

As noted below, a historical criticism of equity as it developed was that it had no fixed rules of its own, with the Lord Chancellor occasionally judging in the main according to his own conscience. The rules of equity later lost much of their flexibility, and from the 17th century onwards equity was rapidly consolidated into a system of precedents much like its common-law cousin.

History[edit]

Main article: History of equity

Equity was developed two or three hundred years after the birth of the common law system to resolve disputes where damages were not a suitable remedy, and in an effort to introduce fairness into the legal system. The distinction between "law" and "equity" is an accident of history. The law courts or "courts of law" were the courts in England that enforced the king's laws in medieval times. Here the King's Judges, educated in law rather than theology, administered the universal law of the realm.[4] This body of law evolved on the basis of previously set precedent into what is recognized as the Common law of England. However, if changes were not quick enough, or if decisions by the judges were regarded as unfair, litigants could still appeal directly to the King, who, as the sovereign, was seen as the 'fount of justice' and responsible for the just treatment of his subjects. Such filings were usually phrased in terms of throwing oneself upon the king's mercy or conscience. Eventually, the king began regularly to delegate the function of resolving such petitions to the Chancellor, an important member of the King's Council.[4] The early Chancellors were often clergymen, acting as the King's confessor and thereby sacerdotally as keeper of the King's conscience. As a result of their theological and clerical training, Chancellors were well versed in Latin and French, as well as in classical Roman civil and canon law, which heavily influenced the development of equity.[5] Soon the Chancery, the Crown's secretarial department, began to resemble a judicial body and became known as the "Court of Chancery".

By the 15th century, the judicial power of Chancery was recognized. Equity, as a body of rules, varied from Chancellor to Chancellor, until the end of the 16th century. After the end of the 17th century, only lawyers were appointed to the office of Chancellor.

One area in which the Court of Chancery assumed a vital role was the enforcement of uses, a role which the rigid framework of land law could not accommodate. This role gave rise to the basic distinction between legal and equitable interests.

Development of equity in England[edit]

It was early provided that, in seeking to remove one who wrongfully entered another's land with force and arms, a person could allege disseisin (dispossession) and demand (and pay for) a writ of entry. That writ not only gave him the written right to re-enter his own land, but it also established this right under the protection of the Crown if need be, whence its value. In 1253, to prevent judges from inventing new writs, Parliament provided that the power to issue writs would thereafter be transferred to judges only one writ at a time, in a "writ for right" package known as a form of action. However, because it was limited to enumerated writs for enumerated rights and wrongs, the writ system sometimes produced unjust results. Thus, even though the King's Bench might have jurisdiction over a case and might have the power to issue the perfect writ,

the plaintiff might still not have a case if there was not a single form of action combining them. Therefore, lacking a legal remedy, the plaintiff's only option would be petitioning the King.

People started petitioning the King for relief against unfair judgments and as the number of petitioners rapidly grew, the King delegated the task of hearing petitions to the Lord Chancellor. As the early Chancellors had no formal legal training, and were not guided by precedent, their decisions were often widely diverse. However, in 1529 a lawyer, Sir Thomas More, was appointed as Chancellor, marking the beginning of a new era. After this time, all future Chancellors were lawyers, and from around 1557 onwards, records of proceedings in the Courts of Chancery were kept, leading to the development of a number of equitable doctrines. Criticisms continued, the most famous being 17th century jurist John Selden's aphorism: ‘Equity is a roguish thing: for law we have a measure, know what to trust to; equity is according to the conscience of him that is Chancellor, and as that is larger or narrower, so is equity. ‘Tis all one as if they should make the standard for the measure we call a foot, a Chancellor’s foot; what an uncertain measure would this be? One Chancellor has a long foot, another a short foot, a third an indifferent foot: ‘tis the same thing in a Chancellor’s conscience.’[6]

As the law of equity developed, it began to rival and conflict with the common law. Litigants would go ‘jurisdiction shopping’ and often would seek an equitable injunction prohibiting the enforcement of a common law court order. The penalty for disobeying an equitable ‘common injunction’ and enforcing a common law judgment was imprisonment.

The Chief Justice of the King’s Bench, Sir Edward Coke, began the practice of issuing writs of habeas corpus that required the release of people imprisoned for contempt of chancery orders.

This tension grew to an all-time high in the Earl of Oxford’s case (1615), where a judgment of Chief Justice Coke was allegedly obtained by fraud.[7] The Lord Chancellor, Lord Ellesmere, issued a common injunction out of the Chancery prohibiting the enforcement of the common law order. The two courts became locked in a stalemate, and the matter was eventually referred to the Attorney-General, Sir Francis Bacon. Sir Francis, by authority of King James I, upheld the use of the common injunction and concluded that in the event of any conflict between the common law and equity, equity would prevail. Equity's primacy in England was later enshrined in the Judicature Acts of the 1870s, which also served to fuse the courts of equity and the common law (although emphatically not the systems themselves) into one unified court system.

Once equity became a body of law, rather than an arbitrary exercise of conscience, there was no reason why it needed its own courts. Consequently the Judicature Act was established, which is the basis of the court structure in

England to this date, to ensure that there would no longer be different procedures for seeking equitable and common law remedies. The Judicature Acts fused only the administration of common law and equity; there is still a body of rules of equity which is quite distinct from that of common law rules, and acts as an addition to it. Although they are implemented by the same courts, the two branches of the law are separate. Where there is conflict, equity still prevails.[8]

Statute of Uses 1535[edit]

In order to avoid paying land taxes and other feudal dues, lawyers developed a primitive form of trust called ‘the use’. This trust enabled one person (who was not required to pay tax) to hold the legal title of the land for the use of another person. The effect of this trust was that the first person owned the land under the common law, but the second person had a right to use the land under the law of equity.

Henry VIII enacted the Statute of Uses in 1535 (which became effective in 1536) in an attempt to outlaw this practice and recover lost revenue. The Act effectively made the beneficial owner of the land the legal owner, and liable for feudal dues.

The response of the lawyers to this Statute was to create the 'use upon a use'. The Statute recognized only the first use, and so land owners were again able to separate the legal and beneficial interests in their land.

For an example, see Godwyne v. Profyt (after 1393): a petition to the Chancellor[9]

See generally treatises on equity and trusts.

Comparison of equity traditions in common law countries[edit]

drifting from the original in an irreversible departure from the English way of making laws and deciding cases. Nonetheless, each former colony acknowledged the reception of the common law and equity of England as a vital source of their jurisprudence.

The comparative question is an easy one to pose. Did English equity develop maturity early enough that all of its derivative systems necessarily tended toward the same doctrines, based on exactly the same set of general principles? Or did the split-offs of any of the colonies occur somewhere in the middle of its development so that substantial permanent differences resulted? One equity, or many?

The answer generally accepted in America, the earliest of the English colonies to gain independence, is the former, that the outcome of a case to be decided today upon principles of equity should be expected to be substantially the same

whether decided in the UK or the US. The reasonableness of the belief enjoys strong historical support.

The perfection of modern equity as a system has been authoritatively credited to Philip Yorke, 1st Earl of Hardwicke who served as Chancellor 1737–1756.[citation needed]

For a review of several distinct approaches to identifying how law changes that utilize English legal history as a test bed see Robert Palmer, English Legal History course.

United States[edit]

In modern practice, perhaps the most important distinction between law and equity is the set of remedies each offers. The most common civil remedy a court of law can award is monetary damages. Equity, however, enters injunctions or decrees directing someone either to act or to forbear from acting. Often this form of relief is in practical terms more valuable to a litigant; for example, a plaintiff whose neighbor will not return his only milk cow, which had wandered onto the neighbor's property, may want that particular cow back, and not just its monetary value. However, in general, a litigant cannot obtain equitable relief unless there is "no adequate remedy at law"; that is, a court will not grant an injunction unless monetary damages are an insufficient remedy for the injury in question. Law courts can also enter certain types of immediately enforceable orders, called "writs" (such as a writ of habeas corpus), but they are less flexible and less easily obtained than an injunction.

Another distinction is the unavailability of a jury in equity: the judge is the trier of fact. In the American legal system, the right of jury trial in civil cases tried in federal court is guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment, but only "[i]n Suits at common law," i.e., in cases that traditionally would have been handled by the law courts. The question of whether a case should be determined by a jury depends largely on the type of relief the plaintiff requests. If a plaintiff requests damages in the form of money or certain other forms of relief, such as the return of a specific item of property, the remedy is considered legal, and a jury is available as the fact-finder. On the other hand, if the plaintiff requests an injunction, declaratory judgment, specific performance, or modification of contract, or some other non-monetary relief, the claim would usually be one in equity.

Thomas Jefferson explained in 1785 that there are three main limitations on the power of a court of equity: "If the legislature means to enact an injustice, however palpable, the court of Chancery is not the body with whom a correcting power is lodged. That it shall not interpose in any case which does not come within a general description and admit of redress by a general and practicable rule."[10] The U.S. Supreme Court, however, has concluded that courts have wide discretion to fashion relief in cases of equity. The first major statement of this

power came in Willard v. Tayloe, 75 U.S. 557 (1869). The Court concluded, "...relief is not a matter of absolute right to either party; it is a matter resting in the discretion of the court, to be exercised upon a consideration of all the circumstances of each particular case."[11] Willard v. Tayloe was for many years the leading case in contract law regarding intent and enforcement.[12][13] as well as equity.[12][14]

In the United States today, the federal courts and most state courts have merged law and equity in the courts of general jurisdiction, such as county courts. However, the substantive distinction between law and equity has retained its old vitality.[15] This difference is not a mere technicality, because the successful handling of certain law cases is difficult or impossible unless a temporary restraining order (TRO) or preliminary injunction is issued at the outset, to restrain someone from fleeing the jurisdiction taking the only property available to satisfy a judgment, for instance. Furthermore, certain statutes like ERISA specifically authorize only equitable relief, which forces U.S. courts to analyze in lengthy detail whether the relief demanded in particular cases brought under those statutes would have been available in equity.[16]

Equity courts were widely distrusted in the northeastern U.S. following the American Revolution. A serious movement for merger of law and equity began in the states in the mid-19th century, when David Dudley Field II convinced New York State to adopt what became known as the Field Code of 1848.[17] The federal courts did not abandon the old law/equity separation until the promulgation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 1938.

Today three states still have separate courts for law and equity; the most notable is Delaware, whose Court of Chancery is where most cases involving Delaware corporations are decided.[18] However, merger in some states is less than complete; some other states (such as Illinois and New Jersey) have separate divisions for legal and equitable matters in a single court. Besides corporate law, which developed out of the law of trusts, areas traditionally handled by chancery courts included wills and probate, adoptions and guardianships, and marriage and divorce.

After U.S. courts merged law and equity, American law courts adopted many of the procedures of equity courts. The procedures in a court of equity were much more flexible than the courts at common law. In American practice, certain devices such as joinder, counterclaim, cross-claim and interpleader originated in the courts of equity. Also, the modern class action evolved out of the equitable doctrine of virtual representation, which enabled a court of equity to fully dispose of an estate even though it might contain contingent interests held by persons which the court did not have direct jurisdiction over.

Justice is a concept of moral rightness based ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, equity and fairness, as well as the administration of the law, taking into account the inalienable and inborn rights of all human beings and citizens, the right of all people and individuals to equal protection before the law of their civil rights, without discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, color, ethnicity, religion, disability, age, wealth, or other characteristics, and is further regarded as being inclusive of social justice.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8]

Concept[edit]

Further information: Justice (virtue) and Cardinal virtuesAccording to most contemporary theories of justice, justice is overwhelmingly important: John Rawls claims that "Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought."[9] Justice can be thought of as distinct from benevolence, charity, prudence, mercy, generosity, or compassion, although these dimensions are regularly understood to also be interlinked. Justice is the concept of cardinal virtues, of which it is one. Justice has traditionally been associated with concepts of fate, reincarnation or Divine Providence, i.e. with a life in accordance with the cosmic plan. The association of justice with fairness has thus been historically and culturally rare and is perhaps chiefly a modern innovation [in western societies].[10]

Studies at UCLA in 2008 have indicated that reactions to fairness are "wired" into the brain and that, "Fairness is activating the same part of the brain that responds to food in rats... This is consistent with the notion that being treated fairly satisfies a basic need".[11] Research conducted in 2003 at Emory University involving capuchin monkeys demonstrated that other cooperative animals also possess such a sense and that "inequity aversion may not be uniquely human"[12] indicating that ideas of fairness and justice may be instinctual in nature.

Variations[edit]

Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, where punishment is forward-looking. Justified by the ability to achieve future social benefits resulting in crime reduction, the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome.

Retributive justice regulates proportionate response to crime proven by lawful evidence, so that punishment is justly imposed and considered as morally correct and fully deserved. The law of retaliation (lex talionis) is a military theory of retributive justice, which says that reciprocity should be equal to the wrong

suffered; "life for life, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."[13]

Restorative justice is concerned not so much with retribution and punishment as with (a) making the victim whole and (b) reintegrating the offender into society. This approach frequently brings an offender and a victim together, so that the offender can better understand the effect his/her offense had on the victim.

Distributive justice is directed at the proper allocation of things—wealth, power, reward, respect—among different people.

Understandings[edit]

Justice by Luca Giordano.Understandings of justice differ in every culture, as cultures are usually dependent upon a shared history, mythology and/or religion. Each culture's ethics create values which influence the notion of justice. Although there can be found some justice principles that are one and the same in all or most of the cultures, these are insufficient to create a unitary justice apprehension.

Harmony[edit]

Main article: Republic (dialogue)In his dialogue Republic, Plato uses Socrates to argue for justice that covers both the just person and the just City State. Justice is a proper, harmonious relationship between the warring parts of the person or city. Hence Plato's definition of justice is that justice is the having and doing of what is one's own. A just man is a man in just the right place, doing his best and giving the precise equivalent of what he has received. This applies both at the individual level and at the universal level. A person's soul has three parts – reason, spirit and desire. Similarly, a city has three parts – Socrates uses the parable of the chariot to illustrate his point: a chariot works as a whole because the two horses’ power is directed by the charioteer. Lovers of wisdom – philosophers, in one sense of the term – should rule because only they understand what is good. If one is ill, one goes to a doctor rather than a psychologist, because the doctor is expert in the subject of health. Similarly, one should trust one's city to an expert in the subject of the good, not to a mere politician who tries to gain power by giving people what they want, rather than what's good for them. Socrates uses the parable of the ship to illustrate this point: the unjust city is like a ship in open ocean, crewed by a powerful but drunken captain (the common people), a group of untrustworthy advisors who try to manipulate the captain into giving them power over the ship's course (the politicians), and a navigator (the philosopher) who is the only one who knows how to get the ship to port. For Socrates, the only way the ship will reach its destination – the good – is if the navigator takes charge.[14]

Divine command[edit]

Main article: Divine command theorySee also: Divine judgmentAdvocates of divine command theory argue that justice, and indeed the whole of morality, is the authoritative command of God. Murder is wrong and must be punished, for instance, because, and only because, God commands that it be so.

Divine command theory was famously questioned by Plato in his dialogue, Euthyphro. Called the Euthyphro dilemma, it goes as follows: "Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?" The implication is that if the latter is true, then justice is arbitrary; if the former is true, then morality exists on a higher order than God, who becomes little more than a passer-on of moral knowledge.

Many apologists have addressed the issue, typically by arguing that is it a false dilemma. For example, some Christian apologists argue that goodness is the very nature of God, and there is necessarily reflected in His commands.[15] Another response, popularized in two contexts by Immanuel Kant and C. S. Lewis, is that it is deductively valid to argue that the existence of an objective morality implies the existence of God and vice versa.

Natural law[edit]

Main article: Natural lawFor advocates of the theory that justice is part of natural law (e.g., John Locke), it involves the system of consequences that naturally derives from any action or choice. In this, it is similar to the laws of physics: in the same way as the Third of Newton's laws of Motion requires that for every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction, justice requires according individuals or groups what they actually deserve, merit, or are entitled to. Justice, on this account, is a universal and absolute concept: laws, principles, religions, etc., are merely attempts to codify that concept, sometimes with results that entirely contradict the true nature of justice.

Human creation[edit]

In contrast to the understandings canvassed so far, justice may be understood as a human creation, rather than a discovery of harmony, divine command, or natural law. This claim can be understood in a number of ways, with the fundamental division being between those who argue that justice is the creation of some humans, and those who argue that it is the creation of all humans.

Trickery[edit]

In Republic by Plato, the character Thrasymachus argues that justice is the interest of the strong—merely a name for what the powerful or cunning ruler has

imposed on the people.

Further information: The Republic (Plato)Mutual agreement[edit]

Main article: Social contractAccording to thinkers in the social contract tradition, justice is derived from the mutual agreement of everyone concerned; or, in many versions, from what they would agree to under hypothetical conditions including equality and absence of bias. This account is considered further below, under ‘Justice as fairness’. The absence of bias refers to an equal ground for all people concerned in a disagreement (or trial in some cases).

Subordinate value[edit]

According to utilitarian thinkers including John Stuart Mill, justice is not as fundamental as we often think. Rather, it is derived from the more basic standard of rightness, consequentialism: what is right is what has the best consequences (usually measured by the total or average welfare caused). So, the proper principles of justice are those that tend to have the best consequences. These rules may turn out to be familiar ones such as keeping contracts; but equally, they may not, depending on the facts about real consequences. Either way, what is important is those consequences, and justice is important, if at all, only as derived from that fundamental standard. Mill tries to explain our mistaken belief that justice is overwhelmingly important by arguing that it derives from two natural human tendencies: our desire to retaliate against those who hurt us, and our ability to put ourselves imaginatively in another's place. So, when we see someone harmed, we project ourselves into her situation and feel a desire to retaliate on her behalf. If this process is the source of our feelings about justice, that ought to undermine our confidence in them.[16]

Theories of distributive justice[edit]

Main article: Distributive justice

Allegory or The Triumph of Justice by Hans von Aachen.Theories of distributive justice need to answer three questions:

• What goods are to be distributed? Is it to be wealth, power, respect, some combination of these things?

• Between what entities are they to be distributed? Humans (dead, living, future), sentient beings, the members of a single society, nations?

• What is the proper distribution? Equal, meritocratic, according to social status, according to need, based on property rights and non-aggression?

Distributive justice theorists generally do not answer questions of who has the

right to enforce a particular favored distribution. On the other hand, property rights theorists argue that there is no "favored distribution." Rather, distribution should be based simply on whatever distribution results from non-coerced interactions or transactions (that is, transactions not based upon force or fraud).

This section describes some widely held theories of distributive justice, and their attempts to answer these questions.

Egalitarianism[edit]

Main article: EgalitarianismAccording to the egalitarian, justice can only exist within the coordinates of equality. This basic view can be elaborated in many different ways, according to what goods are to be distributed—wealth, respect, opportunity—and what they are to be distributed equally between—individuals, families, nations, races, species. Commonly held egalitarian positions include demands for equality of opportunity and for equality of outcome. It affirms that freedom and justice without equality are hollow and that equality itself is the highest justice.

At a cultural level, egalitarian theories have developed in sophistication and acceptance during the past two hundred years. Among the notable broadly egalitarian philosophies are socialism, communism, anarchism, left-libertarianism, and progressivism, all of which propound economic, political, and legal egalitarianism, respectively. Several egalitarian ideas enjoy wide support among intellectuals and in the general populations of many countries. Whether any of these ideas have been significantly implemented in practice, however, remains a controversial question. One argument is that liberalism provides democracy with the experience of civic reformism. Without it, democracy loses any tie─argumentative or practical─to a coherent design of public policy endeavoring to provide the resources for the realization of democratic citizenship.

Giving people what they deserve[edit]

In one sense, all theories of distributive justice claim that everyone should get what they deserve. Theories disagree on the basis for deserving. The main distinction is between theories that argue the basis of just deserts is held equally by everyone, and therefore derive egalitarian accounts of distributive justice—and theories that argue the basis of just deserts is unequally distributed on the basis of, for instance, hard work, and therefore derive accounts of distributive justice by which some should have more than others. This section deals with some popular theories of the second type.

According to meritocratic theories, goods, especially wealth and social status, should be distributed to match individual merit, which is usually understood as some combination of talent and hard work. According to needs-based theories, goods, especially such basic goods as food, shelter and medical care, should be

distributed to meet individuals' basic needs for them. Marxism can be regarded as a needs-based theory on some readings of Marx's slogan "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".[17] According to contribution-based theories, goods should be distributed to match an individual's contribution to the overall social good.

Fairness[edit]

Main article: A Theory of Justice

J. L. Urban, statue of Lady Justice at court building in Olomouc, Czech Republic.In his A Theory of Justice, John Rawls used a social contract argument to show that justice, and especially distributive justice, is a form of fairness: an impartial distribution of goods. Rawls asks us to imagine ourselves behind a veil of ignorance that denies us all knowledge of our personalities, social statuses, moral characters, wealth, talents and life plans, and then asks what theory of justice we would choose to govern our society when the veil is lifted, if we wanted to do the best that we could for ourselves. We don’t know who in particular we are, and therefore can’t bias the decision in our own favour. So, the decision-in-ignorance models fairness, because it excludes selfish bias. Rawls argues that each of us would reject the utilitarian theory of justice that we should maximize welfare (see below) because of the risk that we might turn out to be someone whose own good is sacrificed for greater benefits for others. Instead, we would endorse Rawls's two principles of justice:

• Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all.

• Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are bothto the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just

savings principle, andattached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair

equality of opportunity.[18]

This imagined choice justifies these principles as the principles of justice for us, because we would agree to them in a fair decision procedure. Rawls's theory distinguishes two kinds of goods – (1) liberties and (2) social and economic goods, i.e. wealth, income and power – and applies different distributions to them – equality between citizens for (1), equality unless inequality improves the position of the worst off for (2).

Property rights[edit]

Further information: Libertarianism and Constitutional economicsIn Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Robert Nozick argues that distributive justice is not a matter of the whole distribution matching an ideal pattern, but of each

individual entitlement having the right kind of history. It is just that a person has some good (especially, some property right) if and only if they came to have it by a history made up entirely of events of two kinds:

• Just acquisition, especially by working on unowned things; and• Just transfer, that is free gift, sale or other agreement, but not theft (i.e. by force

or fraud).If the chain of events leading up to the person having something meets this criterion, they are entitled to it: that they possess it is just, and what anyone else does or doesn't have or need is irrelevant.

On the basis of this theory of distributive justice, Nozick argues that all attempts to redistribute goods according to an ideal pattern, without the consent of their owners, are theft. In particular, redistributive taxation is theft.

Some property rights theorists also take a consequentialist view of distributive justice and argue that property rights based justice also has the effect of maximizing the overall wealth of an economic system. They explain that voluntary (non-coerced) transactions always have a property called pareto efficiency. The result is that the world is better off in an absolute sense and no one is worse off. Such consequentialist property rights theorists argue that respecting property rights maximizes the number of pareto efficient transactions in the world and minimized the number of non-pareto efficient transactions in the world (i.e. transactions where someone is made worse off). The result is that the world will have generated the greatest total benefit from the limited, scarce resources available in the world. Further, this will have been accomplished without taking anything away from anyone by coercion.

Welfare-maximization[edit]

Main article: UtilitarianismAccording to the utilitarian, justice requires the maximization of the total or average welfare across all relevant individuals. This may require sacrifice of some for the good of others, so long as everyone's good is taken impartially into account. Utilitarianism, in general, argues that the standard of justification for actions, institutions, or the whole world, is impartial welfare consequentialism, and only indirectly, if at all, to do with rights, property, need, or any other non-utilitarian criterion. These other criteria might be indirectly important, to the extent that human welfare involves them. But even then, such demands as human rights would only be elements in the calculation of overall welfare, not uncrossable barriers to action.

Theories of sentencing[edit]

In criminal law, a sentence forms the final explicit act of a judge-ruled process, and also the symbolic principal act connected to his function. The sentence can

generally involve a decree of imprisonment, a fine and/or other punishments against a defendant convicted of a crime. Laws may specify the range of penalties that can be imposed for various offenses, and sentencing guidelines sometimes regulate what punishment within those ranges can be imposed given a certain set of offense and offender characteristics. The most common purposes of sentencing in legal theory are:

Theory Aim of theory

RetributionPunishment imposed for no reason other than an offense being committed, on the basis that if that satisfies the aggrieved party, their intimates and society.

Deterrence• To the individual - the individual is deterred through fear of further punishment.• To the general public - Potential offenders warned as to likely punishment

Rehabilitation

To reform the offender's behavior

Incapacitation

Offender is made incapable of committing further crime to protect society at large from crime

Reparation Repayment to victim(s) or to community

Denunciation Society expressing its disapproval reinforcing moral boundaries

In civil cases the decision is usually known as a verdict, or judgment, rather than a sentence. Civil cases are settled primarily by means of monetary compensation for harm done ("damages") and orders intended to prevent future harm (for example injunctions). Under some legal systems an award of damages involves some scope for retribution, denunciation and deterrence, by means of additional categories of damages beyond simple compensation, covering a punitive effect, social disapprobation, and potentially, deterrence, and occasionally disgorgement (forfeit of any gain, even if no loss was caused to the other party).

Theories of retributive justice[edit]

Walter Seymour Allward's Justitia (Justice), outside Supreme Court of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario CanadaTheories of retributive justice are concerned with punishment for wrongdoing,

and need to answer three questions:

1.why punish?2.who should be punished?3.what punishment should they receive?This section considers the two major accounts of retributive justice, and their answers to these questions. Utilitarian theories look forward to the future consequences of punishment, while retributive theories look back to particular acts of wrongdoing, and attempt to balance them with deserved punishment.

Utilitarianism[edit]

According to the utilitarian, as already noted, justice requires the maximization of the total or average welfare across all relevant individuals. Punishment fights crime in three ways:

1.Deterrence. The credible threat of punishment might lead people to make different choices; well-designed threats might lead people to make choices that maximize welfare.

2.Rehabilitation. Punishment might make bad people into better ones. For the utilitarian, all that 'bad person' can mean is 'person who's likely to cause bad things (like suffering)'. So, utilitarianism could recommend punishment that changes someone such that they are less likely to cause bad things.

3.Security/Incapacitation. Perhaps there are people who are irredeemable causers of bad things. If so, imprisoning them might maximize welfare by limiting their opportunities to cause harm and therefore the benefit lies within protecting society.

So, the reason for punishment is the maximization of welfare, and punishment should be of whomever, and of whatever form and severity, are needed to meet that goal. Worryingly, this may sometimes justify punishing the innocent, or inflicting disproportionately severe punishments, when that will have the best consequences overall (perhaps executing a few suspected shoplifters live on television would be an effective deterrent to shoplifting, for instance). It also suggests that punishment might turn out never to be right, depending on the facts about what actual consequences it has.[19]

Retributivism[edit]

The retributivist will think the utilitarian's argument disastrously mistaken. If someone does something wrong, we must respond to it, and to him or her, as an individual not as a part of a calculation of overall welfare. To do otherwise is to disrespect him or her as an individual human being. If the crime had victims, it is to disrespect them, too. Wrongdoing must be balanced or made good in some way, and so the criminal deserves to be punished. It says that all guilty people, and only guilty people, deserve appropriate punishment. This matches some

strong intuitions about just punishment: that it should be proportional to the crime, and that it should be of only and all of the guilty. However, it is sometimes argued that retributivism is merely revenge in disguise.[20] However, there are differences between retribution and revenge: the former is impartial and has a scale of appropriateness, whereas the latter is personal and potentially unlimited in scale.

Restorative justice[edit]

Main article: Restorative justiceRestorative justice (also sometimes called "reparative justice") is an approach to justice that focuses on the needs of victims and offenders, instead of satisfying abstract legal principles or punishing the offender. Victims take an active role in the process, while offenders are encouraged to take responsibility for their actions, "to repair the harm they've done—by apologizing, returning stolen money, or community service". It is based on a theory of justice that considers crime and wrongdoing to be an offense against an individual or community rather than the state. Restorative justice that fosters dialogue between victim and offender shows the highest rates of victim satisfaction and offender accountability[citation needed].

Mixed theories[edit]

Some modern philosophers have argued that Utilitarian and Retributive theories are not mutually exclusive. For example, Andrew von Hirsch, in his 1976 book Doing Justice, suggested that we have a moral obligation to punish greater crimes more than lesser ones. However, so long as we adhere to that constraint then utilitarian ideals would play a significant secondary role.

Evolutionary perspectives[edit]

Evolutionary ethics and an argued evolution of morality suggest evolutionary bases for the concept of justice. Biosocial criminology research argues that human perceptions of what is appropriate criminal justice are based on how to respond to crimes in the ancestral small-group environment and that these responses may not always be appropriate for today's societies.

Institutions[edit]

Main article: LawIn a world where people are interconnected but they disagree, institutions are required to instantiate ideals of justice. These institutions may be justified by their approximate instantiation of justice, or they may be deeply unjust when compared with ideal standards — consider the institution of slavery. Justice is an ideal the world fails to live up to, sometimes despite good intentions, sometimes

disastrously. The question of institutive justice raises issues of legitimacy, procedure, codification and interpretation, which are considered by legal theorists and by philosophers of law.

Another definition of justice is an independent investigation of truth. In a court room, lawyers, the judge and the jury are supposed to be independently investigating the truth of an alleged crime. In physics, a group of physicists examine data and theoretical concepts to consult on what might be the truth or reality of a phenomenon.