For a war to be just, three conditions are necessary—public authority, just cause, right motive.
For a war to be just three conditions are necessary - public authority, just cause, right motive.
To argue about justice is unavoidably to argue about virtues, about substantive moral and even spiritual questions.
The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance.
All calls for justice require that victims feel avenged, and revenge is never just if it’s disproportionate.
Justice is never anything in itself, but in the dealings of men with one another in any place whatever and at any time. It is a kind of compact not to harm or be harmed.
Today, criminal justice functions and justifies itself only by this perpetual reference to something other than itself, by this unceasing reinscription in non-juridical systems.
Whatever we, as prospective participants unaware of our specific features, would desire society to be like is what, morally speaking, we ought to institute.
To each according to his threat advantage does not count as a principle of justice.
Free trade is not based on utility but on justice.
Human rights takes history out of justice.
An intuitionist conception of justice is, one might say, but half a conception.
The elements of justice are identical with those of algebra.
The justice of a war basically refers to the question whether there is a right to attack in the first place. Justice in a war is concerned with whether the fighting happens in accordance with the international laws of war.
Justice in holdings is historical; it depends upon what actually has happened. We shall return to this point later.
Thus I assume that to each according to his threat advantage is not a conception of justice.
