Browsing by Subject "Justice"

Filter results by typing the first few letters
Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Justice and police
    (Macmillan and co., 1885) Maitland, F. W.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Justice and punishment: a critical study on the ethics of kautilyan daṇḍanīti
    (University of North Bengal, 2024-03) Ghosh, Swagata
    In Kautilya’s Arthaśāstra, the third and the fourth adhikaraṇa deal specifically with the law and order of his administrative theory. The third adhikaraṇa is known as dharmasthīya, concerning the judiciary and the officials, while the fourth adhikaraṇa is referred to as kantakasodhana, that is, repression of criminals. Kautilya subscribed to a theory of the maintenance of law and order by the government through punishment, referred to as daṇḍanīti. His penal system is based on a complex interplay between monetary and physical punishments. The combination of monetary penalties and corporeal punishments speak of a certain balance that is much necessary to execute convicts of various forms and strata. The implementation of exemplary punishments, including capital punishment speak of the fact that justice has to be restored by any means, even it be by instilling fear in the minds of the people. This might raise the issue of using the offender as the means to keep the society disciplined. Further, and the most important feature of Kautilya’s system of justice is that the King and the concerned officials are trained in ānvīkṣikī (the science of logic and enquiries into truth), based on dharma, that is, righteousness. Thus, Kautilya, one of the greatest visionary of statecraft and politics of all times, successfully establishes a code of law for the commoners, as well as the powerholders, that ensure the repression of crime as far as practicable, and accordingly, the maintenance of a just state.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    ItemOpen Access
    Theories of justice and the epistemic foundations of pluralism
    (University of North Bengal, 2024-03) Md. Inamur Rahaman
    The conception of justice as the “first virtue of social institutions” (Rawls, 1971) and the “virtue of soul” (Plato, 1956) puts forth two different points of view in the realm of social-political thought. From one point of view, the demand for objective principles of justice at the institutional level presupposes a particular epistemic framework where universal/objective truth and specific methods to reach it have been given importance. I would delve into arguing that the presuppositions to reach objectivity in the epistemic and the political realm are quite similar. It is the epistemological foundation of Descartes that facilitates the political to seek objectivity in its principles. On the other hand, by proposing justice as the “virtue of soul”, Plato proposes an epistemology that is grounded in his notion of the Good. The individual in these two epistemological and political systems engages with the world from two completely different approaches. In this paper, I will explore the relationship of these epistemic frameworks with their respective theories of justice and consider the scope of pluralism.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access