Justice is the act of giving people what they deserve. The writer displays it as the acct of promoting virtue, maximizing welfare or respecting freedom. He shows moral reasoning as either categorical (which shows morality in certain duties and rights) or consequential (which locates morality in the consequences of an act). This text triggers a new perspective of looking into actions. In Hong Kong, hyper-inflation, food rationing and social oppression creates a debate on the fairness of the treatments. It was morally crooked however it was necessary to provide sustenance to the soldiers. Therefore what is right is not just all the time.
Welfare, freedom and virtue are the main determinants of a free and just society. Justice relies on the distribution of income and wealth, duties and rights, powers and opportunities, offices and honor. Price gouging is considered a vice. Inflated prices arise due to “vultures” capitalizing on people’s hardship and misery. According to the society and majority views, this is unjust. It is greed, a single-minded desire for gain. However, this is practical in daily lives. Economists view the debate as biased as according to them there is no ‘just price’ as supply and demand dictate a free market.
The awarding of the Purple Heart medal to physically injured soldiers is inconsistent with my thinking. The dispute illustrates the moral logic of the theory of justice. There is no justice without a clear stipulation of virtues. This should not be the case as sacrifices are equal and denying the psychologically affected soldiers a medal is unfair. Similarly, the runaway trolley is inconsistent with my thinking. Saving lives of five by killing one person is morally wrong as the person is not involved in the decision and that is murder. No matter the arguments this is not fair or just.