Justice

So far we have seen a few different versions of what justice means. Martin Luther King Jr. and Thoreau, both believed that justice was not necessarily defined by law, but instead had to come froma persons moral or ethical beliefs. Rawls on the other hand thought that justice could only exist when a fair, unbiased original situation existed.
Everyone has a slighltly different definition of justice, and it also differs from culture to culture. We have seen that the writings of these three authors still have relevance in the modern world. However, are the writings practical or realistic? King and Thoreau advocate civil disobediance as a way of protest and making change. Unfortunately, such action is only effective when there are many people involved. They believed that sometimes citizens had to against the law in order to serve justice, but ther are not that many people in today's world that would actually do that.
Rawls on the other hand was highly idealistic. It is human nature to have biases and it is hardly realistic to believe that justice can extist while not giving advantages to some. It is just not how the world works.
Justice is a part of the nation's conscience, the idea of equality and fairness. In the end each person must make their own decisions about what is just. Together citizens create a belief in justice that is supposedly fitting for a democratic country.