The Sixth Asian Conference on Ethics, Religion and Philosophy

Країна: Японія

Місто: Kobe

Тези до: 01.12.2015

Дати: 31.03.16 — 03.04.16

Область наук: Філософські;

Е-мейл Оргкомітету: acerp@iafor.org

Організатори: IAFOR - The International Academic Forum

 

ACERP2016 Conference Theme: “Justice”     Justice is one of, if not the most challenging, controversial and complex but also universal concepts at the root of all philosophical, ethical and religious discourse. From ancient times it was a practical challenge to all emerging forms of excessive authority. The Hebrew prophet Amos (c 800 BCE) called for justice to flow like a mighty river (Amos 5:24). The Greek term dikaiosunei was the central issue in Plato’s theory of the state. Jesus of Nazareth instructed his disciples to seek the Kingdom of God and its “justice” (dokaiosunei: St. Matthew 6:33). Justitia was basic to the Roman view of the world: “fiat justitia, ruat caelum,” (may there be justice though the heavens fall). The famous 1217 Magna Carta, agreed to by King John of England still forms an important symbol of liberty to the present day, often cited by politicians and campaigners, and is held in great respect by the British and American legal communities. Lord Denning described it as “the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot.” Western law and jurisprudence owe a great deal to it. In modern times, Professor John Rawls revitalized the debate about the nature of justice in his masterpiece Theory of Justice New York: Bellknap Press, 1971 in which he linked justice with fairness in an attempt to redefine the concept in the democratic tradition.   Modern theories of retributive justice are concerned with punishment for wrongdoing. That debate as to how to deal with deviant behavior remains. Public hanging, for example, as a deterrent punishment in Britain did not end until the early 20th century. The death penalty remained in force until its abolition for murder in 1965 and finally in all circumstances in 1998. Currently debated alongside older theories of retributive and distributive justice are the more controversial theories of restorative justice (also sometimes called “reparative justice”) that focus on the needs of victims and offenders. The controversy about what is justice remains elusive and enigmatic.   Some of the obvious questions to be asked are how these theories relate to the modern world. A drone aircraft that causes substantial collateral damage is whose responsibility? The designer who intended it for destructive purposes, the military command that deployed it or the individual at the computer that set it in motion? If a war crime is committed, how is the issue of justice to be handled?   Is restorative justice as a system within which convicted criminals confront their victims realistic or even fair to either side?   What would constitute “justice” in the commercial sphere? How can the notion of distributive justice be applied? People engaging financial crimes that impoverish thousands, many of who may invest in “ethical” businesses, are inflicting damage not merely on their customers, but also on innocent dependents. What punishment is fit for this?   Is the idea of justice as fairness itself not merely a tautology that avoids the question altogether?

Веб-сторінка конференції: http://iafor.org/conferences/acerp2016/