1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
igomit [66]
3 years ago
12

(500-750 Words) Write a short story inspired by the unit theme, injustice. Model your narrative after one of the selections in t

he unit, using the same historical event depicted in the literary work or make up your own event that results in an instance of injustice. Pleaseeee anyoneeeee
English
2 answers:
zavuch27 [327]3 years ago
7 0

While it is difficult to give a complete and adequate definition of justice, most observers can recognize clear examples of serious injustice when they arise.[1] Such injustice comes in various forms, wherever the norms of distributive justice, procedural justice, or human rights are violated.

Some actions, such as theft and murder, are commonly recognized as unjust by governments and prohibited by domestic law. However, there are also systemic forms of injustice that may persist in a society. These traditions and structures give rise to profound injustices that can be difficult to recognize.[2] In some cases, these unfair conditions are imposed by the ruling party itself, whether it is an authoritarian government or an outside aggressor. Those in power sometimes use the state's legal and political systems to violate the political, economic, and social rights of subordinate groups.[3]

Political injustice involves the violation of individual liberties, including the denial of voting rights or due process, infringements on rights to freedom of speech or religion, and inadequate protection from cruel and unusual punishment.[4] Such injustice often stems from unfair procedures, and involves political systems in which some but not others are allowed to have voice and representation in the processes and decisions that affect them.[5] This sort of procedural injustice can contribute to serious social problems as well as political ones. If voting or litigation procedures, for example, are perceived to be unjust, any outcome they produce is liable to be unstable and produce conflict.[6] In addition, any procedures that are carried out in a biased manner are likely to contribute to problems of religious, ethnic, gender, or race discrimination. When the procedure in question has to do with employment or wages, such issues can lead to serious economic and social problems.

Economic injustice involves the state's failure to provide individuals with basic necessities of life, such as access to adequate food and housing, and its maintenance of huge discrepancies in wealth. In the most extreme cases of maldistribution, some individuals suffer from poverty while the elite of that society live in relative luxury.[7] Such injustice can stem from unfair hiring procedures, lack of available jobs and education, and insufficient health care. All of these conditions may lead individuals to believe that they have not received a "fair share" of the benefits and resources available in that society.

Even more serious than the injustices discussed above are war crimes and crimes against humanity. During wartime, individuals sometimes perform acts that violate the rules of just war set forth in international law. When soldiers engage in wars of aggression, attack non-combatants or pursue their enemies beyond what is reasonable, they commit not acts of war, but acts of murder.[8] However, these are not the only injustices associated with war and protracted conflict. Such conflict can also lead to severe human rights violations, including genocide, torture, and slavery. These crimes violate individuals' most basic rights to life and physical safety.

When political or legal institutions fail to protect individuals' fundamental rights and liberties, members of the unjustly treated group feel disempowered.[9] They are likely to view the institutions that impose such conditions as unjust, and thus find themselves in the midst of a justice conflict. If the subordinate group believes that it lacks the power to change things through political or diplomatic means, it may conclude that the only effective way to pursue justice is through violent confrontation.[10] However, such confrontations tend to produce even more injustice. In addition, because the dominant group typically has more power to inflict harm, such struggles often fail. Therefore, violence is often an ineffective way of addressing injustice, and many believe that it should be used only as a last resort.

Explanation:

Lostsunrise [7]3 years ago
7 0

Answer:

you want someone to write youre whole essay?? do you have a start, or ANYTHING?

Explanation:

You might be interested in
Select the correct answer.
svetlana [45]

Answer:

B. direct object

Explanation:

7 0
3 years ago
Definition of cognizant??​
Aneli [31]

Answer

Que por práctica o estudio conoce bien una cosa. Usado también como sustantivo.

Explanation:

3 0
3 years ago
What does efface mean
KIM [24]

Answer:

to eliminate or make indistinct by or as if by wearing away a surface

4 0
3 years ago
Should religious belief influence law,five paragraph argument.
konstantin123 [22]

Explanation:

Whatever we make of the substance of Judge Andrew Rutherford's ruling in the Cornish private hotel case, his citation of a striking and controversial opinion by Lord Justice Laws – delivered in another religious freedom case in 2010 – is worth pausing over. The owners of the Chymorvah hotel were found to have discriminated against a gay couple by refusing them a double-bedded room. They had appealed to their right to manifest their religious belief by running their hotel according to Christian moral standards. Given the drift of recent legal judgments in cases where equality rights are thought to clash with religious freedom rights, it is no surprise that the gay couple won their case.

But quite apart from the merits of the case, judges should be warned off any future reliance on the ill-considered opinions about law and religion ventured last year by Lord Justice Laws. Laws rightly asserted that no law can justify itself purely on the basis of the authority of any religion or belief system: "The precepts of any one religion – any belief system – cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other."

A sound basis for this view is Locke's terse principle, in his Letter on Toleration, that "neither the right nor the art of ruling does necessarily carry with it the certain knowledge of other things; and least of all the true religion".

But Laws seemed to ground the principle instead on two problematic and potentially discriminatory claims. One is that the state can only justify a law on the grounds that it can be seen rationally and objectively to advance the general good (I paraphrase). The question is, seen by whom? What counts as rational, objective and publicly beneficial is not at all self-evident but deeply contested, determined in the cut and thrust of democratic debate and certainly not by the subjective views of individual judges. Religiously inspired political views – such as those driving the US civil rights movement of the 1960s or the Burmese Buddhists today – have as much right to enter that contest as any others. In this sense law can quite legitimately be influenced by religion.

Laws' other claim is that religious belief is, for all except the holder, "incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence", and that the truth of it "lies only in the heart of the believer". But many non-Christians, for example, recognise that at least some of the claims of Christianity – historical ones, no doubt, or claims about universal moral values – are capable of successful communication to and critical assessment by others. Laws' assertion is also inconsistent with his own Anglican tradition, in which authority has never been seen as based on the subjective opinions of the individual but rather on the claims of "scripture, tradition and reason" acting in concert.

6 0
3 years ago
Think about the effects of gossip in your own life—whether it is gossip among your friends at school, or celebrity gossip. How p
Viefleur [7K]

Answer: There is nothing wrong with gossip. Rumors are completely different.

Explanation:

Gossip is okay as long at it is harmless and truthful. Don’t repeat a rumor or spread a rumor. Until the rumor is turned into a fact there should be no need to spread it.

6 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Put nucleus and flamingo in a sentence
    12·2 answers
  • What is a flat key sighniture
    8·2 answers
  • Reread lines 215-222 what happens in these lines? Why is it important that we seen wiglafs courage in battle as well as his loya
    6·1 answer
  • Which is the best sufficiently narrowed topic for a response to literature? the speaker in yeats's "the wild swans at coole" has
    11·1 answer
  • Which passage is part of the climax of Edgar Allan Poe's "The Black Cat"?
    6·1 answer
  • Which of the following most influenced the creation of modern mothers day
    14·2 answers
  • PLEASE HELP! I WILL GIVE YOU THE BRAINLIEST ANSWER (If you give a serious good answer!)
    10·2 answers
  • HELP PLEASE WHATS THE ASNWERR!!!!
    15·1 answer
  • Which lines from "Mending Wall" best indicate that the speaker is amused while repairing the wall?
    13·1 answer
  • Define the word, 'centerfold'.​
    9·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!