Abstract

In order to make clear the problem with which I am dealing, it is necessary to draw an often-drawn distinction : the distinction between judicial and non-judicial justice, as it is sometimes called, or the distinction between the justice of an application of a law and the justice of a law. A law is applied justly if it is applied impartially. Judicial justice has been done, or the law has been applied justly, if the judge considers all and only the legally relevant facts and applies the law to them correctly. That is one fairly uncontentious sort of justice, but, at least on the face of it, there is another important sort: we can not only apply laws justly or unjustly, but can also assess those laws themselves as being just or unjust. This is what is called non-judicial justice, and its distinctness from judicial justice might be brought out by considering a case that involves injustices of both sorts. Many philosophers have denied that there is any proper concept of non-judicial justice. The main motive behind philosophers making this claim has been despair consequent upon unsuccessful attempts to give an account of non-judicial justice. What I want to do in this paper is to give the beginnings of such an account.