Corrective Justice vs. Social Justice in the Aftermath of War

How do we justify the practice of corrective justice for losses suffered during armed conflicts? This article seeks to show the force and relevance of this question, and to argue that, in cases of massively destructive wars, social justice should gain priority over corrective justice. Starting from a liberal Rawlsian conception of the relationship between corrective and social justice, it is argued that, paradoxically, the more destructive a war is, the less normative force corrective rights have and the higher priority policies of social justice, which guarantee basic rights to all citizens, should have.

Colamus humanitatem : Nurturing human nature

In an essay on anger, the ancient philosopher Seneca warns of the futility of harboring negative emotions given the imminence of death—the ultimate human equalizer. Ancient philosophers like Seneca believed that emotions are based on cognitions (beliefs) and are therefore modifiable through spiritual exercises. Modern research shows that the emotional and cognitive aspects of human psychology are malleable (nurture), but also require gene expression (nature). A parallel between individual behavior and socio-political forces suggests a framework for the current environmental crisis— another human equalizer. Two critical questions are suggested: Is the amassed experience of the last few centuries sufficient to lead to corrective measures that would avoid environmental degradation? Or would a catastrophic event with significant longterm environmental degradation have to occur before corrective measures reach consensus at the socio-political level?