This is a follow-up to question 1522 [www.askphilosophers/question/1522). In my language, there is a single word for "justice" and "fairness" ("justiça"). If someone in an English-speaking movie says "That ain't fair!", the translation will probably use our word for "just". So, it is really very difficult for me to understand Rawls's claim that justice is fairness. How could justiça not be justiça?

Can suicide be a way of political resistance? I am especially interested in the political situation at the West Bank, so when you answer in this context, please....

Hi, Thanks for a fascinating site. One thing that I have often heard is that "You can't have rights without responsibilities", and I wondered if you could explain the reasoning behind that statement. Is it something that can be deduced using philosophy, or is it merely an assertion? Many thanks, Mark

A question regarding the non-feasibility of political separation of church and State: Remarkably often, philosophers, politicians, and amateur debaters make the statement that a group "must not be permitted to force its religious beliefs upon others" in a nation with separation of church and state. However, for instance, in the United States of America, wouldn't this stance be in direct violation to the concept of majority-rule politics? E.G., In "Democratic government X with church-state seperation": 1.) 51% of voting citizens are "Religion Y" 2.) This group is spiritually opposed to "Concept Z" 3.) The no-or-other-spirituality community is pro-"Concept Z" Doesn't this violate support of separation of church and state? Through majority rule, the agreed system of government, laws would most certainly pass forbidding excercise of Concept Z. However, this clearly violates the legal/spiritual disparity implied in Church/State arguments. How can the ideal of separate church and state be balanced...

I’m a little ashamed for asking this question but I feel I’m in need of some guidance regarding politics. I reached the age where I’m allowed to vote quite some time ago, but to be honest feel if I did it would be more like filling in a lottery ticket rather than voting so I haven’t. There’s much of politics and our political system that I don’t understand. With all the rhetoric involved in the media it’s hard to know who to believe. Politicians could make these promises and break them as soon as they’re in. There seems to be so many variables involved and the whole thing’s a bit overwhelming. For example, maybe one particular policy sounds like a good idea and addresses an issue that’s close to me. But then what if the money used for this could be put to better use elsewhere? What if this solution helps in the short term, but puts us right up the creek after a decade? What the heck do I know about economics?? Should people like me (and I suspect there are many) leave the voting to those with the...

How does a political theory differ from political philosophy? The former is empirical; the latter is not. Is that right?

The demise of the Soviet Union, and the dominance of the U.S.A, in military terms, does not seem to have produced a stable world, or a "peace dividend". If the "West" were to succeed in installing representative democracy, and a liberal capitalist economic regime, throughout the world, could we expect a better life for the world's citizens. If not, why do the world's leading powers invest such massive resources in this project?

I was brought up with lots of christian ideas about forgiveness and mercy and charity and stuff, "regardless of the bad stuff someone does to you or of their merit, treat them with kindness and generosity." I reckon there is something deeply virtuous about this attitude. Now I look at the effect of a system of charity on global inequality (that is, depressingly little effect) and at the justice system and it seems to me that it is in everyone's best interests for a sense of justice, even retribution, and rewards to be in human nature. In fact, I'd suggest that the fact that those attitudes are so common is precisely because they are socially beneficial and so evolved (in the loose sense of the word). So my question is, if someone punches me in the face do I turn the other cheek or put them in prison? If a nation is poor, do we offer support with lots of strings attached and hoops to jump or just give money?

Should a society provide support from general funding (e.g., income tax) to individuals whose actions lead directly (and possibly predictably) to their distress; e.g., medical care for heavy smokers who suffer smoking related illness, air-sea rescue for recreational ocean-going sailors, financial support to people who are not willing to fully support themselves. Some of these examples are complex and contentious; but, what is fair and how can we administer a fair system?

Throughout history, it seems people have refuted the principle of "rights acquired by birth", often because it is contradictory to democracy. Concerning illegal people (people without papers), I feel there are strong similarities, as basically they are criminalised for staying in otherwise public area's, while people who were born there gain that right automatically. Why is it, that it seems completely acceptable to criminalise people just for "being" somewhere, while this seems ridiculous from an ethical point of view? Why isn't "Kein Mensch ist illegal" a basic human rights principle?