Love of neighbor

• LOVE OF NEIGHBOR - MEN ARE BOUND TO RECIPROCAL DUTIES IN VIRTUE OF THE LIKENESS OF THEIR SPECIFIC NATURE AND THE IDENTITY OF THEIR END.
• THE FOUNDATION OF ALL DUTIES TO ONE’S NEIGHBOR IS THE PRECEPT – THOU SHALT LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF
• MAN HAS A DUTY OF DOING NOTHING THAT INJURES HIS MORAL DIGNITY, OR IMPEDES OR PERVERTS THE LAWFUL EXERCISE OF HIS FREEWILL.
• MAN HAS A DUTY OF DOING NO VIOLENCE TO HIS INTELLECT BY DECEITFULLY LEADING HIM TO ERROR.
• MAN HAS A DUTY OF NOT ATTEMPTING TO HIS LIFE OR MALTREATING HIS BODY.
• MAN HAS A DUTY NOT MERELY OF DOING HIM NO HARM, BUT EVEN OF DOING HIM GOOD.
• JUSTICE IS THE MAINTENANCE OR ADMINISTRATION OF WHAT IS JUST ESPECIALLY BY THE IMPARTIAL ADJUSTMENT OF CONFLICTING CLAIMS OR THE ASSIGNMENT OF MERITED REWARDS OR PUNISHMENTS.
• JUSTICE IS AN ACTION IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED BY LAW.
• “THOSE WHO ARE JUST GIVE OTHERS WHAT IS DUE TO THEM.”
• WHEN INDIVIDUALS DO THIS FOR ONE ANOTHER, IT IS CALLED COMMUTATIVE JUSTICE (COMMUTATIVE MEANS “RECIPROCAL”).
• COMMUTATIVE JUSTICE IS A TYPE OF JUSTICE THAT CONTROLS AND HARMONIZES THE EXERCISE OF RIGHTS BETWEEN MEN AND HIS FELLOWMEN.
• COMMUTATIVE JUSTICE IS DEFINED AS A FORM OF JUSTICE THAT GOVERNS THE TRANSACTIONS OF EVERYDAY LIFE
• AN EXAMPLE OF COMMUNICATIVE JUSTICE WOULD BE HONORING A COMMITMENT OR PROMISE MADE TO ANOTHER PERSON, SUCH AS COMPLETING A JOB THAT YOU WERE COMMITTED TO AND PAID TO DO
• WHEN INJUSTICE AGAINST A PERSON OCCURS, INJURY INEVITABLY FOLLOWS, BECAUSE THE RIGHTS OF THAT PERSON HAVE BEEN VIOLATED. THE MOST SERIOUS INJUSTICES AGAINST PERSONS INCLUDE MURDER, ABORTION, SUICIDE AND EUTHANASIA. THESE INJUSTICES ARE ALWAYS INTRINSICALLY EVIL (THEY CAN NEVER BE CONSIDERED MORALLY GOOD), AND THEY DO IRREPARABLE HARM.
• COMMUTATIVE JUSTICE INCLUDES A SECOND KIND OF CASES, THOSE INVOLVING JUST RECOMPENSE OR COMPENSATION, USUALLY SPELLED OUT IN COVENANTS AND CONTRACTS. EXAMPLES: JUST WAGES, FAIR PRICING, ADVERTISING PRACTICES, LOANS, INVESTMENTS, AND OTHER ASPECTS OF BUSINESS ETHICS.
• DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE IS CONCERNED WITH THE FAIR ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AMONG DIVERSE MEMBERS OF A COMMUNITY. FAIR ALLOCATION TYPICALLY TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF GOODS TO BE DISTRIBUTED, THE DISTRIBUTING PROCEDURE, AND THE PATTERN OF DISTRIBUTION THAT RESULTS.
• DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE REGULATES THE EXERCISE OF RIGHTS BETWEEN THE INDIVIDUAL TO THE COMMUNITY
• DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE: IT REGULATES THE IMPOSITION OF TAXES, FEES AND PRIVILEGES BY THE COMMUNITY UPON THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBER.
• FOR EXAMPLE, PUBLIC PROGRAMS THAT PROVIDE SOCIAL SECURITY OR MEDICAL CARE TO ALL ELDERLY AND RETIRED PERSONS ARE EXAMPLES OF DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE IN A CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY.
• VARIOUS PRINCIPLES MIGHT DETERMINE OF HOW GOODS ARE DISTRIBUTED. EQUALITY, EQUITY, AND NEED ARE AMONG THE MOST COMMON CRITERIA. IF EQUALITY IS REGARDED AS THE ULTIMATE CRITERION DETERMINING WHO GETS WHAT, GOODS WILL BE DISTRIBUTED EQUALLY AMONG ALL PERSONS.
• ANOTHER POSSIBILITY IS TO PROCEED ACCORDING TO A PRINCIPLE OF EQUITY, AND DISTRIBUTE BENEFITS IN PROPORTION TO THE INDIVIDUALS' CONTRIBUTION. THUS, THOSE WHO MAKE A GREATER PRODUCTIVE CONTRIBUTION TO THEIR GROUP DESERVE TO RECEIVE MORE BENEFITS. OR, WE MIGHT DISTRIBUTE GOODS ACCORDING TO NEED, SO THAT AN EQUAL OUTCOME RESULTS. THOSE WHO NEED MORE OF A BENEFIT OR RESOURCE WILL RECEIVE MORE
• LEGAL JUSTICE REGULATES THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHTS BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY AND THE AUTHORITY CHARGED WITH THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY.
• LAW DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN THE RICH AND THE POOR. OBJECTIVE AND DUE DISPENSATION OF JUSTICE BY THE COURTS OF LAW IS AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT OF LEGAL JUSTICE.
• THE OBJECTIVE PURPOSE OF LEGAL JUSTICE IS COMMON GOOD – THE TOTAL CONDITION OF SOCIAL LIVING NECESSARY AND CONTRIBUTORY TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF MAN
• SOCIAL JUSTICE IS ANOTHER NAME FOR EQUAL SOCIAL RIGHTS. SOCIAL JUSTICE AIMS TO PROVIDE EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES TO EVERY INDIVIDUAL TO DEVELOP HIS INHERENT QUALITIES.
• SELF DEFENSE - THIS IS THE RIGHT FOR CIVILIANS ACTING ON THEIR OWN BEHALF TO ENGAGE IN VIOLENCE FOR THE SAKE OF DEFENDING ONE’S OWN LIFE OR THE LIVES OF OTHERS, INCLUDING THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE
• LEGALITY OF SELF DEFENSE - ALL COUNTRY HAVE SELF-DEFENSE LAWS THAT ALLOW PEOPLE WHO ARE THREATENED TO USE REASONABLE FORCE TO DEFEND THEMSELVES OR OTHERS, AND TO AVOID CRIMINAL LIABILITY FROM THEIR USE OF FORCE.
• DEFENDANTS WHO CLAIM SELF-DEFENSE ADMIT THAT THEY USED FORCE OR VIOLENCE AGAINST THE VICTIM, BUT THEY ASSERT THAT THEY DID SO BECAUSE THE "VICTIM" WAS ACTUALLY THE ATTACKER, THAT THEY HAD TO ACT TO AVOID BEING HURT THEMSELVES (OR TO PROTECT SOMEONE ELSE FROM BEING HURT), AND THAT THE AMOUNT OF FORCE THEY USED WAS PROPORTIONAL TO THE THREAT PRESENTED. THE BASIC ISSUES IN ANY SELF-DEFENSE CLAIM ARE WHO STARTED THE INCIDENT AND WHETHER THE DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE WAS NECESSARY AND PROPORTIONATE TO THE THREAT POSED BY THE AGRESSOR.
• DUTY TO RETREAT - IN ITS MOST EXTREME FORM, STATES THAT A PERSON WHO IS UNDER AN IMMINENT THREAT OF PERSONAL HARM MUST MAKE A REASONABLE EFFORT TO AVOID CONFRONTATION, EITHER BY DE-ESCALATION OR AN ATTEMPT TO LEAVE THE AREA IN WHICH THE THREAT IS OCCURRING. THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE SHOULD BE THE LAST OPTION.
• CAPITAL PUNISHMENT - KNOWN AS DEATH PENALTY – AN ORDERED EXECUTION OF A PRISONER AS A PUNISHMENT FOR SERIOUS CRIME, OFTEN CALLED A CAPITAL OFFENSE OR CAPITAL CRIME. THE TERM CAPITAL IS A LATIN “CAPITALIS” MEANING “HEAD” LEADING TO BEHEADING.
• IN THE PHILIPPINES IT WAS IMPOSED BEFORE THAT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IS FOR THOSE WHO COMMITTED HEINOUS CRIME – CRIME PUNISHABLE BY DEATH FOR BEING GRIEVOUS, ODIOUS AND HATEFUL OFFENSES. EXAMPLES: RAPE, RAPE WITH ARSON, RAPE WITH PARRICIDE, MURDER, DRUG TRAFFICKING
• LEGAL JUSTICE: LAW ->INDIVIDUAL
• DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE: GOVERNMENT -> INDIVIDUAL
• COMMUNICATIVE JUSTICE: INDIVIDUAL -> INDIVIDUAL