Describe both approaches to justice, and say whose definition of "justice" to you prefer (Plato or Rawls). Is justice a matter of merit or equality? What are the benefits and pitfalls of both approaches to the concept of justice? Also, how should power be distributed among members of a society? Concentrated at the top? Dispersed? A composite approach? Why?

Plato's approach to justice is associated with human virtue; a quality of one's soul, a virtue where a person sets aside their irrational desire to feel every pleasure and receive selfish satisfaction from every object and devote themselves to actions which benefits the society as a whole.

Rawls approach to justice is associated with fairness within a liberal society; taking the position that citizens are equal and free and that the society needs to be fair.

My prefered approach to justice is that of Rawls.

Step-by-step explanation

From Plato's and Rawls' approaches, justice can be both a matter of merit and equality respectively. However, since i prefer Rawl's theory, I believe justice is a matter of equality, which will take into consideration the needs of those who are privileged and least advantaged.

Benefits of Plato's Approach to Justice

• Plato's approach to justice promotes non-interference, such that it encourages a person's will to fulfil their own duties without having to meddle with another person's duties.
• Plato considers the society as a perfect whole, where every individual element functions for one's benefit, but for everyone's well-being.

Pitfalls of Plato's Approach to Justice

• Plato makes the assumption that the society, being a perfect whole, is unchanging, and that would suggest a routined life.
• Plato theory of justice is idealist, as it assumed that a person's absolute freedom will naturally translate to the absolute justice of a state.

Benefits of Rawls Approach to Justice

• Justice from Rawls perspective eases the tension existing between equality and fairness
• It is the most plausible and most egalitarian version of liberalism.

Pitfalls of Rawls Approach to Justice

• His approach was meant to solve problems based in society and leaves a gap when it comes to solve problems associated with individual decision-making.
• It tends to be utilitarianist in as much as it promotes divergence from equality and promotes suffering as a way of benefiting those who are least well-off.

Among members of a society, power should be distributed evenly to represent needs for every group, ranging from the majority to the minority. This means power should be dispersed, so that resources can be equally distributed.