Can anyone help me with some points of similarities between these three writers on their views on justice:
Marcus Tullius Cicero
Also what political behaviors do they value?
They all believe that tyranny is not just and everyone should experience justice in their daily lives.
They all believe that justice is linked to the human condition; therefore, experiencing poverty or inhumane treatment is not just.
Rawls firmly believes that justice for some is not just for others. He sees how the rich get richer and the poor get poor, so although the well off are experiencing their version of "justice," others are suffering. Therefore, justice needs to be a social contract where people work for justice for all.
Nussbaum takes Rawls' view a step further. She regards his work favorably, but sees limitations. How do people who are handicapped ever truly experience justice? What about animals who cannot really understand the concept?
In terms of political behavior, they all value egalitarian behavior and disregard tyranny. Everyone should be able to live the just life they choose.
I think if you read up on them in the information provided below and more online, you can go even further, but I would say in terms of main points, these are it.
Here is some information on Cicero's view of Justice:
Marcus Tullius Cicero was born over 2,111 years ago.
According to Anthony Everitt, he was "an unknowing architect of constitutions that still govern our lives." John Adams said of him, "All ages of the world have not produced a greater statesman and philosopher combined." Thomas Jefferson said the Declaration of Independence was based on "the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, etc."
It is appropriate to remember why our founders considered him so important.
Cicero (January 3, 106 BCE - December 7, 43 BCE) was a Roman Senator, who held every important Roman office at the youngest permissible age. And he left an extensive written record, about which Historian Edward Gibbon said, "I breathed the ...