The relationship between justice and the law is one that has been debated for hundreds, if not thousands of years. Many theorists have attempted to explain the exact characteristics of this relationship in order to outline a system of just law. However, this relationship is far too intricate for any one theory to dominate the field. The values used to formulate a system of just law are often times based upon personal preference, unseen biases, or self-motivation. Law is such an intrinsic facet to so many different aspects of life that finding a theory of justice capable of covering the entirety of law is impossible. The fact is that, man has neither the impartialness nor the capability of creating such a complete theory. Without a complete theory for application we are forced into using elements from several theories to debate even the most minuet topics of just law. The issue that arises when using several theories at once is the inherent contradictions that can be found when comparing and contrasting them. Every theory has a theorem which is used to outline its most basic principles. With the vast number of theories it is only rational that contradictions occur.
How is it though, that two theories can define just law completely different? Can one theory necessarily be right and the other wrong, or, is it possible for both to be partially right. When looking at the differences between Rawls' theory and Mill's Utilitarianism theory do we not see both similarities and differences within their respective principles? Possibly it is not a question of right or wrong but more so of practicality. A theory may be right but if it cannot be applied it is useless. Just as this is true, a theory that is wrong but practical should not be applied. In order to find the balance bet ...