Page 24 [24]
OCR
IZOLDA TAKÁCS: THROUGH A GLASS DARKLY unjust. He added that the moral and political issue of respecting rights deemed immoral should be reconsidered in such cases." In any case, regardless of grounding our argumentation from the natural law, or from positive legal theory, both support the present argument about the gender issue. It is, therefore, worth discussing the ideas below in relation to justice. First in order to draw attention to the complexity of the concept of justice and secondly because the need for justice, equal treatment, equal opportunities and equity have come to the forefront past the universal recognition of first-generation human rights, further building on the requirement for justice. Along these lines, the transformation of positive discrimination into cohesive legislation has become equally important for both minorities and women. SUUM CUIQUE TRIBUERE! — IS EQUITY EQUALLY JUST FOR EVERYONE? The question of what justice is, according to Hans Kelsen, has always been widely debated. In fact, perhaps no question has been debated so fiercely, thought about more deeply by philosophers and had more valuable blood shed over it in history than the question of justice. Nevertheless, it remains unanswered to this day. In his essay What is Justice?” Kelsen actually argues that justice cannot be deduced from objective theorems. Since this question cannot be answered in an absolute way in his opinion, it is the positive law that can, in a kind of social order, realize the only thing available: the relative truth (truth alternatives). Kelsen also pointed out that certain doctrines, religious or metaphysical approaches (see, for example, Plato’s absolute idea of the Good) sought to absolutize this relative truth by transposing the concept of justice into the transcendent, their approaches however also referred all questions of absolute justice into the competence of the divine. In contrast, positive law completely excluded this and natural law itself as well: everything where standards can be deduced from nature.” What we can accept is that human interests can be ranked according to the different conflicts of interest on the basis of which of these represents greater value. And, according to Kelsen, when it comes to value, we cannot make objective statements such as those of the laws of physics. In fact, he goes further and claims that every value system is in fact a social phenomenon, social construct, and although it may be said that certain values are consensually agreed 20 Hart, H. L. A.: A jog fogalma, Budapest, Osiris, 1995; and confer Frivaldszky, J.: A harti természetjog minimális tartalma az olasz jogfilozófia és a klasszikus természetjogi gondolkodás szemszögéből, Világosság 2010. tavasz, 157-187. 2 Kelsen, H.: Mi az igazságosság?, in Varga, Csaba (ed.): Jog és filozófia — Antológia a század első felének kontinentális jogi gondolkodása köréből, Budapest, Osiris, 1998, 202—218. 22 Cf. ibidem, 209. + 29e
