Stanislaus B09037

Introduction
Epistemologists gave with various features of belief,
which is the ideas of justification, warrant, rationality, and
probability. Of these four terms, the term which is widely used and
discussed in the past twenty years is justification. The theory of
justification attempts to answer questions such as "What is
justification?" or "When is a belief justified, and when not?" To
approach the theory of justification, one needs first to understand
what a justification is. A justification renders a nominal violation
of the criminal law lawful and therefore exempt from criminal
sanctions. For example, if the force used in self-defense against an
aggressor is both necessary and reasonable, injuring the aggressor is
justified and therefore lawful. Those who act in justifiable
self-defense exercise a privilege and act in conformity with the law.
Subjective Of Justification
We can justify Beliefs, actions, emotions, claims, laws,
theories and so on. Epistemology focuses on beliefs. In part this is
because of the influence of the Theaetetus account of knowledge as
"justified true belief". More generally, the theory of justification
focuses on the justification of statements or propositions. What I
want to say about justification is, a justified belief is one which we
are within our rights in holding. By this is meant, not political
rights, or moral rights, but "intellectual" rights. Being
intellectually responsible involves being within one's intellectual
rights in believing something; in such cases one is justified in one's
belief.
Justification is a normative notion. That means that it has
to do with norms, rights, responsibilities, obligations, and so forth.
The standard definition is that a concept is normative if it is a
concept regarding or depending on the norms, or obligations and
permissions (very broadly construed), involved in human conduct. It is
generally accepted that the concept of justification is normative,
because it is defined as a concept regarding the norms of belief. Not
all justifiers would have to be what can properly be called
"evidence"; there might be some totally different kind of justifiers
out there. But to be justified, a belief has to have a justifier.
Claims of justification should be distinguished from
two other bases for claiming that conduct is not subject to criminal
liability. First, someone might argue that his conduct falls wholly
outside the criminal law. Killing a fly violates no prohibition of the
criminal law; it therefore requires no justification. Killing a human
being, intentionally or negligently, does violate a prohibition and
therefore the conduct requires a justification to be lawful. Thus, one
must distinguish between conduct that violates no general norm
(killing a fly) and conduct that nominally, but justifiably, violates
a valid prohibition of the criminal law (killing an aggressor in
self-defense). A justification concedes the nominal violation of the
prohibitory norm but holds that the violation is right and proper.