Justice
This theme runs through several big questions. Here are the ones where it plays out.
The questions that illuminate it
How should wealth and resources be distributed in society?
Correcting gaps in wealth can trample each person's freedom and merit; leaving them as they are can enshrine luck, inheritance, and force. To take a position is to say what truly belongs to each, and what we owe one another.
Do moral norms hold for everyone, everywhere, and always?
If morality holds everywhere, we can condemn slavery or torture wherever they are practised, at the risk of imposing our norms as the measure of all; if it depends on cultures, we respect differences but lose any right to denounce cruelty elsewhere. To take a position is to say whether "it's their culture" ends every moral argument.
Should rules be applied to the letter or according to their spirit?
Following the letter treats everyone alike and bars arbitrariness, but can yield absurd or cruel results the rule never intended; following the spirit fits the case, but opens the door to each interpreting as they please. To take a position is to say where fidelity to the rule ends and judgement must take over.
Why punish: to repay the wrong, to deter, or to rehabilitate?
Punishing to make the guilty pay can be mere vengeance dressed as justice; punishing only to deter or for efficiency can sacrifice the offender to the common good. Depending on the answer, the penalty looks toward a past to settle or a future to protect. To take a position is to say what we are really doing when we punish.
Where do rights come from?
When we speak of "human rights", are they realities inscribed in our nature, rules that societies institute, or tools justified by their benefits? What we can claim, and what no law should be able to take away, depends on it.