THEORIES OF JUSTICE

Submitted To: Submitted By

Mr. Kamal Narayan, Arsh Kaul, Roll No. 29
Faculty Member Section C, Semester 1
B.A.L.L.B (Hons.)

POLITICAL SCIENCE PROJECT

Date of Submission: 25TH OCTOBER 2018

Hidayatullah National Law University,

Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
 Declaration

I hereby declare that this research work titled “THEORIES OF JUSTICE”is my own

work and represents my own ideas, and where others’ ideas or words have been included, I

have adequately cited and referenced the original sources. I also declare that I have adhered

to all principles of academic honesty and integrity and have not misrepresented or fabricated

or falsified any idea/data/fact/source in my submission.

Arsh Kaul

Roll no. 29, Section C

Semester 1, B.A.L.L.B(Hons.)

Acknowledgement
It gives me immense pleasure to write this project “THEORIES OF JUSTICE”.

Firstly, thanks to the Almighty who gave me the strength and determination to put all my

endeavors into this work.

Secondly, I’d like to thank our Pol Science Faculty, Mr Kamal Narayan, for allotting such an

enlightening topic and for all the help and co-operation extended by her in helping scrutinize

the same.

Thirdly, I’d like to thank my parents and friends for all their constant support without which

this venture would not have been possible.

Last but not the least, I would like to thank my respected seniors for extending their help in

finding the information and articles required for the work.

Arsh Kaul

Roll no. 29, Section C,

Semester 1, B.A.L.L.B(Hons.)

ABSTRACT-
Justice is fairness, or close to that as they are sometimes interchangeably used.
However,
there are some small differences. Fairness deals mostly with the consideration of
issues and
situations in a manner consistent with impartiality, while justice deals with abiding by
the laid
down rules of procedure. In this sense, it is concerned with fair consideration of people,
treating
them with kindness, and without any iota of biasness. In the legal sense, the concept
means the
upholding and respect for the rule of law.

THEORIES OF JUSTICE -

INTRODUCTION -
It’s been asked many times that what is justice? Is it favourable or is it just a term that makes
us believe that there is equality and sovereignty for each and every human in the society .
There have been many theories and definitions about this term , each different yet in some
way connects , bounds and revolves in the life of each human.
These theories are basic and fundamental and are mostly given for us to remember that there
are means in which one can live his or her life easily and in peace but does not tell us that
justice and its theories are the most complicated terms that revolve in our lives.
Majority defines justice as an a encompassing political virtue so that the good society and the
just society are seen as synonyms.
Procedural theories of justice do not make a distinction between production and distribution.
Such theories contend that there can be no abstract principle of distribution that takes the
whole society into account. Such theories work with the idea of individual entitlements.

These are only theories and yeah majority of them are ought to be correct and obliged by the
society but is the reality just as easy as these theories? We know all of us would have
different opinions about this question but the only correct answers can be given by only those
who have seen and felt, faced these theories in there daily lives and that in context to there
happenings can guide us to change our thinking.
What is justice? Is it same for everyone? Does we make it or it makes us who we are now
right at this moment?
Is justice as just to us as mentioned in the theories?
Well all will have different ways to define it and I have mine-
For me justice is nothing but a way that each one of us just lives with , sleeping, waking,
talking, walking always it revolves around us so that we can comfort ourselves that in some
way we can guide our life in a good manner that represents our deeds and moreover us but is
it so is it necessary to do justice after the crime? Should we focus on the theories of justice or
on the theories of human nature so that we can help punish not the guilty but his or her
thinking that causes the crime to happen.
Anyway , today justice is reality and in some way it is important for each one of us to have it
and maintain it.

HISTORY OF JUSTICE –
The history of justice is complex and thus is very important to be known.
What is justice and who derived it ??
Justice is the legal or philosophical theory by which fairness is administered. As with most
philosophical driven disciplines , the concept of justice differs in every culture.
An early theory was set out by the ancient Greek philosopher named Plato in his work the
republic. The advocates of divine theory say that justice comes from god and if a criminal or
the guilty does not get any punishment in the human world for his sins , god has already
decided his guilt and he will punish the guilty after his death and his spirit will not attain
peace up till he has been forgiven for all his sins.
According to Plato , justice is a proper , harmonious relationship between the warring parts of
the person or city and uses Socrates to argue for justice that covers the just person and the just
city. He also states that a just man is a man in just the right place , doing his best and giving
the precise equivalent of what he has received. This applies on both the individual level and
the universal level.
Following Plato’s theory a person’s soul is divided into three forms-
Reason , Spirit and Desire.
All these factors are related to a person being the guilty or the just.

Justice came to a rise due to many events and many terms that started to differentiate the
people and their sense of unity , it was when the people facing these factors like racism ,
untouchability etc understood that they deserved the same luxuries , same freedom and the
same status that anyone superior to them had or under whom they served and were ragged.
We can take in account the British happenings in India. An India farmer worked twice as
hard , in twice as more heat and ruined surroundings that a British officer did not witness at
all and at the end the farmer doesn’t gain comfort , money or respect as the officer does. This
made , not only that one farmer or the low rank officers but also the Indian society realise
that enough!!! , and when this word enough comes into play we understand that it is not fair
and it needs to be fair so there should be a system that should guide the fairness between , not
only Indians and Britishers but between each human on the planet.

In past all things were measured in two categories justice and fairness.
One possibility must be that justice enters the picture when reciprocity is or ought to be
achieved by an exercise of authority. Thus the distribution of benefits and burdens in a group
of people on a camping trip raises issues of fairness , not justice. But I must say that when
someone makes me a promise and breaks it he or she does injustice to me , though I cannot
relate it to any theory of justice. , but what I can say and claim is that the person did unfair to
me.
The difference that was to understand was that the difference between justice and fairness is
by reference to claims or a framework of claims that are established.
Talk of justice involves these claims while the talk of fairness does not.
In the survey to find the history of justice one cannot find facts just events through which we
can draw out conclusions and results that help us to know how justice came into being and
the modern day theories get there base from the past events only.

The idea of justice is a tool that has been invented and refined by human beings but like other
tools , it is not infinitely plastic and cannot be reinvented in any form one happens to like at
least if we want to do the kind of work that the idea of justice was brought into being to do
so.
Keeping in mind that humans are not creators of this free society but the members , thus it is
important that something should be there to help these members live peacefully , in this
context justice comes to play.
For the conclusion I want to ask ,
“ Is what is morally good is commanded by god because it is morally good or is it morally
good because it is commanded by god ?? The implication is that if the latter is true justice is
arbitrary.

John Rawls , A Theory Of Justice-

Justice as Fairness:
The main theme of Rawls’ theory of justice is it is interpreted as fairness. The
dictionary meaning of fairness is appropriateness or just: In Rawls’ conception that
arrangement can be called just or appropriate which does not create any scope of
partiality or inappropriate. The principles for the distribution of rights, duties and
advantages will be applied in such manner as will give no controversy.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Rawls explains the term fairness in the following way:

“I shall try to use this principle to account for all requirements that are obligations as
distinct from natural duties. This principle holds that a person is required to do his
part as defined by the rules of an institution when two conditions are met, first the
institution is just (or fair) that is it satisfies the two principles of justice and second,
one has voluntarily accepted the benefits of the arrangement”. 

From the above definition of fairness we can form certain features some of
which are the following:
ADVERTISEMENTS:

(1) According to John Rawls fairness denotes obligations. Obligation means an act
which a person morally or legally is bound to do. Obligations are different from
natural duties.

(2) When a person is legally or morally bound to do an act or perform a duty his
liberty will be restricted.

(3) Fairness also implies that the members of the society are engaged in
advantageous cooperative venture. Here two things are important. Individuals
cooperate with each other. This cooperation places all the individuals participating in
the act creates an atmosphere of mutual advantages for them all. This means that
cooperation will create no disadvantage to anybody.

(4) Rawls further says that the institutions must be fair or just. They must keep
themselves above parochial interests. In many societies there are such institutions
which have been created to serve group’s interests and such institutions cannot
serve the interests of justice.

(5) General public will accept the arrangements of the institutions ungrudgingly. They
will have no reservations or objections.

(6) While discussing the nature of obligation one point is required to be mentioned
here. Obligations give rise to the performance of duties which are not moral duties.
The institutional or constitutional obligations impose duties upon individuals.

The constitutional or institutional obligations induce a man to perform some duties

which ensure the realisation of justice. The performance of institutional duties
enables an individual to manage a democratic society and furtherance of general
welfare. We, therefore, conclude that the obligations with a strong emphasis on its
nature, institutional arrangement and to actively cooperate with the duties made by
the institution or any other official declaration are included into the fairness principle.

When the condition of fairness is fully satisfied the concept of justice will not remain
far behind. We thus see that fairness, defined by Rawls, in his own way, practically
constitutes the core of the theory of justice. But in close analysis it will be found that
it is nearer to the traditional idea of justice which states that justice means to give
everyone his due share.

Contract Theory and Justice:

We have just now elaborated Rawls’ view of justice as fairness. We now turn our
attention to the origin of justice as fairness. After good deal of labour Rawls
concludes that justice as fairness can aptly be traced to the social contract theory
explained by Locke, Rousseau and Kant. He states that the contract theory has
several facets such as formation of civil society set up a government. But Rawls is
not concerned with all these facets. His chief aim is how the original agreement
helped the establishment of justice in society.

The rational and free individuals met together and settled among themselves
the principles of original contract:
(1) One such principle is they would cooperate among themselves to further their
interests.

(2) The society shall be established on the principle of equality.

(3) Subsequently other terms of agreement may be finalised but these two terms—
Cooperation and equality shall guide and control these terms.

(4) On the basis of contract a society or government will be constituted but the
purpose of this government (or society) shall be to ensure justice. John Rawls claims
that the justice established in this way can be called justice as fairness.

The basic condition of the contract is that the persons who made the contract agreed
to cooperate with each other and Rawls believes that this is a very important
condition for furthering justice. Through the instrumentality of cooperation all the
contracting individuals will fix up the principles that will determine the division of
social benefits and allot fundamental rights and duties to which they are all entitled.
Not only this the terms of the agreement will regulate the claims of persons.

This indicates that none will be allowed to claim anything which he cannot do. So far
as this interpretation is concerned it is quite correct to say that contract theory builds
up the foundation of justice as fairness.

Modus Operandi:
Rawls has very briefly stated how contract established justice as fairness. In the
state of nature all its inhabitants enjoyed equality and after forming a contract they
finalised certain terms and conditions for the realisation of a number of purposes.
This contract opened the way of attaining justice. They decided the principles for the
allotment of rights, duties and all the social advantages.

But the interesting fact is that all the members of the state of nature were absolutely
ignorant of various aspects of society. For example, the relationship among the
members of the state of nature, position of the individuals in the society, relationship
between individual and the society etc. They did not know their fortune. Rawls calls
this un-awareness as the veil of ignorance. (The veil of ignorance, we shall discuss
later on.)

For the sake of clarification let us quote Rawls, “The principles of justice are chosen
behind a veil of ignorance. This ensures that no one is advantaged or disadvantaged
in the choice of principles by the outcome of natural chance or the contingency of
social circumstances”. Justice originated from the fair agreement or bargain. The
members of the state of nature entered into contract to make their lives easy, hurdle-
free and more comfortable. This made way for arrival of justice.

Reason of Fairness:
We have discussed how a contract initiated justice of fairness and at present we
shall lay our hands on the analysis of reasons. According to Rawls the initial position
(before the civil society was set up) was appropriate because all the members of the
state of nature were similarly advantaged and disadvantaged. None had the capacity
to manipulate the situation in his favour.

This appropriate position at the original stage that is at the state of nature was quite
congenial for justice which would be fair. The people of the state of nature had very
few choices and alternatives and they had to act and decide with those limited
choices.

Another reason of why contract theory provided justice as fairness is the people of
the state of nature voluntarily assembled together to set up a society and all of them
were on equal footing. In the contract theory we find this interesting premise. Though
the contention of the contract theoreticians is not founded on historical fact and data
the premise they thought was to some extent real. Mention has been made that the
parties to the contract were rational.

The main argument behind this assumption is that they abandoned the state of
nature and adopted a judicious decision. Rawls thinks that rationality also acts for
achieving justice as fairness. Irrational or self interest seeking men cannot be
regarded as builders of justice as fairness, because they will manipulate everything
in their favour ignoring the general interests of the community.

Veil of Ignorance:
One of the very strong pillars of Rawls’ theory of justice is veil of ignorance which is
an imaginary or hypothetical situation. When the members of the state of nature built
up a civil society all of them were the prisoners of veil of ignorance. This veil of
ignorance is a very important element of justice as fairness. Rawls has explained the
concept elaborately in his book.

Different aspects of the concept are stated below:

1. The parties to the contract were not well conversant with the particulars which are
associated with society. For instance the nature, formation, function etc., of the
society. The ignorance of these facts did not deter them from setting up civil society.

2. People were not well acquainted with their won position such as to what class they
belonged? What was their exact status in society? What position people occupied in
society.

3. They were also ignorant of the rights, duties, privileges, opportunities etc.
Naturally they could not determine the principles and modus operandi of their
distribution.

4. They had not formed any idea about good or bad, just and unjust; rationality and
irrationality; abilities and inabilities; strength and weakness Because of this ignorant
people were not in a position to form an opinion in favour of any one. They had not
the ability to disapprove anything. In fact, all of them started their life (which may be
called civil life) with a clean slate. This was a very important factor for attaining
justice. At least Rawls thinks so.

5. People at the initial situations did not develop any idea about economics, political
condition or institution about civilisation or cultural condition.

6. Restricted knowledge or ignorance about the environment in which they lived

stood on the way of acquiring adequate idea about certain basic facts. Some of the
basic facts are: production of necessary goods, the employment of capital, protection
of environment, proper and economic use of natural resources. All these elements of
ignorance were the characteristic features of the people of the original position.
According to Rawls the original position or situation is the state of nature.

Rawls in this way has analysed the different aspects of the veil of ignorance. We
treat this concept as an important part of his theory of justice. But all these aspects
of ignorance did not stand on the way of achieving justice.

Rawls says, “As far as possible the only particular facts which the parties know is
that their society in subject to the circumstances of justice and whatever this implies.”
Rawls further says that the veil of ignorance was not a peculiar characteristic feature
of the people of original position but was absolutely natural for them.

The great German philosopher Kant had an idea about this veil of ignorance and he
referred it in his famous doctrine of categorical imperatives. Kant was not alone.
Even in Rousseau’s writing we get a reference to it. People of the state of nature
were ignorant of civil society and because of that they enjoyed liberty. In the opinion
of Rousseau civilisation threw a great assault upon the realisation of liberty and
because of this they felt the necessity of a new form of society.

Reflective Equilibrium:
Reflective equilibrium occupies an important place in Rawls’ methodology. How
Rawls explains it? “I assume that eventually we find a description of the initial
situation that both expresses reasonable conditions and yields principles which
match our considered judgments duly pruned and adjusted. This state of affairs I
refer to as reflective equilibrium. It is an equilibrium because at last our principles
and judgments coincide; and it is reflective, since we know to what principles our
judgments conform and the premises of their derivation”.

Let us put the idea of John Rawls in a comparatively simple language. “We must
constantly check the conclusion of our moral reasoning against our initiative moral
motions and possibly readjust the conditions of the original position so as to derive
principles which are consistent with these fundamental moral beliefs”.

In order to arrive at certain conclusions in regard to justice individuals prepare

judgments of the distribution of right, duties and privileges. We at the same time
decide the principle. Rawls says that there shall be an equilibrium between principles
on the one hand and judgments on the other. We check the conclusions in the
background of morality or ethics. Until an equilibrium situation is reached adjustment
and readjustment process continues.

Rawls further observes that this equilibrium position cannot be stable because when
new situation emerges the old equilibrium position changes or is disturbed. Since
society is in a fluctuating condition an equilibrium can never be stable. Individuals
always check the condition in the light of new situation or circumstances.

Naturally the old equilibrium cannot remain in its position. The old equilibrium
disappears and makes way for a new one. In this way the whole process moves from
one place or position to another.

Justice would be fair if there is a consistency between the principles decided in the
light of the original position and our judgments. If there is inconsistency that would
give birth to a faulty view about justice. In Rawls’ analysis several factors have been
found to interfere and the most important one is the individuals always analyse the
entire phenomenon in the background of their moral reasoning. In other words,
morality always guides them to take an action or to deceive about the attainment of
justice.

In support of our contention we again quote a very lengthy passage from Rawls’
book. “From the standpoint of moral theory the best account of a person’s sense of
justice is not the one which fits his judgments prior to his examining any conception
of justice but rather the one which matches his judgments in reflective equilibrium?
This state is one reached after a person has weighed various proposed conceptions
and he has either revised his judgments to accord with one of them or held fast to his
initial convictious”.

Intuitionism:
While explaining justice as fairness Rawls has briefly discussed intuitionism to
support the theory. Dictionary defines intuitionism as the theory that primary truth
and principles are known by intuition. The intuition means an ability to understand
without the need for conscious reasoning. We want to see how Rawls has applied
these ideas to his analysis of justice as fairness.

When the individuals are confronted with the task of taking a decision about justice
they start to analyse various matters which they think relevant. First of all their duty is
to weigh various principles which conform to the concept of justice.

This the individuals do by weighing different principles against one another and this
they do by applying intuition and not conscious reasoning. Intuition and not reason is
the technique they apply. The aim of the individuals is to arrive at what is just and
what is unjust. If we scan Rawls’ analysis in regard to the importance of intuitionism
in the determination of justice we shall find it has a great role in finalising the concept
of justice and its principles.

Intuitionism or intuitionist theory is based on two ideas. One is there are number of
first principles “which may conflict to give contrary directives”. In the second place in
intuitionism there is no specific method. Individuals try to reach a balance through
the mechanism of intuitionism. Rawls’ view point is for deciding what is justice as
fairness men apply intuitionism and no empirical methods.
Two Principles of Justice:
Two Principles Stated:
We have now reached the most crucial section of Rawls’ theory of justice. The main
structure of his theory is based on two principles and these he has stated in his
book. The first principle is: “each person is to have an equal right to the most
extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of
liberties for others.”

The second principles runs as follows:

“Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both

(a) Reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage and

(b) Attached to positions are offices open to all.”

These two principles are so much important that concept of justice cannot be
analysed without them. Not only this the theory of justice revolves around these two
basic principles. The principles relate to the fundamental structure of society. Again
how the rights, duties and privileges are to be distributed among the individuals is
decided by these principles.

Interpretation of the First Principle:

Rawls admits that it is very difficult to make a list of all liberties which individuals can
claim. Because in different socio-economic and political structures nature and
number of liberties shall differ. In spite of this preliminary drawback we must try to
show what the principle exactly means.

In a society there shall exist an extensive list of equal basic liberties. All the persons
shall have equal right to all these liberties. No one can claim more than what others
have got. Several things are very important here. (1) A society must publicly
announce all the liberties to which its members shall be entitled. In other words, the
members shall have equal right to all these liberties. These may alternatively be
called social values.

The social values include economic, cultural, political, religious freedom. In

distributing these rights the authority of the state will not make any discrimination on
the basis of race, sex, caste, language etc.

Though Rawls does not categorically state, we surmise that the picture of a
democratic state was very much active in his mind because only in a democracy an
extensive list of liberty can be found. In fact, Rawls has prepared his theory of justice
completely in the background of liberal state and politics. Such states have an
elaborate scheme of liberties.

Rawls reminds us that mere announcement of liberties is not of prime importance.

The authority must take care that none (because of manipulation or partiality
adopted by authority) gets more than the other. The simple implication is that
unequal distribution of liberties is not only intriguing but also the main cause of
injustice. In the scheme of Rawls liberty has been prioritized.

It means that justice is vital no doubt but if liberty is not given priority and a
discrimination crops up in allotting rights and liberties injustice will be an inevitable
consequence. For this reason in Rawls’ scheme liberty has been given first
preference. Hence we find that mere declaration of rights and liberties does not
constitute justice, implementation is of vital importance.

Interpretation of the Second Principle:

We believe that the second principle is more important than the first principle.

The second principle has two parts. In these two parts there are two phrases:
(1) Everyone’s advantage and

(2) Open to all. Rawls himself admits that both these phrases are ambiguous.

So it is not at all easy to arrive at any definite conclusion. But in spite of this
ambiguity these two famous phrases cannot be abandoned.

In the first place, government will make utmost efforts to decide the principles on the
basis of which all the rights, liberties, duties and privileges will be equally distributed.
This principle further asserts that the political system shall not make any
discrimination.

We have already mentioned this earlier. This principle has another aspect. Primarily
the authority will not allow any type of inequality. Because strictly viewed, inequality
or unequal distribution of rights and privileges is an anathema of justice.

But in the second principles Rawls makes heavy concessions for inequalities. He,
here, imposes two powerful conditions. Inequalities or unequal distribution of rights,
liberties duties and privileges will be allowed on the condition that it will be to
everybody’s advantage or in other words, one will not be in disadvantageous position
and the other will be in advantageous position. This type of discrimination is harmful
for the society.

Again Rawls observes that some may get greater privileges while others will get
less. But the reason of this unequal distribution will be allowed on the condition that
the privileges and opportunities shall be open to all. Its implication is every one shall
have adequate freedom to reach the door of privileges.

There shall be no restrictions. In any political system there are many agencies which
allocate the rights, liberties and privileges on behalf of the state. Rawls is of opinion
that the agencies must be efficient. If it is not so the advantages or privileges
generated by society will not be able to reach every one. Moreover, the allocation of
privileges will be so efficient that it cannot be altered further. Allocation of privileges
will reach the maximum level.

While distributing the privileges among the citizens the authority must take care of
the fact that its doors shall be open to all. That is it must be accessible to all. This
accessibility is part of the ambitious scheme—all rights, duties and privileges are
open to all. The two things—accessibility to government and open to all-are
inseparable. If any person feels that he is deterred from having opportunities which
are allotted to others and behind this deprivation there is no valid reason.

The rectification is possible only, if the citizen or the aggrieved person enjoys the
accessibility to the authority, “Assigning rights and duties” writes John Rawls “is
thought to give a scheme which allocates wealth and income,” authority and
responsibility, in a fair way (emphasis added) whatever this allocation turns out to be.
It is clear from Rawls’ view that allocation denotes not simply the income and wealth
but also the opportunity to participate in the affairs of the government.
ANCIENT , MEDIEVAL AND EARLY MODERN CONCEPTIONS –

There is some dispute as to whether the Greeks have a distinct concept of justice.
For Plato and Aristotle , justice in its most general sense , is essential virtue , the concise
virtue , the virtue most important for the social animals that human beings are , living
together in communities whether village , cities or nation states.
In medieval political theories , justice is associated with order. Justice as a judgement upon
conflicting acts and claims of individuals is not separate from realms of religion , psychology
or virtue , in general.

Justice for Hobbes , is whatever free , rational and equal individuals agree to leave out. He
says little about what constitutes a just distribution of goods. As long as the distributions the
result of a freely entered agreement the outcome is just.
Further , he also asserts laws are rules of just and unjust , nothing being reputed unjust , that
is not contrary to some law.
Just and unjust have meaning in relation to law and law is command of the sovereign.
Hobbes conception can be described as the part of legal positivism , for it contends justice to
be a product of positive law and that there is nothing like objective justice. His denial of the
possibility of morality by agreement makes it necessary for the sovereign to impose it. Kelsen
argues that absolute justice is an illusion. In the abstract sense justice has no application since
all statements about justice are relative to positive law which is a product of will and not
reason. Since justice is about the conflict of values and since values are subjective , no
rational argument can settle conflicts.
As for the conclusion most people rejected the criteria of equality and merit as principles of
justice.

LIBERAL THEORY :
The Utilitarian tradition –
Historically , utilitarianism provides an alternative to the contractual defence of liberal justice
by deriving justice from the conceptions of social utility in a manner that results in the
maximisation of total happiness in the society but by counting each person as one as no more
than one. J.S. Mill offers the best known classical defence of this utilitarian approach by
surveying various types of actions and situations that are ordinarily described as just or unjust
and concludes that justice as a set of basic moral rules is derive from the moral ideal of social
utility. There are some problems of this conception. For example , consider a society of
members equally divided into the privileged rich and alienated poor and their incomes for
two alternative social arrangements as follows :
Privileged Rich - Social arrangements- A = 10,000,000 rupees and B= 5,000,000 rupees
Alienated poor – Social arrangements-A = 10,000 rupees and B =25,000 rupees

From this point of view of social utility , A is preferred over B but from the perspective of
liberal justice that stipulates a high minimum for each person in social arrangement. B is
preferred to A. This casts some doubts over the utilitarian defence of liberal justice. R.M
Hare (1980) attempts to remove some of these doubts by arguing that a theory of justice has
to be formulated in accordance with the formal constraints of the concept of justice , meaning
one’s judgement must be universal and impartial. Besides one must also take the appropriate
empirical considerations into account , for example , people experience a declining marginal
utility for money and other social goods over a period of time. This makes the utilitarian
approach moderately egalitarian in its precepts. In this case , B is preferable over A , thus
eliminating the possibility of a conflict between liberal justice and social utility. When
declining marginal utility of money and other social goods are taken into consideration , the
utility values is as follows :

Privileged Rich – Social Arrangements – A : 55 and B : 40

Alienated Poor – Social Arrangements—A : 10 and B :20
Rawls criticises utilitarianism while developing a contractual liberal conception of justice.

Contractual Tradition –

John Rawls , “ A Theory Of Justice “ (1971) and a score of articles , which constitute the
Rawlsian system in the contemporary political philosophy , are classic examples of the
contractual approach applied to liberal justice. He waves an intricate and elaborate pattern of
injury and provides a coherent , systematic and powerful defence of a new kind of
egalitarianism that preserves and extends individual liberty. The first major review
Hampshire (1972) proclaims to be the most substantive and most interesting contribution in
the post Second World War period. Commentaries and critical appraisals have assumed the
status of Rawls industry. The impact of his theory can be gauged from the fact that his book
has been translated into several languages and is a powerful , deep , subtle wide ranging
systematic work in political and moral philosophy and its content deepens our brief about the
theory of justice as its title mentions.

Rawls refers to his conception as pure procedural distinguishing it from perfect procedural
and imperfect procedural , since there is no independent criterion for the just result :

There is a correct or fair procedure such that the outcome is likewise correct or fair , whatever
it is , provided that the procedure has been properly followed …. The background
circumstances define a fair procedure ….. what makes the final outcome ….. fair or unfair is
… a fair procedure (which) translates its fairness to the outcome only when it is carried out.
Rawls tries to demonstrate that justice is about rules that govern a social practice , and not
about the evaluation of different situations through criteria such as need and desert. He
tackles the main criticism of this approach , which is that , following the rules in an exact
manner may produce outcomes that are inconsistent with our common sense notion of justice.
Thus , he purports to show that under certain carefully specified conditions , rational agents
choose a set of principles that are consistent with our innovative ideas of distributive justice
and that when followed , yield outcomes which , whatever they might be , are morally
acceptable. Further there is a strong preference for equality in the theory which contrasts it
with other renditions of entitlement theory. Rawls makes a clear cut demarcation between
production and distribution. Though he understands the importance of productivity to bring
out natural talents in persons , he realises the importance of controlling the market criteria by
principles of social justice.

Thus we conclude by saying that Rawls does not seek to equalise human beings or ignore
individual talents and achievements. Rather he believes that inherited advantages and genetic
superiority have to serve society and , in particular , the least advantaged.

EGALITARIAN THEORY –
The contemporary American philosopher John Rawls has developed an egalitarian theory of
justice that embodies the Kantian conception of equality and offers an alternative to
utilitarianism. Rawl’s theory of justice focuses on social justice, which he regards as a
feature of a well-ordered society. In such a society, free and equal persons are able to purse
their interests in harmony because of institutions that assign rights and duties and distribute
the benefits and burdens of mutual cooperation. Rawl’s aim is not to develop the institutions
of a well-ordered society but to determine the principles that would be used to evaluate the
possibilities. And his method is to ask what principles a rationally self-interested person
might agree to if he or she were to choose these principles in an original position behind a
veil of ignorance. The original position is a hypothetical pre-contract situation similar to the
state of nature in Locke’s theory. The veil of ignorance requires that individuals choose the
principles of justice without knowing any facts about their stations in life, such as social
status, natural ability, intelligence, strength, race and sex.

The principles of justice: Rawls acknowledges three principles of justice-the principle of

equal liberty, the difference principle, and the principle of equal opportunity.

1. The principle of equal liberty holds that each person has an equal right to the most
extensive set of basic liberties that are compatible with a system of liberty for all.
2. The difference principle allows an exception to the principle of equal liberty if some
unequal arrangement benefits the least well-off person. That is an unequal
allocation is considered just if the worst-off person is better off with the new
distribution than the worst-off person under any other distribution.
3. The principle of equal opportunity provides that all public offices and employment
positions be made available to everyone. Society should strive to offer all of its
members an equal opportunity to fill positions through the elimination of difference
caused by accidents of birth or social condition. Natural differences should be used
for the benefit of all.

The basis for the first principle is that an equal share is the most that any person could
reasonably expect considering the requirement for unanimous agreement in the original
position. The second principle recognizes that a rational, impartial person would make
an exception to the first principle and accept less than an equal share if everyone would
be better off as a result of the inequality. Rawl’s concern for the least advantaged is due
to maximum, which is a rule of rational choice drawn from game theory according to
which it is rational to maximize the minimum outcome when choosing between different
alternatives. However, maximum is not the only rational choice of a person behind the
veil of ignorance. One might use the principle of maxim in average utility and assume
some risk to increase his or her chances of becoming better off. Whether Rawls theory
of justice is superior to utilitarianism depends, therefore, on the acceptability of maxim
in as a rule of rational choice.

Libertarian Justice
 Libertarianism is committed to individual liberty conceived as the right to own property
and live free from the interference of others. The free market is justified as the economic
system that best supports individual liberty. Both utilitarianism and libertarianism
support a system of free markets, but when the promotion of utility conflicts wit the
protection of liberty, libertarians favor unregulated markets that protect liberty, while
utilitarians prefer regulation in order to increase utility at the expense of liberty.

Nozick’s Entitlement Theory: The contemporary philosopher Robert Nozick presents a

libertarian statement of the theory of justice that he calls the entitlement theory in the
book Anarchy, State and Utopia (1974). Nozik’s principles of justice are historical
principles that take into account the process by which a distribution came about rather
than the non historical or end-state principles (such as those in utilitarianism and Rawl’s
theory that evaluate a distribution with regard to certain structural features at a given
time. In addition, Nozick’s principles of justice are not patterned, in as much as
patterned principles evaluate a distribution according to the presence or absence of that
feature. Nozick contends that any particular pattern of distribution can be maintained
only by continuously interfering in people’s lives and hence violating their right to
liberty.
The entitlement theory states, “a distribution is just if everyone is entitled to the
holdings they possess”. An expression of the non-patterned entitlement theory in
patterned form is, “From each as they choose, to each as they are chose”. People are
entitled to their holdings if the holdings were obtained by one of the following three
principles.

1. The principles of jut transfer.

2. The principle of just original acquisition.
3. The principle of rectification.

UTILITARIANISM-
Utilitarianism is known to be an ethical principal advocated for the usefulness of any
action being measured by the actual consequences. The act should cause more happiness to
the
greatest number as an end. The consequences count more than the means. For utilitarians,
the
means justifies the end. A just society is therefore one whose laws and practices are meant
to
result to the aggregate happiness of the members in that society.
It is not easy to satisfy all human tastes. The world is so diverse, with people of diverse
interests. This theory seems to more populist by advocating for the wishes of the majority
being
considered at the expense of the minority. But there is a caution here: the majorities are not
always right, and sometimes they go by mob psychology!
It is also important to note that measuring the utility of an action is not as easy as the
theory puts it. Human beings are not machines that an engineer would tell when it will do
what.
The theory therefore fails on this aspect on predictability. For a happy life, human beings
must be
able to access the basic needs, which are universal.

CONCLUSION-
At last I would like to say that we are bound by the roots of Justice and we cannot live in a
society where justice does not breathe
NOTIONS OF JUSTICE –
A distinction is made between legal and social justice. Legal justice is the punishment of
wrongdoing and the compensation of injury through the creation and enforcement of public
set of rules , thus the law. There are two aspects to it.
One , it states the conditions under which punishment is imposed , it prescribes punishment
according to the nature of the crime , and in the sphere of civil law adjusts the amount of
restitution that is made for injuries.
Two , it establishes procedures for applying the law , namely the principles of a fair trial ,
rights of appeal and the like.
Social justice is about distribution of benefits and burdens throughout the society. It deals
with matters like regulation of wages and profits , the protection of the individuals rights
through legal system , the allocation of housing , medication , welfare benefits and the like.
Since punishments are included in legal justice , burdens in context of social justice mean
disadvantages other than punishments. Benefits mean intangible ones , such as , prestige and
self-respect along with material goods , especially wealth.
Social justice invokes criteria such as desert , need , merit or sometimes merely more equality
for its own sake. Defenders of social justice emphasise on different and at times conflicting
criteria but they do concede a positive role for the state.
Desert refers to what is fitting for each person to have and justifies differential treatment. It is
expressed as follows A deserves X and that X is due to A. The more industrious , intelligent
or skilful should receive more than less industrious , intelligent and skilful.
Social justice doesn’t usually consider desert to be moral. Desert is moral when base upon
qualities or actions of the individual , which have an intrinsic moral value- courage , honesty ,
sincerity and the like. Desert signifies the relationship between an individual and his
behaviour and the manner of treatment that are admired and abhorred. A judgement of desert
involves evaluating the suitability of this specific person , with his qualities and past
behaviour receiving a given benefit or harm a suitability that is made clear by considering
and evaluating the attitudes that we may take up towards the person. Desert judgements are
with reference to the past and present facts about a person , never on the basis of a situation
future may create. Desert involves not only an assessment of one’s effort but depends on the
value of a product.
Justice consists in a distribution of resources according to need so that each person achieves
the same level of well-being as others. An egalitarian social welfare theories . Welfare goods
like housing aid , health care and the like are defended as items of need. It has been argued
that if a person experiences distress for no fault of his , then he deserves welfare as an
entitlement and not need or benevolence. Some , like Spencer ( writer ) , reject the idea of
need completely , for it involves depriving some of the deserving of a part of their rewards in
order to supply the undeserving with benefits.
Many writers regard desert and need as an integral part of meaning of justice and consider
conceptions , like a writer Hume , who used ‘ rules of justice ‘ to include property rules , as
unjust.
Justice is intimately linked with respect for rights. Greek political theory and Roman law
have complex notions about the different dimensions of justice but nothing much about
individual rights in the modern sense. Law rather than individual rights defines property and
authority. Ownership of property symbolises a person to whom law grants privileges and
immunities that locally define property. A legitimate ruler is one whom the law directs to
rule.
According to Plato ( Greek writer) -
Socrates maintains that a life of justice is much more preferable than that of injustice. A just
person limits his desires , for usually non-satisfaction leads to unhappiness.
Secondly , he pleasures that are derived from intellect are more genuine and comforting to
those arising from senses. A philosopher understands the difference in pleasures that are
derived from the pursuit of reason to those secured from appetite and sensuality. Usually
unjust person submit to political and psychological tyranny. An unjust person lacks
psychological peace and such s person lacks true friends.

The truth is that the motivation for leading ethical lives devoted to good has nothing to do
with god’s punishment and reward or from our peers but with inner peace and power of
friendship , honesty and happiness.
Justice also shares an intimate link with equality.
Certain uses of justice imply equality , for instance , one speaks of equality before the law.
Justice does not sanction equality of reward to those whose contributions are varied. If one
accepts that some inequalities are defensible , the question then becomes one of determining
the criteria of unequal distribution.

Well as for the conclusion there is only one this to say –

In modern justice , individuals directly pursue wealth , social status and power and justice is
about formulating rules to avoid destructive competition.