Chapter- 1

Historical Perspective of Justice

1.1 Introduction-
Justice is one of the most important socio-political concepts. The concept of
justice has led many thinkers to count from Plato to contemporary thinkers such as John
Rawls, Post-Rawlion such as Robert Nozick, Nielsen. Plato was the first philosopher who
maintained in the Republic that an ideal state rested on cardinal virtues such as
knowledge, justice, courage, and restraint. A number of concepts came to light after him,
like Thomas Aquinas, writing that justice is a fixed state of mind under which a man does
what he must do in conflicting situations. He considers justice as a natural duty imposed
on one person by another. In this pattern many socio-political philosophers present their
concept of justice and conception such as Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Augustine, Hobbes,
Locke, Mill, Kant and Rawls and so on. My intention and purpose is to examine which
theory is in harmony with many theories, especially in the context of many other theories
such as John Rawls and Robert Nozick, Amartya Sen, Michael Sandal.

The English word justice means its Latin root meaning jus. Right ' Its human
meaning is 'binding' or fitting or tying things and qualities together in a harmonious
manner in human life. Thus justice becomes a means of adjustment and measurement.
The idol of Justice, blindfolded with balance in hand, gives an expression of balance,
weight and fair justice that applies to disputes and conflicts. It also balances the
principles like independence, equality etc. Justice has been recognized in ancient Egypt
as the beginning of civilization and fairness from the land of the Hebrews. Maat is the
norm for nature and society, in this world and next, were recorded in the Pyramid texts of
Unas (ca.2375 BCE and 2345 BCE). The idea of justice has been debated for thousands
of years. Ogmannode (2005) identifies justice as one of the world's oldest human
qualities. It is one of the 42 qualities of the "Negative Confession", called the Book of the
Dead (Hilliard 1987) by the ancient Egyptian Egyptians. The Egyptian word "Maat" is
the oldest word for justice and means "truth, justice, balance of righteousness, order,

1
harmony, law and morality" between men and life before the gods. Maat represents the
moral and ethical principle that every Egyptian citizen was expected to follow in their
daily lives. The notion of justice covers a wide range of social relationships between
individuals living in a society. There is a saying that proclaims that justice is the sum of
all virtues. But philosophers want to get beyond etymology and dictionary definitions to
consider, for example the nature of justice as moral virtue of character and desirable
qualities of political society, different definitions of justice separated by philosophers,
political thinkers, and religious leaders - Separate analysis has been done. , And
sociologist. However, broadly, we portrayed fairness, integrity, impartiality and
impartiality and formed a correct notion of justice.

Justice is generally understood as a set of principles designed for the welfare of

the entire human kind. It is not the personal property of any individual or group or
organization. As a universal fair principle, the maxim of justice applies equally to all.
Although the principles of justice differ from one country to another, the common goal of
every society is the promotion of human rights and the maintenance of peace and social
order. For example, euthanasia which is legal in Holland is considered illegal according
to the Indian Constitution. Inspired by these variations, each society demands that each
person should work in a way that will help them achieve an ideal state. An ideal state
may be possible if the individual acts as a member of society because both the individual
and the society are interdependent on each other. In that sense justice is necessary for
both the individual and society. This is an advantage for the person to join the society
where his talent has got its proper shape.

Society protects its citizens from every odd situation and has trained them to fight
for their rights. With the advancement of constitutional rights the person regains his lost
identity and finds a purpose to live a respectable and happy life. At the same time the
development of society depends on the virtuous activities of the citizens including
cooperation, feeling of companionship and concern for the interest of others. There are
different meanings of justice in different spheres of society, claiming the right to practice
legal justice, autonomy and freedom in the field of moral justice, the supreme end in

2
religious justice and equality and merit and a fair environment in the context social
Justice.

The role of justice is to maintain stability and orderliness in every society. Justice
is an ideal concept to be realized for oneself. Individual actions are considered just or
unjust if it is taken out of freewill. In this sense justice and morality are related with each
other. Because both justice and morality provide a standard for human beings and their
actions are judged on the basis of this standard. Justice and ethics deal with individual
behavior and determine what should and should not be done. Unlike morality, justice
defines a personal relationship with society and realizes their obligations. Justice suggests
that it is rational to just happen. Because we cannot just expect our lower being, because
it is their duty as a social to maintain a just society. This proves that justice can only be
realized in a society where the person can claim his rights. Justice and rights are
inseparable from each other because the former provides the citizen with a basis for
exercising their rights. But before that they have to fulfill their duties as citizens of a
society and make relevant changes with structured principles established for the good of
human beings.

The purpose of any theory is to bring happiness to the face of human beings and if
it comes between their developments and prohibits them to enjoy an independent life then
the whole system needs to be reformed. This is possible through active participation in
political affairs and gives valuable suggestions, so that its goal can be met. All these
suggestions clearly show us that justice is an important force in society.

Now the question arises: how can justice be achieved in society? Some theorists
argue that it is an order of external agencies (laws of the institution), where others argue
that it is a product of an individual's conscience that motivates them to live an
independent life. The second argument seems to be stronger than the first because
external agencies force us to do certain things that are against our wishes. These works
can never be considered as mere people. It is individual autonomy to make decisions
independently that will benefit him as well as the society for which he is a part. Kant and

3
Rawls are the two leading thinkers of liberal philosophy and believe that autonomous
beings are capable enough to create a just society because rational beings obey self-
imposed laws that allow them to engage in creative works Inspire. Those who go against
the rules and voluntarily breach the order of society get severe punishment. For example,
a criminal who is involved in antisocial activities in order to satisfy his partial interest in
the happiness of others.

As a result, she / he not only discriminate from social work, but also loses her
motive due to her greed. Individuals are considered supreme among all beings because
they are endowed with reasoning ability which helps them to discriminate in just and
unjust actions. If he forgets his true nature, indulges in corrupt activities, which will be
harmful to the entire human race, then the whole purpose of human life will be lost. If
everyone realizes this fact, there is no need for justice in the society which always bridges
the gap between the loser and the recipient.

Justice is a social value and its aim is to create a free and fair society where no
one is a victim of discrimination due to the cunning attitude of others. Those who are
honest, intelligent find a way on their own and they deserve to be respected by others.
But there are representations of other groups in society who enjoy the labor of others or
adopt the short cut method. And to achieve their goal they can go to any extreme ie,
killing, looting the property of others etc. These individual actions need to be constrained
by institutional rules otherwise people will lose their hope on the legal system. Legal
justice provides justice to the victim by punishing the offender. The purpose of legal
justice is to improve the character of criminals so that it violates the punishments. In the
worst case the offender can be punished, where there is no chance of correction. In this
sense legal justice is able to maintain harmony in society and control the crime rate and
provide reasons for the rights of the victim who have previously been violated by the
society or group of individuals.

Like moral and legal justice, religious justice also suggests that justice is an ideal
concept and should be practiced for the betterment of the entire human kind. Here God is

4
considered the supreme commander of the whole universe and individuals are the means
whose main concern is to obey the order of the Supreme Person. The intention of being
divine is to purify the character of individuals and make them realize the ultimate purpose
of human life, namely the grace of God. Religious justice demands a free and fair society
where each person maintains cooperation with their partner and this is possible when
there is no discrimination among individuals. God treats all beings equally but we cause
individuals to differentiate between one person and another due to our selfishness and
narrow mindset. In this situation divine justice plays a major role to create an equal
atmosphere where all have to honor their orders to attain liberation. The cosmic moral
order defines that justice can be realized when there is a harmonious combination
between the things present in the universe and these things are regulated sequentially, that
is, all seasons, the sun, the moon, Day and night.

Injustice occurs if any of these activities are interrupted which fail to meet the
cosmic goal. Christianity also supports righteous and just actions and advises man to
follow the right path that brings ultimate joy in his life. The Ten Commandments of
Moses show that each person should do his own duty without interfering with the lives of
others. Treating as an instrument for the fulfillment of man's desire should be prohibited
and respect the privacy of others. The principle of karma is the best example in this
context where a person alone is responsible for his / her own actions. The
Niskamakakarma of the Gita teaches us reckless action and this can happen when we do
our duty non-stop after the result. It is our action that determines our praise or blame
therefore it is not worthy to engage in wrong activities which ruin our lives.
Niskamakarma gives a complete independent portrait of man who is the sole architect of
his / her destiny without belonging to the supreme deity.

By similar discussions the Upanishads can be traced to those considered to be the

destroyer of ignorance. In the Mukta Upanishad, the phrase 'I am Brahman' (Aham
Brahmasmi) traces the condition of a wise man who freely decides for his better future.
Only the ignorant are incapable, so they have to depend on their master, whose direction
brings light into their dark life. But wise men realize unity with Brahmin and lead a

5
respectable life. The Upanishads are free from all kinds of social differences which are
the root cause of all social disturbances. Therefore, the division of superiority and
inferiority does not appear in the picture which creates differences between individuals.
Only liberated beings are able to feel the real essence of Brahman because they have the
ability to dominate the irrational part of the soul with the rational part that makes them
perfect. Religious justice not only detects fairness and equality in the metaphysical field,
but also its suitability in the social field. All religious texts give a real account of an ideal
man who is capable of conquering his will, passion, and cultivates a sense of humanity,
universal brotherhood which is essential for the welfare of society. Man possesses the
highest quality, that is, rationality that is free from caste, creed and colors and it is the
duty of society to create a social environment that provides equal opportunity to every
citizen. Later each person develops his inner talent and holds a special place in society.
Religious justice never promotes the view that children should use their ancestral
property to build their identity because it makes them passive and is unjust to others
whose resources are not sufficient to meet their basic needs Huh.

Justice has no definite meaning in society and its nature varies from one society to
another. Therefore it is not possible to maintain uniformity between these ideas, but the
general purpose of all societies is to provide a respectable life which is the natural right of
individuals. Greek thinkers mainly emphasize the ability of the individual which helps
them to form a distinctive identity in society. Both Plato and Aristotle acknowledge that
engagement in any activity does not simply bring fruitful results, so each person must do
an act for which he is best. The ability of the individual depends on the act he voluntarily
did and it can be helpful for the development of any society.

Personal morality plays an important role in Platonic philosophy which suggests

that inner conscience helps the individual to engage in religious and just actions. Unlike
Plato, Aristotle argues that personal reason is not enough to just lead life, so it has to be
constrained through external laws. Here justice shows the ability of a brilliant person
whose reasoning is more effective to fulfill the goal of politics. Aristotle is least bothered
about people belonging to the underprivileged class because equal beings in his society

6
are always in a state of profit and others receive unequal treatment. The liberals accused
Aristotle of being insensitive to the development of privileged groups and suggested that
it was the duty of society as well as to support the benefit groups so that they could
overcome social discrimination. It is not justifiable to ignore the plight of the less
privileged group and at the same time consider both the meritorious and the ignorant
alike to be unfair to the former group. Conflict can be resolved only when we adopt a
middle path between these groups where the gifted person gets proper recognition from
the society and the undesirable people are able to enjoy a better life. This is the main
objective of choosing the subject of justice where the rights of individuals are justified
with the help of social rules and they are made aware of their duty to society.

Justice fairness is derived from a particular scenario; each culture has its own
understanding of justice. The Republic, a theoretical work by the Greek philosopher
Plato, was one of the first theories that defined justice. The concept of justice is not
monolithic in nature and culture can be diverse to culture. An early theory of justice was
established by the ancient Greek philosopher Plato in his work The Republic. Advocates
of the divine command doctrine argue that justice is justice to God. In the 17th century,
theorists such as John Locke argued for the doctrine of natural law. In the social contract
tradition, thinkers argued that justice is derived from the mutual agreement of all
concerned. In the 19th century, utilitarian thinkers, including John Stuart Mill, argued
that justice is the thing that produces the best results. The principles of distributed justice
concern who are distributed, between whom they are to be distributed, and what is fair
distribution. Egaliters argued that justice cannot cross the coordinates of equality. John
Rawls used a social contract argument to show that justice, and especially distributive
justice, is a form of fairness. Property rights theorists (like Robert Nozick) hold an
equitable view of distributive justice and argue that property rights-based justice
maximizes the overall wealth of an economic system. The principles of vengeful justice
relate to punishment for wrongdoing. Restorative justice (sometimes referred to as
"reparative justice") is an approach to justice that focuses on restoring what is good, and
necessarily on the needs of victims and perpetrators.

7
1.2 Development of Religious Justice
Divine Order — Advocates of the Divine Order doctrine argue that justice, and
indeed the whole morality, is the authoritative command of God. Murder is wrong and
must be punished, for example, because, and only because God commands that it happen.

The divine command doctrine was famously questioned by Plato in his dialogue,
Euthephro. Called the Euthephro Dilemma, it is as follows: "Is it morally good
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, then justice is arbitrary;
If the former is true, then morality exists on a higher order than God, which becomes
little more than a passerby of moral knowledge. Many apologists addressed the issue,
usually arguing that it was a false dilemma. For example, some Christian theologians
argue that goodness is the nature of God, and is reflected in his commandments. Another
response, Immanuel Kant & c. s. Popularized by Lewis in two contexts, it is arguably
valid to argue that the existence of an objective morality implies the existence of God and
vice versa.

Abrahamic justice — Jews, Muslims, and Christians traditionally believe that

justice operates a present, real, right, and especially concept with mercy, and that justice
is ultimately received and held by God. According to the Bible, such institutions as the
Mosaic Law were created by God to require Israelis to live and enforce their standards of
justice. The Hebrew Bible describes God about Abraham, the Judeo-Christian religious
leader: "No, because I have chosen him, that he may accuse his children and himself.
Then to maintain the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice." Domestic after
that. “(Genesis 1al: 19, NRSV). The psalmist describes God as "the righteousness and
justice of the throne". "(Psalm 89:14, NRSV). The New Testament describes God and
Christ as judging and demonstrating, often compared with displaying God and supporting
mercy (Matthew 5: 7).

The problem of justice has been very important in human history and culture.
Like many other philosophical problems, justice has always been a very important point

8
in matters of ethics-political-socio-religious matters. The term justice has specific use as
a moral and a social concept; it refers either to situations that arise in relation to man to
man or to specific circumstances of social life.

Since the Renaissance period in history marked the beginning of the act of free
thinking and free thought, they exist and still present different perceptions and
perspectives on each topic of human discourse. The concept of justice is a good example.
There are opinions and opinions regarding the nature of justice. Plato has been a
significant problem in the field of justice philosophy since contemporary times. Even
when such significant differences of use are possible and political religious and
philosophical arguments about the meaning or nature of justice are concerned with
legitimacy, which facilitates a particular application of the term justice. It is a little
difficult to explain a word like justice like other words like rationality and happiness.
However, it does not have a common meaning. Here I will shorten to seek help from
encyclopedias and other sources and to obtain more specific and explicit social justice,
which makes it completely impossible if the clear meanings of justice are not understood.
Ethics is empty without the application of justice in society. Justice is also a moral,
religious and social concept that is central to philosophy and most religious. Theologians
are deeply interested in the problem of Allah (God), he judges, he cannot be unjust, such
expressions also invite debate, justifying a free inquiry and the notion of justice in
relation to God Huh. The word has many shades and distinctions of justice and all are
important and valuable.

Ethics represent the search for a consistency in the beliefs of good life and right
conduct. Moral values develop in a society when its members accept the need for
peaceful coexistence, the problem of justice being more moral as a value. When we talk
of social justice it applies and it can be understood in society. We know that every society
has its own terms and conditions. But justice has its own conditions. There is agreement
that social justice is done to the people with justice, there is no responsibility for more or
less distribution of justice. Delay in justice is a demand for justice which is one aspect
with the jurisdiction law process. This question may be on enacted law, with fair laws

9
being formulated to consider all aspects of justice among all, with essays and questions of
administration more relevant which is a joy everywhere in the world today. Most theories
of the world standard provide a general framework within which a particular ethical issue
can be tested. Values represent the transition that is desirable through a medium that is
generally considered desirable. I would like to call this approach of "looking at
something going up under a systematic paradigm and try to discuss every ethical issue
within the paradigm." An objective approach or theistic approach to ethics. However, a
moral theory provides a definitive framework for reducing morality to all kinds of moral
dilemmas and a closed system. Ethical theory often observes that each ethical issue varies
in content as well as context. The Rawls Critique of modern society can be called the
critical social theory, the precursor to the post-modernist attack on post-modernism. Post
modernists see this as contraception with the excesses of modernism with modernism. He
wants to see ethics problems in a new perspective, challenging all traditional approaches.
Such ethics can be called 'open use ethics'. There are two things to work on this subject,
number one is America follows the Rawls philosophy, if so, there must be something in
its philosophy. There is no such thing as success. America is a country with maximum
freedom and its citizens lead happy and healthy lives. Justice problems are not new, we
still face more challenges. Now I will try to understand the meaning of justice through
other sources such as encyclopedias and other authors who have marked justice.

Western philosophers, since early times, have been trying to formulate this
concept. Justice is only the correct determination and partiality of disputes and
enforcement of law, but is so broad in its meaning and import that it falls within the realm
of political, social, judicial and moral idealism. This is because justice refers to the entire
human existence that we want to feel through our thinking, desire and action. The
mystery of justice cannot be completely solved by human reason, logic or language. It
has a greater appeal to the human soul. Justice as a reality is only fully reflected in our
conscience and realized through our intuition.

1.3 Concept of Justice

10
 This flexible and dynamic concept of justice varies from time to time and from
place to place. Since its birth is closely associated with human civilization, it has always
been in the interest of mankind. Although, the concept is very broad and conceived with
many diverse conceptions of right, morality, welfare and happiness, it is not possible to
define the term 'justice' within the limits of a defined definition. I believe, because justice
is a basic imperative for good human relationships and cohabitation. Therefore, I have
tried to analyze the implications of such concepts for different concepts of justice and
human quest for peaceful coexistence and full realization of human potential. In the end I
argue that justice, as justice, is superior to every other conception of justice, providing
answers to man's quest for a global social order necessary for human flourishing at any
time and any day. When we speak of justice as a virtue, justice is the first virtue and
essential features of society, we are usually referring to a trait of individuals, even if we
refer to something (grounding) in terms of social justice. Being imagines the justice of
individuals. But Rawls and others consider justice to be "the first quality of social
institutions" (1971, p. 3), hence "justice as a virtue". The concept of justice runs in most
of us. An ethic of justice and rights tells us to regulate our actions or lives according to
some common moral principles. For a good understanding of what justice means, a
proper analysis and understanding will be attempted from the perspective of various
schools and philosophical periods (from the classical, medieval, modern to contemporary
periods). While this may not be a complete analysis of the concept of justice, it will at
least analyze some propositions about the concept.

The concept of justice follows in most of us, the concept of justice is a good
example, and there are opinions and opinions about the nature of justice because justice is
a basic imperative for good human relations and co-residence. It has different reactions in
different communities. An ethic of justice and rights tells us to regulate our actions or
lives according to some common moral principles.

1.4 Development of the Concept of Justice

The word "justice" in the general sense means giving each person his due time.
But it is not as simple as it looks. It is a complex phenomenon that pervades social

11
thinking to an incomparable extent. The concept of justice is the basis of both law and
morality. Although it seems that the idea of legal and moral and justice share some
common principles, they do not stand in the same relation in the operation, law and moral
relation of their respective fields. On the one hand it is considered as a concept, which
relates to the order of society as a whole, and on the other it is an expression of the right
of individuals to contradict the claim of the general social order. Justice in the context of
law is used to cover the set of principles and procedure that must be followed. The lawyer
here is not intended to penetrate the principle of natural justice, which is relatively
inferior through the fundamental part of the legal system, but he is trying to explain that it
is the difference between natural justice and the rest of the superstructure, which Relying
on custom, precedent and enactment. Unlike legal justice, justice in the light of social
ethics does not cover the entire field of principles and actions that are considered right. It
is considered the foundation of social ethics because without it society will collapse. The
scope of moral laws is limited to the realm of moral justice. However, the law is
concerned with the protection of rights.

The idea of justice, both in legal and moral sense, is related to the general orders
of society. There are two faces of justice, one conservative and the other reformist.
Criminal law is specifically designed to protect the order of society. The punishment for
the crime is not to give satisfaction to the victim but to protect the social fabric. So far the
victim of the crime has been able to falsify a claim against the offender, because he is
wrongfully victimized, it takes the form of reimbursement or compensation for loss or
damage, and in any way any natural will. Satisfaction is not offensive to see the payback
in its own coin. In a system of criminal law, the natural will of the unjust person is
merged with the general desire of society to protect it from such harmful conduct, and
punishment is imposed for the rights of the organized society and the society as a whole. .

In social ethics, the concept of justice as law has both a conservative and
reformist role. Orthodoxy is to maintain an established order of things, taken to be
entitled. A person is entitled to the things he has acquired, provided that the method of
acquisition was not in itself wrong. He has all the rights to use his property. But the role

12
of justice in the case of reform is to change the existing pattern of entitlement based on
merit and need. It is not for a person to always remain in the same level of play. If he
develops his talent through proper training, experience, justice demands that he should be
promoted. Then what is the state of need in society. For example, if a worker’s salary is
not sufficient to meet his basic needs, then we can say that it is unfair. In that case if we
increase the wages of the workers so that they can be given sufficiently, then it is not
necessary that the rich person has the amount. Both conservative and reformist justice do
not strongly differ with each other. Each tries to serve a good purpose. The orthodoxy
assumes that everyone benefits from a stable social order, however imperfect, and
therefore aims to preserve stability. Reformist justice complements this good objective
interchangeably, trying to remove imperfection, so as to redistribute rights to make social
justice justified. In the view of the ancient Greeks, the idea of justice was almost a
reference to social order. To trace the development of justice from the beginning of
socio-political philosophy to the present, it would be convenient to divide it into two
parts: the ancient roots of justice and the modern roots of justice.

1.4.1 Ancient Roots of Justice

The root of ancient justice begins with the writings of Plato and Aristotle. Plato
discusses the concept of justice in Book IV of The Republic, where he defines justice as
the principle that all should do the work for which he is best suited. He used the word
"just" as a synonym: the root of ancient justice begins with the writings of Plato and
Aristotle. Plato discusses the concept of justice in Book IV of The Republic, where he
defines justice as the principle that all should do the work for which he is best suited.
Justice in Plato's words- "which is in the interest of the best state." Then the question
came in our mind that what is the interest of the best state. The answer is the arrest of
change from rigid class division and maintenance of class governance. "

The economic division of labor that exists in society is complemented by the

social and political division of labor. Plato suggests that there are mainly three divisions
of labor in society. These are: protector or ruler, assistant or military and working class.
The guardian class requires the virtue of intelligence to be helpful in the act of

13
conducting sound in order to maintain order of protection. The three classes need the
quality of restraint or self-control to accept their respective roles in society.

In the end, the quality of justice is one that maintains balance or harmony between
these classes and also guides them to do their duty or work properly. But Plato argues
that this early division of labor is not a proper definition of justice, it is merely a clue to
understanding the idea of justice. In his book 'The Republic' (433) he describes why the
economic division of labor is not justice. But the problem starts when a person who is a
worker by nature or is a member of the money earning class enters the Warrior class. "

This type of interchange is a major crime against society. Any such conspiracy
from one class to another destroys the regulation and order of the state, and injustice is
done. Conversely, when each person fulfills his duty to whoever entrusts him
appropriately, only he is considered to be an appropriate task. A person can do everything
for himself but he has to work hard to keep going. He is not really self-sufficient. If there
is division of labor and exchange of products then life will be much easier and more
comfortable. Men need help from each other.

In his 'The Republic' Plato portrays the nature of man, which means that man is
the only one who follows the rules of the state. According to this theory, the human soul
has three parts - “soul and hunger. Between these three types of the human soul, the
proper soul has a higher quality, which means that it rules over the rest of the two parts.
The order relation is known as justice in the soul.

A man, who follows the orders of the soul as well as the rules, is counted as a
happy man. Here Plato considers that there is a connection between the state of the soul
and nature. Following the rules of a good state produces the right system in the soul of
the citizen. The good state is the state that fulfills its nature and at the same time produces
conditions in which its subject can fulfill his nature as men. Simply, according to Plato,
work is one that is not in harmony with the interest of the state, but in harmony with
nature. He believes that nature as divine and that divine element in the state (justice) is

14
neither mysterious nor irrational, but it is completely just and sensible. To understand
Plato's view on justice, we can say that his theory of political responsibility rests on the
notion that justice rests in the state and that justice means the presence of divinity.

Aristotle, like Plato, presents the concept of justice in a systematic way. Plato's
treatment of justice is far more attractive, while Aristotle's idea yields more knowledge.
Aristotle's ideas about justice are most systematically given in Book V of the
Nicomachian Ethics. He began his discussion by drawing a divide between universal
justice and special justice. Aristotle tries to identify with the moral ethics of universal
justice which reminds us of a key aspect of Plato's 'The Republic' where he makes the
analogy of universal justice with law. According to Aristotle both the words just and
unfair are unclear.

Like Plato, Aristotle also tries to identify his conception of justice with legal and
moral justice. According to Aristotle, the purpose of the law is to promote virtue and curb
all vice. In the former sense justice is known as absolute virtue. It is an absolute virtue
but only in relationship with other people. Unlike universal justice, special justice deals
with specific issues such as merit, fairness, status, money, etc. For clarity, he divides his
special justice into two parts: distributive justice and corrective justice. Distributive
justice is a matter of arranging things according to proportional equality (based on desert
or value) while corrective justice deals with equality of arithmetic proportions.

1.4.2 Modern Roots of Justice

For clarity and accuracy it is better to divide the modern root of justice into two
parts, liberalism and utilitarianism. Liberalism and utilitarianism are two different aspects
of individualism. The main purpose of individualism is that the person is considered the
center of all the ends. All social and political institutions exist as an instrument for the
welfare of the individual. Individualistic philosophy begins with Thomas Hobbes (1588–
1678), who is considered the father of modern political philosophy. His discussion begins
with an analysis of human nature. Hobbes thought that experiment is anti-Aristotle in
nature which strongly believes that all human beings are almost equal in physical and

15
mental capacities, so that there are no natural masters or natural slaves, and no
fundamental between men and women or any group of people Do not differentiate as
some of them are naturally subordinate to others. To quote Hobbes in this context-
"Nature has made men more similar to the faculties of body and mind, though one man is
sometimes found to be stronger in body or sharp mind than another, Yet when all are
together, the difference between man and man is not so considerable that one man can
claim himself for some benefit for which the other also gives himself before him. Do not
give up. Because for the strength of the body, the weakest has the strongest strength,
either by secret torture, or by betrayal of others, who are in the same danger with him. "

Hobbes points out that even though we differ in strength and intelligence, there
are no men and women alike who can dominate us through muscles or brains. Since
individuals are almost equal in power, everyone only has the best relationship of their
lives and tries to seek power as the best means to secure a good good in the future. In an
attempt to satisfy their self-desires, they get into conflict with each other. And the state
will inevitably become, "Every man's war situation against every man." To protect his
life and property from external aggression enter into a contract personally where he
surrenders all his natural rights to a sovereign ruler. Sovereignty resides in the state and
law becomes the sovereign ruler's dictator. It is a duty on the part of a person to obey the
laws of the state and those who violate it face severe punishment.

Thus, there is justice for Boobs who work according to the law. Hobbes has given
a clear definition of justice because the performance of the covenants appears only in
'Leviathan'. His definition of justice in the context of covenants is of two types: Human
justice exists not by nature but by a session of sovereign absolute authority. Hobbes
argues that sovereignty in a society has legitimacy and power only one can decide which
is best for all. By obeying the sovereign authority, the person enters into a contract which
he has made for his safety and security. John Laird discovers that Hobbes had both a
broad and narrow sense of justice. Justice in their broad sense was described as 'the
performance of covenants' and in the narrow sense it is defined as 'whatever was done
with right'. Again Hobbes distinguishes between the two uses of just and just injustice,

16
ties only with individuals while injustice is related to individual action. In his, Element of
Law and De Cive ', Hobbes reiterates the difference between a person's justice and the
justice of action. He does not bother at all about the broad and narrow sense of justice. In
his 'Leviathan' he defines as just and unfair: "Conformity, or uncertainty for reason."
Hobbes maintains that a man's justice is consistent with his manner or manners of life
while the justice of an action is consistent with his cause.

Having provided a specific definition of justice, Hobbes moves to the traditional

classification of justice derived from Aristotle. But he was not satisfied with Aristotle's
division of justice, namely, admirable and distributive justice. According to Aristotle,
commutative justice requires equality of value in an exchange covered in a contract,
while distributive justice determines that the award of benefits must be given to the
individual to the best of his ability. Hobbes rejected the idea of judicial justice and
indicated that it is not unreasonable to sell at more than one price. The value depends on
the willingness of those who agree to a contract, so that any kind of agreement is just or
fairly as long as it is voluntarily made. The fairness of the contract really depends on the
wishes of the parties, provided that each of them has the proper knowledge to engage in it
and they are in fact free agents. So Hobbes says that judicial justice is simply the justice
of a contractor that is, keeping the covenants made in a contract for the exchange of
goods. Similarly, he is dissatisfied with the idea of distributive justice on the basis of a
person's ability.

Hobbes argues justice which is determined in the context of the personal desert is
nothing but a 'grace'. It is a matter of gift and not of liability. Distributive justice,
according to Hobbes, is to deliver as part of our own that reminds us of the traditional
account of justice, which provides each according to its'. Hoobes calls it equity. He
makes a strong distinction between distributive justice and equity. Distributive justice is
not limited to equitable distribution. It follows the traditional definition of justice that
every man should get his fair share. While equity sticks with equal distribution, it means
that each person should be treated in a similar way. In this context, he differs from the

17
Aristotle qualitative account of distributive justice, that is, this power and privilege
should be given to individuals who have that ability.

With the help of the difference between justice and equity, Hobbes is able to say
that "there can be a sovereign inequality, but not injustice." Hobbes states that the
sovereign, like any other person, has an obligation to obey the law of nature, which
includes the law. But they have no covenant or artificial obligation towards their subjects
as a result of their social contract. The sovereign has a natural obligation to the third law
of nature that determines the performance of the covenant which is based on mutual trust.
Mutual trust can only occur when there is reasonable certainty that promises will be kept
provided both parties perform their duties in a rational manner. Hobbes grants absolute
authority to the sovereign ruler. He can do everything he thinks best for overall
development. He is also bound by the laws of nature and has to make every effort to
provide security to the life and property of a person in times of war.

Thus, we can say that Hobbes supports the egalitarian concept of justice that all
men are entitled to be equal. But he modifies his view of equality in a slightly different
way. Instead of saying that all men are equal; He says that all men are almost equal, so no
one is strong enough to dominate the rest. After discussing the basic ideas of
individualism, it is necessary to discuss two parts of it: liberalism and utilitarianism. The
word 'liberalism' originated from the word 'freedom' which means freedom or freedom.
Liberty is the intrinsic right of the individual. But the social critic of liberalism insists that
this is the ideology of the rich class, because it is never associated with the rights of the
common man. This is because the right to property is considered sacred to liberals, and
any attempt by the state to circumvent any kind of restriction is harmful to the personality
of any individual. John Locke (1632–1704) is regarded as the father of liberalism. It
ensures certain rights to individuals, namely, the right to life, liberty and property. To
quote Hiller Steiner's words - "Liberals are concerned with securing a society that has
enforceable obligations to an individual - avoiding violence against the persons of others
other than their own obligation - that all liability that it has is contracted individually.

18
What it determines is a minimum of uncontrollable enforceable restrictions on personal
conduct.

Locke begins his analysis of human nature. There is not much difference between
Hobbes's and Locke's views on human nature. Hobbesian's view that man is arrogant,
competitive and quarrelsome and aggressive; and the state of nature is a state of war
against all. Similarly Locke shows the egoistic nature of man whose efforts are always
directed towards achieving happiness and pain. Despite all these similarities, he believes
that he is rational and cooperative.

It is the presence of 'divine nature' that helps man to create a good deal of order
and harmony in society. But even after co-operation and rationality, and some natural
rights protected by natural laws, one realizes some discrepancies in the state of nature.
These inconsistencies are the absence of an impartial legislator (who would uniformly
interpret the laws of nature), an impartial executive and an impartial judge. Men enter
into a contract to overcome these deficiencies. The contract is made between the society
with the state and the individual with the society. Under this, each person agrees to
surrender his entire natural right to the community which guarantees the safety and
security of the person's life and property. In this state of nature, everyone should get
equal amount of goods. The right allocation of good among members of society is known
as justice. The right distribution is considered to be the one that maintains ownership of
the property or ownership. Justice, according to Locke, is a dependent act of ownership.
He said that the main function of natural law is to provide security to the distribution
system. John Dunn says - "If the law of nature was greedy towards the state of selfishness
in which humans live, then the imprudence of supply and the consequence that each
appropriation is made at the expense of others, would mean that Self-contradictory. There
is a permanent conflict between human duty and human interest in the world and
mediating this conflict is an act of the law of nature. "Thus, justice lies in assuming the
limited government which enforces the natural law existing in the state of nature. . This
law protects the right to life, liberty and property.

19
 David Hume (1711–1776) is also a representative thinker of the liberal tradition.
For Hume, justice is a quality that humans can possess. This concept suggests that justice
is not related to men's action but to their personal qualities. Hume's idea of justice is
largely limited to property rights and obligations to promises. In his book his ‘Enquiry
Concerning the Principles of Morals ', he said that keeping the promise is one of the most
important parts of justice. Although the humean conception of justice indicates its
relationship with property, it never tries to define justice in the case of property. In this
context he differs from Locke in stating that justice is associated with property. Hume
does justice to human conventions and suggests that "the rules of justice are conventions
in which material goods (money, land, possession, etc.) are given to particular persons";
And the quality of justice honors this handwriting by appropriating the goods of others,
and ensuring that the wrongly appropriated goods are returned to their owners.

In Locke's philosophy we can find that individuals have natural rights over life,
liberty, and property, while rights in Hume are determined by conventions and judged by
respecting these inscriptions. In this sense, justice becomes an artificial quality and seems
to be the natural purpose of doing justice. In his ' Treatise of Human Nature ', he has set
examples such as artificial virtues to keep promise, political loyalty, adherence to
international law, and welcome strict standards of purity and humility. He distinguishes
between artificial properties with natural properties. Natural properties naturally occur in
humans. The main qualities of natural qualities are greatness of the mind (heroism),
goodness and benevolence (generosity, humanity, compassion, gratitude, friendship,
loyalty, passion, distaste, freedom. While complexity is involved in the inspiration of
artificial virtue. It depends. The convention that grows during social experience.

After naming justice as an artificial virtue, Hume sets out three tasks to perform
himself before the completion of his analysis of that quality. Firstly, which basically
motivates men to adopt the rules of justice, secondly, what motivates them to follow the
rule and finally why justice, because to follow such rules is moral Attributes are
considered. Hume refers to the normal circumstances of human life to explain the
adoption of justice. There are three main conditions that specifically require people to

20
freeze rules by specifying objects as their property. These three conditions are as follows
— by extension, first, men have a greater desire for readily available goods from nature's
hand. He is therefore placed to meet with one another for scarce resources. Secondly,
men are not completely altruistic in their nature, so not everyone would agree to deliver
goods that would maximize the total stock of happiness. Third, items can be easily
written from one set of hands to another. Within these three conditions, men are liable to
come into conflict with each other over the distribution of resources. If they follow their
inclinations in a direct and shortsighted manner, the result will be a struggle for goods
and this provides no chance to develop their skills and engage in mutual cooperation.
There is no need to change his natural inclination, provided he respects the interest and
property rights of others.

Hume's second position is almost identical to his first, so there is no need to

repeat things. Finally, it is a question of why justice should be regarded as a moral virtue.
If the established property rules of the estate help them benefit everyone and those who
try to break that rule are liable to suffer punishment because they voluntarily interfere
with the rules of the convention. David Miller has rightly said that justice is important for
human society and no society can decline the conference on this question. To quote
David Miller - "we may legitimately speak of justice in Hume's account, as respect for
the rights of others; provided we always remember that a person's right is good for a
person according to the law of justice."

Thus, for Hume, the right to property has also been determined by conventions. Is
there a rational way through which we can allocate assets? Hume suggests three basic
methods of distribution, namely the merit of each recipient, the use of each individual,
and the uniform distribution. The distribution of property, according to the desert, cannot
be obtained by a general rule of distribution or by a set of rules, because it requires
constant adjustment with individual character. The personal comfort desert is one on
which men will inevitably disagree, so conflict arises. The same happens with the use of
each person's property, if we give the person freedom to choose the most possible option
for him. Then Hume moves towards the third probability of the distribution of the

21
property which is equality. Although it is considered an ideal method of distribution, it
leaves an impact on the uniform distribution. Not all human beings are born equal, some
are born in a wealthy family or some in a poor family but when we distribute resources
(natural and material) we should adopt a fair and equal policy.

To overcome all these discrepancies, Hume laid down five grounds of property
right over property, possession, possession, prescription, access and succession.
Possession operates at the foundation of society. If men come together to constitute a
system of property, their guiding principle would be to give each man an asset over the
goods he already possesses. Business says, a person shall have the right to anything
which he has possessed before any person, that is, before any other person. Prescription
can be considered a long term possession. Here the person will have the right to the
object which he has kept for a wide period of time. Accession and succession are the
other two ways of obtaining title to certain objects. Hume points out, as against Locke,
that labor is not a significant factor, but merely a relation of physical proximity between
two related objects. By succession, he intends to transfer property from parent to child on
the ground of his personal relationship. Thus, for Hume, justice reflects a kind of
relationship that would be appropriate for men considered as owners of property.
According to Hume, justice is an artificial quality because men find it for their benefit.
Adhering to the principle of justice, men are moved by self-love and altruism. He
portrays a different type of human nature in that he is neither completely selfish nor
completely altruistic. Hume suggests that while justice and public interest are
independent values, there may be circumstances in which the public interest is allowed to
opt out of justice.

Unlike Hume, Immanuel Kant also belongs to the liberal individualist tradition
which presents a completely different picture of man. The basic purpose of every person
is to have a good life, and he works according to his freewill. In order to fulfill his
personal selfishness, he is motivated by his emotional desire which is harmful to his good
life. By following the laws of apparent inevitability, which not only controls his inner
feelings, but helps him achieve a good life? For Hume, justice means that one must work

22
for the welfare of society even for one's own self. Whereas for Kant, justice means
working within the state according to his will, whose main task is to eliminate the
impediment of the good life? Kant's ideas about justice are found in his four major works
on politics, that is, Idea for Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose, Theory and
Practice, Perpetual Peace, and The Metaphysical Elements of Justice '. According to
Justice, Kant: "The set of conditions under which one person's will can be combined with
the other's will according the universal law of liberty."

The same is expressed by the Principal Universal Principal of Justice which

states: “Every action is justified (rightly) that it is in itself or in its maxim that freedom of
will.”Thus, justice means that every person should work as a community. Overall, where
one person's independence depends on another. Every person in that community must
follow a universal law and they are bound to follow the rules. If they fail to follow the
universal rule then there is injustice in the society. He further states that: “Justice is
united with the authorization to use coercion." In theory and practice, coercion is defined
by Kant as: "the restriction of liberty through the arbitrariness of another party."
Importantly, if personal freedom creates an obstacle to another's freedom, coercion plays
an important role that restricts the person who exercises his or her freedom. Then he
writes- 'If a certain use of liberty is an impediment to liberty according to universal laws
(ie. Is unjust), then the use of coercion to counteract it, as much as it is the prevention of
an impediment to liberty, universal laws. Corresponds to freedom according to; In other
words, this use of coercion is just that. It follows the law of contradiction that justice (a
right) is united to use coercion with the one opposing the violation (or a right) of justice.
Kant states that it is the role of justice that determines the legitimate or illegitimate use of
force. Legitimate use of coercion is acting according to the liberty of the individual, while
the latter forbids the liberty which is called injustice. Legitimate uses of coercion always
seek to balance with illegitimate use. A person, who obeys universal laws and at the same
time is concerned about the freedom of all, is considered a person only.

Thus, justice for Kant is a law of reciprocal relation that corresponds to individual
liberty under the universal principle of essential justice. Kant has divided his universal

23
principle of justice into two heads: the general division of justice and the general division
of justice which is based on Roman law. This first division of justice is again divided into
three parts: (1) Be an honorable man, (2) Do no injustice and (3) Let every person enter a
society in which every person can get something Can (and edit something) keep what is
its own. On the basis of these three principles, Kant divides the system of duties into
internal, external and connecting duties. But in the other categories of justice, Kant tries
to define justice in two meanings, namely, law and authority. Justice in the former sense
is related to external, which is again divided into natural law and positive law. Natural
law, according to Kant, is based on a primordial principle or it is considered a theory
recognized by logic. Whereas the affirmative law is one which works according to the
will of the external legislator. The above laws are known as private law and public law.
Kant's entire book of The Metaphysical Elements of Justice discusses the distinction
between these two judgments. Private law deals with the state of nature of the individual.
This includes legal relations between individuals, rights and duties of individuals in
relation to other persons, law of property, contracts between them, family law, etc.
Another meaning of justice is right. In the general sense, right means the power to create
liability. In Kant's words: "Justice is the restriction of liberty of every person, so that it
harmonizes with the liberty of everyone."

By concluding Kant's view on justice, we say that justice is for him to follow the
mandate of mandate which is complete in itself. He must follow the rules of hierarchical
imperatives at any cost; there is no way to avoid this. It suggests that each person should
follow each other's rules of free will. In obeying the order of the independent, the person
is following his own command, which helps him to live a good and virtuous life. The
state does not play a role in Kant's political writings, it is himself personally who plays an
important role in the order of justice. As stated earlier, individualist theory has two parts,
one is liberalism and the other is utilitarianism. Two prominent philosophers of liberal
political philosophy presented their views on justice in a great way. Similarly, in
utilitarian philosophy, ‟utility” is the center around which all social and political
institutions revolve. Utilitarianism is the measuring stick of all kinds of individual and
state action. Happiness, happiness, pain, truth, goodness, aesthetic ethics etc. are all

24
included in utility. Everything that a human sensible produces a pleasant vibration on the
screen falls under the concept of utility. Egoistic heredity advocates that man is by nature
a creature who wants an animal, and involves his hand in the work that benefits him the
most.

As a moral principle, utilitarianism implies that action is treated as just and only
right because it works for the welfare of the entire human race. Utilitarianism was first
formulated by Bentham, later by J.S. Mill made some modifications to it. To quote
Sidgwick's view — utilitarianism by arian — means here the moral principle, which,
under any circumstance, is conduct, purposefully correct, that will produce the greatest
happiness over the whole; He is the one whose entire happiness is influenced by conduct.
'Happiness for Sidgwick is to gain happiness and avoid pain. It is generally regarded as a
general notion of psychological heredity that assumes that the ultimate goal of man is to
attain pleasure. In contrast to psychological hedonism, moral hedonism holds that
pleasure should be regarded as the ultimate goal of every human being. Utilitarianism is
basically a revival of heredity. Here the verbs are more result oriented, whatever that
means, but the result should be good. It is the social good that determines that action is
just and moral.

Utilitarianism is privileged in the field of law. For him, the state legislation only if
it promotes overall welfare. He is aware of the fact that a government which gives special
importance to the welfare of some people and neglects the entire people can never be
considered a state. Jeremy Bentham (1748–1833) is the principal exponent of classical
utilitarian philosophy. He portrays the egoistic nature of man, who is always concerned
about his enjoyment. Bentham introduces the state of nature to overcome such conflict.
By nature, according to him, the conflicting interests of the citizens are harmonized. The
state has all powerful rights that can prevent individual behavior through punishment.
Bentham provides four basic restrictions through which human behavior can be
controlled. These restrictions are: physical, moral, religious and political. Amid these
restrictions, political acceptance is the key that binds the remaining three. It comes
through legislation, law is made by the state and each person is bound to follow the laws.

25
 Thus, the law becomes the command of the sovereign power of the state.
Therefore the state can take all major decisions for the welfare of the individual and the
wrong-doer should be punished if he intentionally breaks the state order. Thus, it is clear
that Bentham's philosophy is holistic in nature, whose aim is always the advancement of
overall satisfaction. The role of justice is working according to the rules of law in
Bentham's philosophy and the main objective of the law is to achieve overall welfare, that
is, the greatest happiness of the greatest number. The law is intended to produce
maximum utility only when it is considered good. In short we can say that in Bentham's
philosophy, it is only society that ensures the greatest happiness of the greatest number,
an action that produces the maximum number of maximum pleasure.

Unlike Bentham, J.S. Mill tries to place the utmost emphasis on personal dignity.
He believes that being a rational man; his humanity should be respected at any cost and
should not be considered only as an instrument for the welfare of society. Everyone has
certain unalienable rights and it is the duty of society to protect such rights from external
threats. John Stuart Mill is also a noted philosopher who belongs to the utilitarian
tradition. Although, he was born and brought up in the utilitarian gospel of Bentam, he
tries to make a significant change in Bentham's philosophy. We can find an idealistic
image of utilitarianism which indicates that he was influenced by the writings of
Rousseau’s and Kant's political thought. Bentham reflects in his philosophy the egoistic
and self-centered image of man. Unlike Bentham, J.S. Mill introduces two basic
assumptions for utilitarianism - the qualitative aspect and greater freedom from utility.
Mill divides individual tasks into two groups such as: about himself, and in relation to
others. Self-relation means that a person is only connected to his life, whatever he does
for his welfare. Here the person is fully responsible for his action, and there is no danger
of any external authority. But in the case of others, external influence is inevitable, as
each person needs the help of others to fulfill his desires. We should take care of our
freedom and also take care of the freedom of our colleagues. This is possible only by the
intervention of the state, which controls and controls all our actions. Thus, acting
according to the regulation and principles of the state is called justice.

26
 The first glimpse of his theory of justice is in his book Utilitarianism (1861) j. s.
Can be found in Mill, which advances three basic criteria that his views of justice present
in an implicit form. The criteria are: subjectivity, objectivity and adoptive development.
Mill's subjective norms of justice relate to personal interests and expectations that arise
from human self-development. He strictly states that not all interests need social
protection, but those social interests that are responsible for the total welfare of mankind
in general. There are mainly three such interests, namely, freedom, security and equality.
He accepts a divergence of these interests under different circumstances. Freedom
involves the freedom to choose, acts accordingly until the rights of others are violated.
Security provides protection of one's life and property. To quote JS Mill in this context -
"Morals that protect every person from harm to others, either directly or impede their
freedom to pursue their own good, at once they are Those who are most at their heart, and
those who are most interested in publishing and applying them by word and deed; It is
primarily morals that create the obligations of justice. “The duty of justice is to expand
social utility by helping man to develop his interest and refine human abilities and talents.
The role of justice is to examine the antisocial attitude of man which helps him to protect
others from harm as well as to show a developed sympathetic attitude towards others.
Mill's objective criterion states that the development of individual ability is a means of
social utility. It rests on expansion, contribution, sacrifice and effort as a criterion of
merit. In terms of merit, Mill believes that it has different implications in different
contexts. For example, a person who is deprived of natural talent may have an objective
claim to develop the ability to make productive contributions. Mill believes that both his
subjective and objective standards of justice are potentially complimentary in a liberal
democratic society. He offers six things that are coming under his application of justice.
These are:

1. Legal rights: It is just to respect the rules of legal right and unjust to violate them
2. Moral rights: There are certain laws which may be considered as unjust because
it infringes other life or property

27
 3. Requital of desert: Justice should be given to those people who have possesses
that capacity (that mean good or good and evil for evil)
4. Promise keeping: We should keep our promises (fulfillment of engagement,
return the debt to the creditor)
5. Impartiality: Distribute all the scare resources in a manner. We should be free
from any kind favoritisms and preferences
6. Equality: Everyone should be treated equally

Of these six classes, the first two classes share the idea of one right and the last
two are close to each other to prevent discrimination. Mill's final pairing (fairness and
equality) in six categories of justice includes serious criticisms. Fairness is part of a
judge's job to deliver a fair judgment. Similarly, equality is the fundamental right of
every human being. If everyone is treated equally, what is the need of desert in society? It
is therefore unfair to treat them equally, because treating them equally without knowing
their desert is a dangerous issue. Mill's theory of 'greatest happiness of the greatest
number' includes serious criticisms. Bentham believes actions are right because they
promote happiness, wrong because they produce the opposite of happiness. Mill supports
this view of Bentham. It involves two things: First, it is aggregative which refers to the
happiness of the total number, second, it distributes that happiness should be shared
among different people. The meaning of bliss varies from person to person. What is
happiness for me, it may not be for others. So how much does one person's happiness
count for others. Some individuals have higher efficiencies, some are more competent
and some have fewer, so it is difficult to treat in a uniform manner. Thus, we cannot say
that the distribution of goods and rewards should be based on equality or merit because
its dependence is based on context or status.

In this context, David Miller context attempts to draw the necessary attention to
social Justice 'which was published in 1976, although his book was published after
Rawls' book, it was worth discussing the idea of justice before Rawls' idea. Miller's
general ideas about justice closely resemble the traditional idea of justice, that is, to give
each one his due. Like Henri Sidgwick, he also distinguishes between conservative and

28
ideal justice. According to Sedgwick, the role of the orthodox is to maintain the right,
current order of goods and privileges. Although Miller borrowed the idea of conservative
justice from Sedgwick, he presents it in a novel way. Orthodox justice, according to
Miller, is a principle of right. Justice in Miller's words: "Everyone is being empowered
according to his or her rights, derived from publicly accepted rules, established practices,
or past transactions" (such as promises or contracts). "

Miller states that every person must have rights that suit his ability, and he cannot
have these rights without the approval of public consent. It is also based on the practices,
promises and contracts that an individual makes with their fellow partners. While
Sedgwick identifies ideal justice with desert (merit), he argues that the criterion of justice
is more central than desert. He provides three such principles through which distribution
may be possible, namely, rights, deserts, and necessity. These three are such complex
situations and it is difficult to correlate between them. Conflict between right and the rest
of the two principles can be resolved, but need and desert (merit) are incompatible with
each other.

Following Michael Walker's Spheres of Justice, Miller suggests that our

distribution varies according to "our mode of human relationships". He argues that there
are three basic modes of human relations: citizenship, solidaristic community, and
instrumental association. Miller's defined citizenship is the union method, where equality
is a means of distribution. Here everyone shares the common position, namely equality,
freedom, right to freedom, right to vote, right to personal safety, right to political
participation, etc., according to Miller, sharing the same identity as a member of a stable
group is. The fulfillment of the general principle. The principle of justice inherent in this
mode is the distribution of necessity. There are many thinkers who believe that the claim
of necessity is a kind of charity, humanity or philanthropy, not justice. Miller responds
that any distribution helps them reduce human suffering which is part of human liability
and serves the purpose of necessity.

29
 In this context, he refers to the idea of Brian Berry, whose need is not an
independent thought. A person needs some means he wants to fulfill some of his
objectives. Miller is dissatisfied with the idea, so he suggests three types of requirements:
instrumental, functional, and internal. Instrumental needs support the idea that need is
meant to be over. For example, one needs a mobile phone to communicate with members
of his family. So mobile is the means through which he can communicate. But the
remaining two requirements (functional and internal) reject the idea of a means to an end.
For example, a lecturer needs a book to make the level of students more clear, the doctor
needs some operation tools to save someone's life. All these are part of the process for the
fulfillment of those ends. He therefore agrees with the conclusion by Barry that the need
which is the relevant part of justice depends on the end. Market society is one of the parts
of social structure that discuss the concept of desert. The social structure is based on
mutual exchange and contract. Social obligation arises from a contract that is done
independently. The success and failure of each person depends on his own skill, he is
entitled to the reward if he follows the rule of contract. But success or failure does not
always depend on human effort; It is fate or destiny that is also the deciding factor of
human effort. Being born into a rich family or due to their natural talent, some people get
high status in society, while poor people are deprived of those facilities.

But Miller argues that it is her own independent actions that decide her reward or
punishment, with no one to blame. Miller discovers that the desert works in two different
ways. First, grading the individual's position in an organization in view of their work as
to what it ultimately produces and fixing the remuneration for each individual according
to its value; And second, by some selection process to appoint people to grade positions
that assess their ability to do the job well. Miller's account of distributing the reward
based on two conditions: payment must be decided by looking at the product at the end of
his work; and he should be given a position on whether he deserves it or not.

Thus, he comes to the conclusion of that desert and always needs conflict with
each other in terms of their equality. It is the principle of desert which always
discriminates people on the basis of their ability and skills. The individual or group of

30
individuals who take care of their own as well as all efforts of society will receive all the
rewards and be in a better position than the less fortunate person who lacks such ability.
It is the desert that creates inequality in society. On the other hand, Miller claims that the
need for justice determines some of the meanings of human equality. But at the same
time he discovers that these three principles (right, necessity and desert) have different
applications in a particular form of society. These three principles are associated with
justice for the betterment of society as a whole. Therefore it is wrong to give one priority
over others. We can say that it depends on individual perception and demand of
situations, which specifies their priority.

In contemporary times, one of the leading proponents of social justice is John

Rawls. Rawls envisions a liberal society that offers better opportunities than any other
organization. He envisions an ideal society where the basic political, social and economic
institution of a modern constitutional democracy should be designed in a way that takes
care of the individual basic freedoms of every citizen. Rawls suggests that society should
be organized in such a way that every person should get equal share. All social and
cultural organizations exist in the society for the welfare of human beings. He strongly
believes that amendment is necessary if the existing social institutions create any
hindrance in the development of a person's life. Rawls does not believe in the concept of
self-sacrifice. Following Kant, they state that each person, being rational, should be
regarded as an end in itself, not as an instrument for accomplishing the goal of others.
Every person in a society has certain characteristics that are different from others. The
role of the society is to find out that unique quality and train it to realize its talent. Justice
in Rawls's words- "This is the first quality of social institutions, because truth is a system
of ideas. A doctrine must however be elegant and economical or amended if it is untrue;
similarly, no matter how efficient and well-organized the laws and institutions are, it is
necessary to reform or abolish them. Every person has an invisibility founded on justice
that cannot do the welfare of society either. For this reason justice denies the loss of
freedom for some that is corrected by the greater good shared by others. "

31
 He acknowledges that society is a cooperative venture of mutual benefits.
Although all individuals are the same, their interests are also different from each other
which sometimes lead to conflicts between them. As we know that no person is self-
sufficient, he needs help from other fellow peers to fulfill his needs and interest. It is a
kind of give and take where everyone should participate in an impartial manner;
otherwise there is injustice in the society. It is social cooperation that improves personal
life. So, Rawls considered that the principle of social justice is the guiding factor that
distributes burden and benefits in a uniform way. The main theme of justice is to build an
infrastructure. Infrastructure refers to them as "the main political and social institutions of
a society that sit together in a system of social cooperation, the way they delegate basic
rights and duties and control the division of benefits arising from social cooperation." She
does.

Rawls believes that infrastructure is the background to the social structure within
which all cooperative activities of associations and individuals take place. The primary
role of infrastructure in society is to provide security to the background of justice. He
claims that it is the basic structure of society that distributes social primary goods. In
order to maintain uniformity among all members of society, he exposes a principle that
reflects the novelty of his principle of justice. This principle is known as the original
state. In the original situation, the person is only concerned about his welfare, in which
case we cannot call him an egoistic person. As Rawls states: "Since all are equally
situated and no one is able to design principles in favor of their particular circumstances,
principles of justice are the result of a fair agreement or bargain."

It will be easy for everyone to society equally because no one knows their basic
position in the society. The principle that we adopt in the original position, Rawls defines
it as fairness in the form of fair justice. Rawls indicates that the person in the original
position would choose two principles, namely, the principle of independence and the
difference principle. The Liberty Principle treats all humans equally and here personal
right holds a highest position that cannot be neglected for any higher end whatever it may
be. But the situation is slightly different in the case of difference theory which is least

32
concerned about the development of qualified groups. It assumes that inequality is
permissible if the social structure changes, which will bring new hope for the less
privileged. Unlike Aristotle, Rawls advocates that the main concern of distributive justice
is to compensate a person for his misfortune. In his theory of justice, Rawls adopts a
minimum standard of justice that is available to the maximum. The main motive behind
adopting this criterion is to raise the standard of disadvantaged groups, who are either
suppressed due to their luck, talent or are born into poor families.

Nozick was one of the first and one of Rawls's critics of liberal theory of justice.
Both are fundamentally committed to personal freedom. But as a liberator, Nozick is
opposed to compromising individual liberties to promote socio-economic equality and
advocates the "minimum state" as the only kind that can only happen socially. In
Anarchy, the State, and Utopia (1974), especially in his famous chapter on "Distributive
Justice", praising Rawls' first book as Mill's most important "work in political and moral
philosophy", Mill's From then on, Nozick argues for what he says. One is entitled to
justice by reference to the three principles of "Holdings of Justice". First, whoever
properly acquires any holding has the right to keep and use it. Second, anyone who
acquires any holding through just transfer of property has the right to keep and use it. It is
only through some combination of these two approaches that anyone is entitled to any
right to hold. Unlike utilitarian thinkers, libertarian thinkers such as Nozik Share, a
profound distaste for all theories that promote any idea of a social group that gives
legitimacy to centralized social administration. Robert Nozick's political jurisprudence,
which is characterized, is the book Anarchy, State and Utopia (1974), best known for
liberal theories of justice. Nozick's writing develops a theory of justice that reinforces a
radical free-market view and is compatible with a so-called minimum or night awakening
situation. It is no surprise that he concludes: “The minimum state is the broadest state that
can be justified. Any state violates the rights of more widespread people. 2. Nosik
develops a factual principle of justice, whereby the economic goods arising in the society
are already covered by claims of their right of ownership. 28 Minimum States in the
legalization of force for the protection of the basic rights. Limited: It is the night

33
watchman of classical liberalism. Under utilitarianism, or Rawls's later theory, we may
have redistributive policies but no redistribution is valid in the minimum case.

In this context, Proc. Hart rightly observes that "with the advent of rights-based
theories of thinkers such as Robert Nozick and R. Dworkin, it may be that the era opened
by Bantam is now closing: certainly to American political and legal philosophers.
Between. Utilitarianism is contrary to the principles of justice, which is ongoing, if not,
offensive, which in many ways resembles the principle of unfair rights of man Liana, and
important conceptual relationship between the obscure law and ethics by positive
tradition. "

Sen's book A Theory of Justice (1971) is a critique and revision of John Rawls's
original ideas. Sen was a student of Rawls and the book is dedicated to his memory. One
of Sen's main arguments is that the project of social justice should not be evaluated in
binary terms as to whether it has been achieved or not. Rather, he claims that justice
should be understood as a matter of degree, and should be evaluated with consistency.
Furthermore, he argues that we do not need a fully established abstract ideal of justice to
evaluate the fairness of various institutions. He claims that we can compare the level of
justice in two institutions without presenting the ideal, altruistic view of justice. He
names the opposite situation as institutional parochialism.

Sen defends one of Rawls's most fundamental theoretical concepts: justice as

fairness. Although this is a vague notion fraught with difficulties in a particular case, he
sees it as one of Rawls's strongest insights, while rejecting Rawls's two principles of
justice from the original position of justice.

A sandal, as a communist, argues (against Rawls and Nozick) that the wellbeing
of a community takes precedence over personal liberty and (against Nielsen) the socio-
economic well-being of its members. Acknowledging that Rawls is not so "narrowly
individualist" as to explore the value of building social community within Liberalism and
the Limits of Justice, he states that individualism of individuals in the original position is

34
" The sense of community "is not the core" as a component of their identity, so that
community is bound to remain secondary and derivative in Rawlsian theory. To deny that
community values help to build one's personal identity is to render the impossible any
good reciprocal from which a sense of authority can be derived.

Communist jurists like Michael Sandal observed: "For Kantian-type liberals such
as Rawls, the priority of authority over the good not only means that one cannot
relinquish individual rights in the name of the common good, but the principles of justice
Also cannot be derived from a particular conception of good light. "32 This is a cardinal
principle of liberalism, according to which Kew May not be the only conception of
eudemonia pleasure.

Communists argue that one cannot define the right before the good, because it is
only through our participation in a community that defines the good that we can realize
what the right is and the community. Outside, one obtains a living conception of justice.
There is no deity and no authority. The Communists therefore claim that it is only within
a specific community, defining themselves as good that it postulates that a person with
rights may exist. It is necessary for liberals to specify that the pursuit of justice is partly a
question of actively working to defend the images and intellectually of the political
community in particular. They (ie, communists) have the right to say "justice is not a
philosophical conception" it is an existence goal. "

Nussbaum, like Pogge (and unlike Nozick and Nielsen), does not reject Rawls's
liberal concept of justice so much as an extension of its explicit application. In Sex and
Social Justice, she argues for a feminist interpretation of justice, which she calls a "vision
of the abilities" that connects to the "tradition of radical liberalism", nowadays
represented by Rawls , Taps into his "presumption of dignity and freedom". "As a basis
for discussing the demands of justice about women's equality and women's human rights.
The five major dimensions of feminism she accepts are: (1) an internationalism, such as it
is a particular one Not limited to culture; (2) A humanism, like it affirms a basic equal
value in all human beings and promotes justice for all; (3) Liberalism A commitment that

35
is best as an approach that "saves and promotes basic human capabilities for choice and
reasoning" that presents all human beings as a common value; (4) our preferences and
desires Susceptibility to cultural shaping; and (5) a concern for sympathetic
understanding between the sexes. He is an affinity for primary objects at the core of
Rawls's theory, while stating that her analysis does not go too far. She gives her own list
of ten "central human functional abilities" that must be respected by a just society: (1) a
normal, natural Life of the period; (2) physical health and integrity, including adequate
nutrition and shelter; (3) about physical integrity, for example, freedom of movement and
protection against attack; (4) freedom to exercise one's sensations, imagination and
thoughts in the same way, including freedom of expression; (5) Freedom to create
emotional engagement for individuals and things, including freedom of association; (4)
the development and practice of practical reason, the ability to form one's own concept of
good, and to plan one's own life, including the preservation of freedom of conscience; (7)
Freedom of affiliation with others on equal terms, including provisions for non-
discrimination; (8) concern for possible relationships with animals, plants, and the world
of nature; (E) freedom to entertain, seek recreation and enjoy recreational activities; And
(10) control of some of their political environment, including the right to vote and one's
physical environment, including the right to get meaningful work and to own property.
All these capabilities are essential to our functioning as human beings and should be
assured to all citizens of a just society. But, historically, women have been replaced with
their honor and should be guaranteed their safety in the name of justice (Sex, pp. 24, 6–
14, 34, 40–42).

Historical descriptions of justice reflect various characteristics of justice

according to the nature of the particular tradition. Due to their diverse cultural set it is not
possible to maintain homogeneity between them which is different from each other.
Human welfare is the major concern of each group but the method they have adopted to
promote individual rights is different. A person should act in such a way that he brings
benefits for himself as well as others; this act alone can be counted as a virtuous act. It is
desirable for individuals to set a goal for life and to achieve that we must adopt the
legitimate means that make our lives meaningful. Both personal good and social good are

36
praiseworthy for each other and its fulfilment depends on the individual making the right
decision.

1.5 Concept of Justice in ISLAM Religion

As stated earlier, justice was defined by ancient, modern and contemporary

philosophers in their own way. The problem of justice has been significant in Islam and
also in the history of Muslim intellectual thought. Islam has succeeded by establishing a
proper system of reward and punishment for successfully establishing a system of justice.
Justice is an essential feature in Islam. The concept of justice in Islam, a broad definition
of justice, is, of course, to give everyone its reasons. However, Islam advances its
definition of justice. It states that in order to maintain a reasonable standard of justice it is
necessary that the repetition of good in any case should be less than in any case earned by
a person, and on the other hand, the penalty for wrong should not exceed the wrong Or
committed a crime.

It has given rise to important works in various periods of Islamic thought in fields
such as theology, law and Islamic politics. Justice literally means "to place an object in its
rightful place, the place where it is. 331 According to Ibn Khaldun, justice was central in
the social theory of society, where its achievement depended on the application of the law
to the human being." If the laws of a certain society were disregarded, that society would
be completely destroyed and demolished.

"Justice is the highest goal and objective of Islam. God has sent scriptures and
messengers to establish justice among the people. Any path leading to justice is an
integral part of religion and can never be against it." According to Qutb, the centrality of
justice to the value structure of Islam was clearly depicted in the Quran. As God said:
"We sent our messengers (Rasuland) with clear signs and sent the book and measures
with them to establish justice among the people." The phrase "our messengers" confirmed
that the goal of all the scriptures revealed to mankind was justice. Furthermore, it was
justice that established a peaceful, cooperative and compassionate society, as it was

37
administered according to the Manhaj of God and measured by its standards. The Islamic
concept of justice in general will be discussed as it is found in the Quran and Surah
before the status of Islam on economic justice is broadened. This is necessary because
economic justice is a subset of the broader concept of justice in Islam. Islam, like all
other concepts related to a man's life, addresses justice. God commands us to behave
justly. "God is fair and fair." (Al-Quran 16:90). It is emphasized in the Quran to be just. It
is completely prohibited to do injustice. "O you who believe, be honest to God, and be a
witness with justice!" (Al-Quran 5: 8) Once, someone asked Hazrat Ali about faith in
religion. He said: "The structure of faith is supported by the four pillars of endurance,
conviction, justice and jihad" (Jaffer, 1999)

Hazrat Ali at another place in Nahjul Balagah defines justice very accurately. He
says that justice is to keep something in its right place, whereas injustice is not to be kept
in its proper place. They say- “Justice puts everything in the right place, but generosity
takes them out of their places. Justice is a universal caretaker, but generosity will only
benefit those with whom you are generous. Therefore justice is fairer and more excellent
"

Mutazilites in Muslim history have a strong belief in divine unity and justice and
call themselves Ahl-al-Touheed w-al-ladl. According to him, due to the justice of God, it
is compulsory for him to act according to moral rules. Whereas the attitude of the
dependents is the opposite.

1.6 Indian Concept of Justice- DHARMA

We are living in the modern era in India. The concept of religion in ancient India
was a synthesis of law, religion and morality. It represented reality itself and the whole
and true and true of human life. It was a sense of victory over justice and good over evil.
We now live in a multi-religious, multilingual plural society. The word 'religion' may not
seem so to all the people of India simply because of its modern meaning as justice. But
we need some other concept like religion which can present justice in a holistic way.

38
 Religion in ancient India was considered the complete constitution of our ancient
Indian society. Now our constitutionalism represents our religion and justice as the
President of the government which balances and harmonizes parliamentary democracy,
declaration of the Preamble of Independence, Equality and Fraternity with Emergency
Powers, and Economic and Directive Principles of State Policy Fundamental rights of
individuals with social goals. Thus the Indian Constitution makes India a welfare state to
progressively implement socio-economic justice. It has clarified the purpose of
establishing a socialist form of society. Apart from making the Indian people aware of the
rights, our Constitution has also given place to the fundamental duties of the citizens. Our
constitutional belief in peaceful coexistence; Resolve internationalism shows our resolve
to lay a strong foundation of 'Just Society'. Regular course of five-year plans,
decentralization, adoption of autonomous panchayati raj, policy of non-alignment and
policy of peaceful co-existence, our commitment to peaceful use of nuclear energy
without losing sight of the need for security. States etc. are all in keeping with the spirit
of Indian culture. Our constitutionalism is the new incarnation of our old concept of
religion which expresses our desire and strong desire to uphold justice in every sphere of
life of the Indian people.

1.7 Justice for different culture-

The understanding of justice differs in every culture, as cultures usually rely on a
shared history, mythology and / or religion. The ethics of each culture create values that
influence the perception of justice. Although some justice theories can be found which
are one and the same in all or most cultures, these are insufficient to create unitary justice
apprehension.

1.7.1 Harmony
Plato uses Socrates to argue for justice, in his communicative republic that
encompasses both the individual and the just city state. Between the warring parts of the
person or city, justice is a proper, harmonious relationship. Therefore, Plato's definition
of justice is that justice is that which is one's own. A man is just a man in the right place,

39
who is doing his best and is equal to what he has achieved. This applies at the individual
level and at the universal level. A person's soul has three parts - reason, soul and desire.
Similarly, a city has three parts - Socrates uses the parable of the chariot to illustrate his
point: a chariot works throughout because the power of two horses is guided by the
charioteer. Lovers of knowledge - philosophers, in a sense - must rule because only they
understand what is good. If someone is ill, then someone goes to take medicine instead of
the farmer, because this medicine is a specialist in health. In the same way, one must trust
the city of an expert concerning the good, and not just a politician who tries to gain power
by giving people what they want that is good for them, but also by giving them. Socrates
uses the parable of the ship to illustrate this point: the unjust city is like a ship in the open
sea, built by a powerful but drunken captain (the common people), a group of unqualified
advisers who call the captain Tries to manipulate them into giving. Power over the course
of the ship (politicians), and a sailor (philosopher) who is the only person who knows
how to bring the ship to port. For Socrates, the only way the ship can reach its destination
is - well - if the sailor takes charge.

1.7.2 Divine command

Advocates of the divine command doctrine argue that justice, and indeed the
fulfillment of morality, is God's authoritative command. Murder is wrong and must be
punished, for example, because, and only because God commands that it happen. The
divine command doctrine was famously questioned by Plato in his dialogue, Euthephro.
Called the Euthephro Dilemma, it is as follows: "Is it morally good 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, then justice is arbitrary; If the former is true, then
morality exists on a higher order than God, which becomes little more than a passerby of
moral knowledge. Many apologists addressed the issue, usually arguing that it was a false
dilemma. For example, some Christian theologians argue that goodness is the nature of
God, and is necessarily reflected in his commandments. Another response, Immanuel
Kant & c. s. Popularized by Lewis in two contexts, it is arguably valid to argue that the
existence of an objective morality implies the existence of God and vice versa.

40
1.7.3 Natural law
Lex, Justitia, Pax (in Latin for "Law, Justice, Peace") on the pediment of the
Supreme Court of Switzerland Land. For advocates of the theory that justice is part of
natural law (eg, John Locke), it involves a system of consequences that arises naturally
from any action or choice. In this, it is similar to the laws of physics: Just as Newton's
Third Law of Motion requires, every action must have an equal and opposite reaction,
justice must be according to the individuals or groups they represent Are actually
qualified, qualified, or entitled to. [Citation needed] Justice is, on this account, a universal
and absolute concept: law, doctrine, religion, etc., are merely attempts to codify that
concept, sometimes with consequences that are completely contrary to the true nature
Justice.

1.7.4 Human creation

Contrary to what has been understood so far, justice can be understood as a
human creation, not as a search for harmony, divine order, or natural law. This claim can
be understood in many ways, the fundamental division being between those who argue
that justice is the creation of some humans, and those who argue that it is the creation of
all humans.

1.7.5 Despotism and scepticism

In The Republic by Plato, the character Thrasymachus argues that justice is the
interest of the strong - just a name the powerful or cunning ruler has imposed on the
people.

1.7.6 Mutual agreement

Main article: Social contract According to thinkers in the social contract tradition,
justice is derived from the mutual agreement of all concerned; Or, in many versions, what
they would agree on in hypothetical circumstances, including the absence of equality and

41
prejudice. This account has been further considered under 'Fairness as Justice'. The
absence of prejudice refers to an equal basis for all people related to a disagreement (or in
some cases trial).

1.7.7 Subordinate value

According to utilitarian thinkers including John Stuart Mill, justice is not as
fundamental as we often think. Rather, it derives from a more basic standard,
consequentialism: what is right is the best outcome (usually measured by total or average
welfare). Therefore, the proper principles of justice are those that produce the best results.
These rules may be familiar such as keeping a contract; But equally, they cannot based on
the facts about the actual results. Either way, what matters is the consequences, or justice
is important, if at all, derived only from that fundamental standard. Mill tries to explain
our misconception that justice is extremely important by arguing that it arises from two
natural human tendencies: our willingness to retaliate against those who hurt us, and
ourselves imaginatively Our ability to place second. Therefore, when we see someone
being harmed, we project ourselves into his situation and feel a desire to retaliate on his
behalf. If this process is the source of our feelings about justice that should reduce our
trust in them.

The present study seeks to make a critical study of contemporary theories of

justice, in particular the John Rawls theory of justice of justice as fairness, Robert
Nozick's theory of right to justice, Amartya Sen's ability theory of justice, and Michael
Sandal's Communal principles of justice that contribute to the development of the world
are not champions of socio-political philosophy The concept of justice is given to wide
acclaim. These four philosophers are responsible for giving the idea of justice a new
vision and orientation which is not only helpful for protecting the rights of the individual
but also provides them with the means to lead a qualitative life. This study mainly
consists of three major issues that require proper attention and elaboration.

First, small comings of contract theories seem to be a major inhibitor in the path
of human progress. Classical contract theories lack their relevance in the current scenario

42
due to their rigor and strict principles. He lost his motive for which he was implicated.
They impose unnecessary restrictions through which the person cannot exercise his
rights. Instead of providing support for the development of individuals' inner talent, they
limited their natural growth.

Secondly, society fails to provide dignified life to women and their rights have
been violated at every stage of life. From the time of the Greeks to the modern times, the
rights of women have been exploited by the male dominated society. It is the demand of
nature that men and women are united for purchase. Their unity is not just for the
maintenance of other social functions such as domestic, political activities, educational
functions, public offices, religious ceremonies and other functions. Man is considered the
lord of the house who takes all major decisions for the betterment of his home, wife and
children. Wives and children have to obey the master's command. Women and slaves are
the only means to run household chores smoothly. In politics, Aristotle recognizes two
forms of natural subjugation, that is, the master over the slave and the man on the
woman. Aristotle claims that slaves and women are well incapable, so they should be
subject to the control of men (men) who can lead both to their own good and to the good
of the community. Unlike natural slaves, women have the same rationality as men. But
their rationality is not effective. The cause of women is being uprooted by passion or
emotion; Therefore, they need to be governed by those whose reasons dominate. Rawls's
original position is a clear example of the patriarchal relationship of subordination that
distinguishes between private domestic life and public political life.

Third, the different forms of liberal person vacillate them by the good of the
community where the disgruntled self has lost its true identity. Liberals believe that the
person's existence precedes society. For him personal is the focal point of all discussion.
The priority of individual rights is not tied to any social good, but its principles are
independent. Kant and Rawls point out that the rights of the individual precede social
well-being. The person has a unique ability of free will which helps him to take any
decision freely. Donatologists claim that individuals are not just objective beings, who
aim to achieve the end rather than their self-reflective abilities that determine that end.

43
But communalism rejects the view that individuals should be free from social
responsibilities. For them, social practices, constitutional rules, and narratives of human
life play an important role for the development of personal capacity.

The method adopted in this work includes historical, analytical, and critical
approaches to problematic studies. The present work is classified into six chapters
excluding introduction and conclusion.

The first chapter attempts to show the historical perspective of justice in diverse
fields. This shows the gradual development of the concept of justice from the Greek
period to modern times. Justice is an ideal concept for Greek thinkers, in the sense that it
is an end in itself. The motivation of the differences of both Plato and Aristotle
acknowledges that each person is born with a special ability that determines their results.
Simply action is that which brings happiness to the entire human race and vice versa. For
Greek thinkers, justice and equality are related terms that cannot be separated from each
other. But modern thinkers give a completely different image of justice that seems
inconsistent with Greek thought. The individual is the main focal point of discussion for
modern thinkers, for which they are broadly divided into two groups, namely, liberalism
and utilitarianism. Thomas Hobbes, regarded as the father of political philosophy, brings
a new direction to society where both men and women receive equal treatment from
society. But the person is in an inferior position to Hobbian society and his actions are
forced through the rules of the sovereign ruler. Liberals such as Locke, Hume, Kant, and
Rawls not only acknowledge the rational element in humans, but also make them realize
how to protect their rights. Unlike the liberals, the main aim of the utilitarian is overall
welfare through which particular goods are neglected.

The second chapter explores a new mode of distribution of goods among humans.
Rawls's basic structure of society primarily addresses the issues of least qualified people
and to provide them with a dignified life that is their fundamental right, creating a unique
environment where all are treated equally. Influenced by classical Covenantalists, the
Rawlsian native position made a contract with its members with the dream of creating a

44
proper society, provided they were free and equal and ready to maintain cooperation with
their fellow peers. Freedom and difference are two principles for members of two core
positions that prioritize individual rights over concerns for social good and upliftment of
the vulnerable. Rawls' main objective is to create a less barrier-free society where
individuals can exercise their autonomy independently. But the separation of private life
from public life fails to secure the rights of women, the old and the physically disabled.
Rawlsian society emphasizes the establishment of a fair society in the public sector,
resulting in neglect of the private sector. Feminist Rawls exposes the shortcomings of a
fair society and realizes the importance of women in society.

The third chapter explains Nozick that resources are produced by people and that
people have rights to the things they produce. Thus, attempts to improve the state of
being the least benefited through redistribution are inappropriate because they make some
people work unexpectedly for others and deprive people of goods and opportunities time
and effort. . Their rights theory can be divided into three possible ways: (1) acquisition,
(2) transfer, and (3) reform. First of all, justice in acquisition is supposed to be how to
keep things unknown. It calls for proper acquisition without looting or coveting the
property of others. Then we are not going to use others as a means to gain our wealth.
The entry of property means that the person has absolute right over his property. But
limits are required to maintain fairness; otherwise people may be involved in wrong
activities. Similarly the transfer of property may be possible if the person voluntarily
exchanges his property which he holds. Obstructs the noble purpose of making the
exchange voluntary, so it must be based on the consent of the person who wants to
transfer his property to others.

The fourth chapter Dr. Amartya Sen explores the principle of competence justice.
It is important to enjoy genuine freedom based on the capacity of justice. Freedom is the
individual's ability to achieve the result of various alternative practices. Efficiency as real
freedom is in two ways 1) Primary goods 2) Achievements. The point is that a disabled
person has more primary baggage but less capacity. Another example: - In the study of
poverty you come up with such a parable that a person can have more income and more

45
nutritious intake but less freedom to live a healthy life due to many reasons. In a rich
country an individual may have low income and primary goods - characteristics of age,
disability; Susceptible to diseases it is then difficult for him to convert primary primary
items into competence. Now let's look at the achievements. A person has the same
abilities as the other person, but chooses different tasks to reach the goal. Two individuals
with similar ability and goals end up in different outcomes due to different strategies. It is
a fact that underprivileged people will get less from primary items than others.

The fifth chapter sheds light on Michel Sandals, in his liberalism and the limits of
justice, relating the idea of justice in two ways in which it differs from the liberal concept
of justice and the limits of justice. In the debate, liberal versus communist, Sandal
believes he is only half-communist. He is not in favor of communist totalitarianism. He
does not want to challenge Rawlsian's claim that some individual rights are so important
that even general welfare cannot over-ride them. But he is opposed to Rawlsian's claim
that the principles of justice that specify our rights do not depend on any broad moral or
religious conception, on any concept of the good life, for their justification. Thus, his
concept of justice is based on some otherworldly view that justice is relative to good, not
independent of it. He gives a purposeful moral order from which to begin to reach any
concept of justice.

The final and final chapter illustrates the conclusion, as to how justice upholds
human rights. The right to life is the only right of man but the right to freedom; Claim
authority, power and immunity are right / he can only be found in a society where he
exercises his rights. Society is the protector of human rights and citizens can be allowed
to claim their rights as they fulfill their duty. The Indian notion of rights defines the
inseparable relationship between rights and duties. Aristotle also tries to establish the
notion of his rights with the help of natural justice. A person cannot develop his virtuous
character until he enjoys his human rights, which are considered the means of achieving
the ultimate goal. In Greek political society the rights of women and children are
neglected which is very much biased towards the credibility of women, so decision-
making power lies with men. Liberal thinkers such as Kant and Rawls point out that

46
freedom is a natural right of human beings that helps them make decisions independently.
But the same patriarchal tendency presents in the liberal tradition that disregards the
rights of women and does not provide equal space with men.

The question of justice and injustice not only arises in public life, where citizens
are either in a favorable position or face discrimination, but it is equally concerned about
private life where some powerful men dominate their weaker sections or groups. Show.
Justice has a direct relationship with human happiness that protects their rights and
protects them from all forms of violation, whatever they may be. The principles of justice
should be flexible, that is, the main objective of justice should be human welfare rather
than rejection of discrimination and oppression. It should set a criterion that is helpful for
personal progress that ultimately leads to social progress.

1.8 Objectives of the study:

The aim of my thesis would be to critically analyse the “John Rawls’s A Theory
of justice” and to study the critics of various philosophers on the John Rawls theory of
justice. In the end I would try to assimilate these various views of various philosophers in
a constructive way, to get a world view of this theory.

1.9 Limitations of the study:

The present study will be based on the work of John Rawls, especially on the theory of
justice, also being as the researcher I will explore the criticisms for Rawls Theory of
justice as fairness. Here I will briefly survey some of the most important recent attempts
to provide preferable alternatives to Rawls’s conception of justice.

1.10 Chapterization:
Chapter 1- Introduction Historical Perspectives of Justice
Chapter 2- John Rawls’s Theory of Justice as Fairness.
Chapter 3- Robert Nozick’s Theory of Entitlement of Justice
Chapter 4- Amartya Sen’s Capability Theory Of Justice.

47
Chapter 5- Michael Sandel’s Communitarian Theory of Justice.
Chapter 6- Conclusion

48