https://telegram.me/UPSCMaterials https://telegram.me/FreeUPSCMaterials https://telegram.

me/MaterialforExam

19
Concept of Justice

I. IDEA OF JUSTICE
Political thinkers since earliest times have been trying to formulate the concept of
justice. However, with the dawn of modern consciousness, especially under the
influence of the principles of democracy and socialism, this concept has been
thoroughly transformed. As a result, the traditional view of justice has given way
to the concept of social justice. In a nutshell, the problem of justice in the
contemporary world is concerned with determining logical criteria for the allocation
of goods, services, opportunities, benefits, power and honours as well as
obligations in society, particularly in a scarcity situation. In short, justice is
concerned with the allocation of benefits as well as burdens.

SPHERE OF APPLICATION

Justice is primarily a problem of moral philosophy. But since it has to be

implemented by a political order, it also becomes a problem of political philosophy.
Here it is important to note that the quest for justice will not be relevant in a
purely authoritarian, purely competitive or purely communist regime. In a purely
authoritarian system—whether it belongs to the traditional type or modern type—
all allocation is made according to the dictates of an established authority. Hence
there is no use of search for the new criteria of allocation. Then in a purely
competitive system, all allocation is decided by the free play of market forces;
hence there is no scope of applying any new criteria of allocation. Finally, in a
hypothetical communist system where the rule of 'allocation according to need'
is supposed to be applied, it will be futile to consider any alternative principles of
justice. If everybody's needs could be met, the problem of injustice in society
would automatically disappear.
https://telegram.me/UPSCMaterials https://telegram.me/FreeUPSCMaterials https://telegram.me/MaterialforExam

414 An Introduction to Political Theory

Search for justice would, therefore, be relevant only in an open society in a

situation of scarcity. In other words, the question of justice would become
significant in a situation where there is a widespread demand of social advantages
that are in short supply, and where the criteria of allocation of these advantages
can be openly discussed and adopted. Moreover, these criteria should be determined
in such a manner that they prove to be acceptable to all individuals or categories
of the individuals concerned. However, it may be conceded that there can be no
final word in this behalf. Hence suitable channels of appeal and even of protest
should be provided within the system so that the prevalent criteria could be
revised as and when so warranted by reason.

Authoritarian System
A system of social organization where everything is required to conform to an established
order, and it is regulated by the person or group which is recognized as the guardian
of that order.

Open Society
A society where there is freedom to criticize the existing order in the light of a new
logic and to reform or reformulate the existing institutions by attaining public support
for the proposed changes.

PHILOSOPHICAL CONTEXT
Justice is primarily a problem of discovering the 'right' course of action. Here
the distinction between 'right' and 'wrong' becomes important. It is sometimes
confused with the distinction between 'good' and 'evil', as if 'good' corresponds
to 'right' and 'evil' corresponds to 'wrong'. But on deeper analysis we find that
these variables represent different sets of value systems. Good is akin to useful,
profitable, beneficial, and so on; bad or evil implies harmful, damaging,
disadvantageous, etc. In any case, good and bad do not fall in absolute categories.
You cannot say that something is either good or bad, and nothing else. In actual
practice, something may be good in some respects, and bad in others, In other
words, it may be 'partly good' and 'partly bad'. Technically we may say that
'good' and 'bad' constitute a 'continuum'. These could be plotted on two extremes
of a scale which permits free access from one extreme to another in any direction.
Any course of action or state of affairs may be situated on this scale anywhere
between the two ends, according to our assessment or evaluation of its qualities.
But the position of 'right' and 'wrong' is different. These are absolute categories,
opposed to each other in the absolute sense. Something can be either right or
wrong, and nothing else. It is similar to the distinction between 'true' and 'false'.
Something could be either true or false, and nothing else. In short, right and
wrong, like true and false, are mutually exclusive categories. Their relationship
https://telegram.me/UPSCMaterials https://telegram.me/FreeUPSCMaterials https://telegram.me/MaterialforExam

Concept of 415
Justice

may be represented by a dichotomy. It is a peculiar dichotomy where negative

would prevail over the positive. If something is partly true, it must be false. If
something is partly false, then too it must be false. If something is partly right, it
must be wrong. If something is partly wrong, then too it must be wrong. In the
present context, justice corresponds to right; injustice corresponds to wrong.

Continuum and Dichotomy

Continuum stands for a logical device for representing a range of variables
which fall between two opposites. It is based on the assumption that though the two
opposites are situated on extreme positions, tike the two ends of a straight line, yet
they are linked with each other so that they provide for easy access from one extreme
to the other.
Dichotomy, on the other hand, rules out such a possibility between two mutually
conflicting positions. One may either stay on one extreme or the other. These are like
the two banks of a big river which are not connected by a bridge or navigation facility.

Again, good and bad are marked by quantitative differences. On the other hand,
right and wrong are characterized by qualitative differences. Good and bad are
susceptible to measurement and quantification. Utilitarianism deals with good and
bad. That is why Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), the exponent of utilitarianism,
founded his 'felicific calculus'. This is concerned with the balancing between the
quantities of pleasure and pain. When J.S. Mill (1806-73) focused on the
importance of qualitative differences between different types of pleasure, it marked
a significant departure from the mainstream utilitarianism. That is also why the
mainstream utilitarianism proved to be indifferent to the problem of justice. Bentham
advanced a theory of allocation of goods and services without pretending that it
was a theory of justice. John Rawls (1921-2002), who accords primacy to the
problem of justice, is strongly opposed to utilitarianism. He has pointed to certain
situations that satisfy the needs of utilitarianism but they fail to satisfy the needs of
justice.
https://telegram.me/UPSCMaterials https://telegram.me/FreeUPSCMaterials https://telegram.me/MaterialforExam

416 An Introduction to Political Theory

Utilitarianism
A school of thought founded by Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), which treats pleasure
and pain as the chief motive force behind all human actions. The balance of pleasure
over pain derived from a thing or a course of action is termed as 'utility' which is the
source of 'happiness'. According to this view, the guiding principle of public policy
should be 'the greatest happiness of the greatest number'.

It is important to note that utilitarianism tends to subordinate individual to the

collectivity. So when J.S. Mill gives precedence to liberty of the individual over
the opinion of the majority, he seems to be distancing himself from the mainstream
utilitarianism and coming closer to the idea of justice. Here Mill accords primacy
to the moral worth of a policy instead of subjecting it to cost-benefit analysis.
This tendency to restore the dignity of the individual on moral grounds was
brought to its logical conclusion in Rawls's theory of justice.

JUSTICE AS A DYNAMIC IDEA

The term 'justice' implies the quality of being 'just', 'right' or 'reasonable'. It is
opposed to what is 'unjust', 'wrong' or 'unreasonable'. It embodies an ideal
which is akin to the 'absolute truth' yet it is a dynamic idea because our realization
of that ideal and our comprehension of that absolute truth is a continuous process.
Our progress in this direction depends upon the development of our social
consciousness, so that what was regarded as just some centuries ago is not so
regarded today. Slavery and serfdom were widely 'justified' in ancient and medieval
Europe; untouchability was 'justified' in India a few decades ago; the inferior
status of women was taken for granted the world over not so long ago; racial
discrimination was 'justified' till recently in some parts of the world. But these
conditions are now widely regarded as unjust. Our changing outlook about these
problems and changing public opinion in favour of human liberty and equality are
ample proof of the dynamic character of the idea of justice.
It is necessary that the conception of justice should always be based on 'reason'.
But man develops his faculty of reasoning according to the social consciousness
of his age. The true meaning of justice should, therefore, be determined in the
light of prevalent social consciousness, or what D.D. Raphael in his Problems of
Political Philosophy (1976) described as 'modern consciousness'. We do not
claim that this would be the perfect idea of justice. Social consciousness is an
ever-growing phenomenon, and we should be prepared to accept new and
progressive ideas as far as they are supported by reason.
https://telegram.me/UPSCMaterials https://telegram.me/FreeUPSCMaterials https://telegram.me/MaterialforExam

Concept of Justice 417

Ernest Barker (Principles of Social and Political Theory; 1951) has shown that
justice represents a synthesis of the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.
Justice is the thread which runs through all these values and makes them parts of an
integrated whole. It reconciles their conflicts and contradictions and gives them the
shape of universal principles of governance. Justice is the basic idea behind these
values—we hold them in high esteem because they are manifestations of justice.
Justice is the final goal to which all these values should conform.
Why do we demand that human relations in society should be governed by the
principle of liberty? Why do we not leave them to the whims of individuals, to the
free play of the natural forces of survival of the fittest, to the element of chance, or
to irrational traditions and superstitions? Obviously, it is our sense of justice that
impels us to postulate that human relations in society should be regulated by
'reason'. Our sense of justice recognizes the dignity of the human being as such. It
is the rational nature of man which clothes him with this dignity. It demands that
each individual should be treated as an 'end-in-itself, not a means to an end. In this
respect, all individuals should be treated as equal to each other. No individual can be
treated as superior or inferior to another because of his place of birth, race, religion,
language, culture, sex, education or economic status. Irrespective of these
differences, all individuals are potentially capable of acquiring excellence and
making suitable contributions to the social good. They need equal freedom of
personal development in their own right so as to prove their worth to society. That
was the idea behind the 'French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the
Citizen' (1789) which read: "Men are born and remain free and equal in rights.
Social distinctions can be based only upon public utility."
Now the principle of liberty will not conform to the principle of justice until the
benefit of liberty is equally extended to each individual in society. The idea of
absolute liberty is a contradiction in terms. If liberty is defined as the 'absence of
restraint', it cannot become a universal principle until it is qualified by the principle
of equality. This postulates such restraints on liberty that liberty or freedom of one
does not become a threat to another's equal and similar liberty. An unrestrained
liberty of one or the chosen few will turn out to be the sentence of slavery for the
rest of the community. Thus, an adherence to the principle of equality becomes
necessary in order to resolve the inherent contradiction of absolute liberty. As
Barker has elucidated:
The need of liberty for each is necessarily qualified and conditioned by the
need of liberty for all; and the liberty of A will, therefore, be such liberty as
he can enjoy concurrently with the enjoyment of similar and equal liberty
by B and C and D . . . Because the liberty of each is, thus, relative to that of
others, and has to be adjusted to that of others, it must always be
https://telegram.me/UPSCMaterials https://telegram.me/FreeUPSCMaterials https://telegram.me/MaterialforExam

418 An Introduction to Political Theory

regulated; and indeed it would not exist unless it were regulated. (Principles
of Social and Political Theory; 1951)
On the same principle, any restraint on liberty can only be upheld when it is
duly proved that it is imposed in the interests of justice and equality.
The principle of equality, again, is not the final principle of justice. Equality
may be defined as the 'absence of discrimination'. In the legal or political sphere,
this interpretation of equality will not present much difficulty This could be
interpreted as equality before the law, equal legal personality of each individual,
equal voting rights— 'one man, one vote' principle etc. But as we turn to the
economic sphere, the mere 'absence of discrimination' may not meet the
requirements of justice. When society is divided into different strata on the basis
of private property and conventional sources of prestige and power—one class
enjoying special privileges, the other being permanently in an underprivileged
position—the cause of justice will not be served by treating them entirely without
discrimination. The principle of justice requires that the deprived and
underprivileged sections should be given special protection in order to save them
from the excesses of the dominant sections. Thus, if an ordinary man in his
capacity as worker, consumer or tenant is open to exploitation by the employer,
trader or landlord, the law should make reasonable discrimination in favour of the
weaker party. It is just like extending the principle of brotherhood or fraternity to
the regulation of human relations in society as a matter of right, not charity. The
principle of fraternity involves resolving the contradiction of the principle of
equality which would otherwise leave the individual at the mercy of the cruel
market forces of demand and supply and competition; this would eliminate the
weaker sections, not to speak of securing them equal dignity, opportunity or
advantage. But any limitation of any section's right to equality can only be upheld
when it is duly proved that it involves the discrimination in favour of the weaker
section in the interests of justice and fraternity.
Thus, in the final principle of justice, we seek to regulate human relations in
society by the principle of liberty; but liberty is qualified by the principle of
equality; and equality is further qualified by the principle of fraternity. The intention
is to make sure that each individual gets a fair share in the advantages accruing
from organized social life. Each individual gets a common civic minimum beyond
which one's work is rewarded according to the value of the contribution made to
the public welfare. It must be ascertained that an unduly large share of wealth,
prestige and power is not cornered by any privileged section or sections by dint
of its money and manipulative power. The principle of justice postulates not
merely formal liberty and equality, but the transformation of those social conditions
which obstruct the enjoyment of freedom and equality by ordinary men and
women.
https://telegram.me/UPSCMaterials https://telegram.me/FreeUPSCMaterials https://telegram.me/MaterialforExam

Concept of 419
justice

It would be significant to observe that the modern concept of justice is different

from its traditional concept. The traditional concept of justice focused on the 'just
man'. It was primarily concerned with the virtues befitting a man for enhancing his
moral worth. It consisted in the performance of his duties attached to his status
determined by the prevalent law, social customs and mode of thought. A typical
example of the traditional approach to the problem of justice is provided by Plato's
theory of justice which sought to prescribe the duties of different citizens and
required them to develop virtues befitting those duties. As Richard Lewis
Nettleship, in his Lectures on the Republic of Plato (1962), has elucidated:
Justice, in Plato's sense, is the power of individual concentration on duty. If
a soldier is just in this sense, he is, of course, a brave man; if a man in
subordinate position is just, he of course accepts and maintains authority, or
is 'self-controlled'. Justice therefore ... is really the condition of the existence
of all the virtues; each of them is a particular manifestation of the spirit of
justice, which takes different forms according to a man's function in the
community. In modern phrase it is equivalent to sense of duty.
Plato prescribes different duties for different groups of citizens whose fulfilment
would be instrumental in building up a just social order. Justice results from each
element in society doing its appropriate task, doing it well and doing it only. In
order to achieve perfect harmony which symbolizes justice, it is imperative that
reason must rule within the man as well as within the state. So, in a just or ideal
state, the reins of government shall remain in the hands of a class of philosopher-
kings who are supposed to be the living embodiments of reason, whereas material
production and military defence shall be entrusted to the producer and warrior
classes respectively. Thus, in Plato's perfect state:
the industrial forces would produce but they would not rule; the military
forces would protect but they would not rule; the forces of knowledge and
science and philosophy would be nourished and protected and they would
rule. (Will Durant, The Story of Philosophy; 1954)
It is significant that Hindu caste system, as enunciated by the ancient lawgivers,
strikes a similar note regarding the nature of justice.
The modern concept ! justice, on the contrary, is marked by a shift of emphasis,
from the idea of a just or virtuous man to that of a just society. In other words, the
traditional view of justice embodied a conservative idea; the modern view
embodies a progressive idea. The traditional view insisted on the individual
conforming to a pre-conceived image of society; the modern view of justice seeks
to transform society itself for the realization of certain human values. To
https://telegram.me/UPSCMaterials https://telegram.me/FreeUPSCMaterials https://telegram.me/MaterialforExam

420 An Introduction to Political Theory

be sure, the traditional view of justice has given way to the modern idea of 'social
justice'. D.D. Raphael, in his Problems of Political Philosophy (1976), has made
an important point: "The term 'social justice' tends to issue from the mouths of
reformers, and to be regarded with suspicion by those who are satisfied with the
existing order."
The idea of social justice comprises a force behind social change. It is precisely
when people find fault with the existing social order, involving oppressive and
exploitative social conditions, that they raise the demand for social justice, seeking
suitable changes in social policy for determining an 'authoritative allocation of
values'. The ideas of liberty and equality derive their substance from the idea of
social justice when these principles seek the transformation of the existing social
conditions to eliminate injustice in society. In a nutshell, 'social justice' is the
voice of the oppressed and the underprivileged against the excesses of the social
system. It is an expression of what is due to the individual from society, especially to
the individual who is condemned to a wretched and subhuman living because of a
defective system of distribution of advantages accruing from the organized social
life. The main problem of social justice is to decide an appropriate allocation of the
advantages that are available or that can be secured through the
instrumentality of the social organization.
When the modern idea of justice is applied to the various aspects of social life,
we get legal, political and socio-economic notions of justice. These are by no
means watertight compartments but constitute a continuum within the general
scheme of social justice.

LEGAL JUSTICE
The term 'legal justice' is broadly applied in two contexts: (a) 'justice according
to law'—here we do not question the validity of law but focus on the principles
of administration of justice according to the prevalent law; and (b) 'law according
to justice'—here we examine the substance of the law itself to ensure that it
conforms to the requirements of justice.
Alf Ross in his On Law and Justice (1958) argued that justice consists in an
efficient administration of law and that it should not be tested on some imaginary
moral values. As Morris Ginsberg in his On Justice in Society (1965) has elucidated:
Ross accepts what may be called the formal principles of justice as a basis of
law. The notion of a legal order implies that decisions shall be made not
arbitrarily but in accordance with general rules, and that these general rules
(whatever they are) shall be correctly (that is what moraliits call impartially)
applied; that is by criteria defining the class of cases coming under the rule, and not
affecteaby the subjective reactions of the judge. Justice then is conformity
with existing law.
https://telegram.me/UPSCMaterials https://telegram.me/FreeUPSCMaterials https://telegram.me/MaterialforExam

Concept of 421
Justice

This view represents an outstanding example of the concept of legal justice as

'justice according to law'. It does not question whether a particular law itself is
right or wrong, on the plea that there is no scientific way of such verification. A
good law is known by its efficiency in attaining its purpose, whatever that purpose
may be. In this sense, the problem of justice has nothing to do with the purpose
of law; it is solely concerned with the efficacy of law. Justice in totalitarian
societies may be distorted not because of bad laws, but because of the power
given to judges to disregard fixed rules.
On the other hand, Ernest Barker, in his Principles of Social and Political
Theory (1951), has dwelled on the concept of legal justice as 'law according to
justice'. Barker draws a distinction between 'positive law' and 'natural law' to
show that law derives its validity and value from two different sources. Positive
law denotes a particular law—the law defined and declared by each community
for its own members. On the other hand, natural law is a universal law—a law
founded on what is right-in-itself, on what is just everywhere and at all times, for
all mankind, on what is valuable whether it is valid or not. Barker demonstrates
that this distinction between the two aspects of law can be traced in the political
theory of Aristotle, Roman jurisprudence as well as Christian doctrine. After a
detailed examination of these theories, Barker comes to this conclusion:
If we make this distinction, we may say that authority gives validity to law,
and justice gives it value. A law has validity, and I am legally obliged to obey
it, if it is declared, recognized, and enforced as law by the authority of the
legally organized community, acting in its capacity of a State. A law has
value, and I am bound to obey it not only legally, and not only by an outward
compulsion, but also morally and by an inward force, if it has the inherent
quality of justice. {Principles of Social and Political Theory; 1951)
Barker points out that, ideally, law ought to have both validity and value. Thus,
law will be most effective if it conforms to the principle of justice and also has
the authority of the state.
Of the two views of legal justice, one represented by Ross and the other by
Barker, the latter is definitely more sound. Justice in the legal sphere consists not
only in an efficient administration of law, but it postulates that law itself should
embody human values according to the prevailing social consciousness. If law
does not reflect the changing social values, it will turn out to be a dead weight on
the wheels of social progress, only to be discarded in a violent overthrow.

POLITICAL JUSTICE

The term 'political justice' is sometimes applied in a comprehensive sense so as

to embrace a restructuring of the entire fabric of socio-economic and political
relations. For instance, William Godwin, in his Essay on Property (1793), used
https://telegram.me/UPSCMaterials https://telegram.me/FreeUPSCMaterials https://telegram.me/MaterialforExam

422 An Introduction to Political Theory

the term 'political justice' to denote a moral principle whose object was the
'general good' and which was especially invoked to evolve a genuine system of
property. Otto Kirchheimer, in his Political Justice: The Use of Legal Procedure
for Political Ends (1961), has conceived of 'political justice' as 'the search for
an ideal in which all members will communicate and interact with the body politic
to assume its highest perfection'.
A more specific usage of the term 'political justice', however, refers to the
transformation of political institutions, political process and political rights
according to current conceptions of justice. This means, in the first place, the
establishment of democratic institutions in the political life of the community so
that these institutions represent and take care of the interests of the people, not of
any privileged class. Thus, representative institutions—the legislature and
executive—should be constituted on the principle of universal adult franchise,
while the independence of the judiciary should be protected and maintained. This
also implies 'rule of law', i.e. the principle that government should not be arbitrary,
but should be conducted through procedures authorized by legislation passed in
the proper form. A constitutional government is also an essential ingredient of
political justice in this sense.
In the second place, political justice implies a full guarantee of the liberty of
thought and expression, especially the right to criticize the government and its
policies. Finally, there should be complete freedom for forming associations and
interest groups to enable the citizens to articulate their interests through the normal
channels of communication and through political parties as well as to express
their approval or disapproval of particular measures, to organize peaceful protests
against harmful measures, and to pressurize the working of the government
through democratic channels and procedures. In a nutshell, political justice
postulates the universal availability of the mechanism for resolving the conflicting
claims of different interests in society.

SOCIO-ECONOMIC JUSTICE
The term 'socio-economic justice' comprehends two important elements: 'social
justice' and 'economic justice'. Their combination into 'socio-economic justice'
is significant because social life of the community cannot be transformed according
to the principle of justice unless its economic relations are suitably transformed.
The term 'economic justice' may be used in the restricted sense of reordering
human relations in the economic sphere, e.g. relations between employer and
worker, between trader and consumer, between landlord and tenant, between
moneylender and borrower, etc. so as to eliminate exploitation of the vulnerable
sections of society. On the other hand, the term 'social justice' is used more
comprehensively so as to include economic justice as also to restore the dignity
of human beings who have lost it due to a lower economic, educational and
cultural status.
https://telegram.me/UPSCMaterials https://telegram.me/FreeUPSCMaterials https://telegram.me/MaterialforExam

Concept of Justice 423

When we speak of 'economic growth with social justice', the term social
justice suggests that the benefits of economic growth—which are largely economic
in nature—should accrue to larger and larger sections, especially to the lower
strata of society. The term socio-economic justice, or social justice, in a broad
sense, comprehends the reallocation of both material and moral advantages of
social life. It denotes a progressive concept and a model of development. The
Indian Constitution, particularly in its Preamble and the part dealing with the
Directive Principles of State Policy, holds the promise of justice—social, economic
and political. In common parlance, the term 'social justice' is usually applied to
comprehend all the three aspects of justice in society—social, economic and
political. Of these, the economic aspect is most crucial because economic disparities
and injustice are bound to erode the foundations of legal and political justice.
In a nutshell, the term social justice, in the wider sense, implies a reordering of
social life in such a manner that the material and moral benefits of social effort
are not cornered by a tiny privileged class but accrue to the masses to ensure the
uplift of the lower, weaker and underprivileged sections. This involves a logical
synthesis of liberty, equality and fraternity in their substantive aspects so that:
(a)liberty of thought and expression, etc. is supplemented by a democratic electoral
system free from the decisive influence of money and manipulative power;
(b) formal equality is not rendered ineffective due to vast economic disparities,
especially in the field of seeking justice in the law-courts and availing of educational
and career development opportunities; (c) special safeguards for minorities and
weaker sections help to raise their dignity and promote the spirit of fraternity;
and (d) the right to property is subordinated to the common good and the pattern
of production of goods and services tends to subserve social needs.

IV. DISTINCTION BETWEEN PROCEDURAL IUST1CE AND

SUBSTANTIVE JUSTICE
The contemporary debate on the nature of justice focuses on the distinction
between procedural justice and substantive justice (also called social justice or
distributive justice). The champions of procedural justice hold that it is necessary
to determine a just procedure for the allocation of social advantages, viz. goods
and services, opportunities and benefits, power and honours; then its outcome
will automatically be accepted as just. In other words, the allocation resulting
from a just procedure must be treated as just. On the contrary, the champions of
substantive justice argue that the allocation or distribution of social advantages
among various sections of society itself should be just—that is the primary issue;
the procedure for making such allocation is a secondary issue, which can be
adjusted suitably to meet the requirements of just distribution.
The notion of procedural justice is closely related to the tradition of liberalism.
According to this viewpoint, the function of justice is to regulate the mutual
https://telegram.me/UPSCMaterials https://telegram.me/FreeUPSCMaterials https://telegram.me/MaterialforExam

424 An Introduction to Political Theory

relations between individuals and groups. Hence, the quest for justice should aim
at evolving reasonable rules which should be applied impartially to all categories.
Freedom of contract is the mainstay of procedural justice. It requires the state to
ensure that no individual or group would oppress another by force or fraud.
Using the analogy of race, the defenders of procedural justice insist on laying
down rules of the game; it hardly matters as to who wins or loses in the race. As
Norman Barry (An Introduction to Modern Political Theory; 1989) has aptly
illustrated: "Procedural justice is exemplified in competitions, such as races. A
fair race is not one in which the person who wins morally deserves to win but
one in which there is no cheating, nobody jumps the gun or has an unfair advantage
through the use of drugs." Accordingly procedural justice treats the rules of
market economy as the model rules of human behaviour. It holds that the market
mechanism creates necessary conditions for the most efficient use of resources;
any artificial social policy designed to disturb this process will lead to wastage of
the rare material and human resources. The exponents of procedural justice include
Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), F.A. Hayek (1899-1992), Milton Friedman (1912-
2006) and Robert Nozick (1938-2002). Besides, John Rawls (1921-2002) has
sought to accommodate the requirements of substantive justice or social justice
in his well-drawn scheme of procedural justice.
Procedural justice repudiates all discrimination between human beings on
grounds of caste, creed, sex, race, region, language and culture, etc. and accepts
equal dignity and moral worth of all human beings. In this respect, it is a progressive
idea. But it stretches the principle of open competition too far. Thus, Spencer
went to the extent of suggesting that the state should not extend any help to the
handicapped and let the weakest go to the wall. Spencer argued that if the state
gives any support to the incapable, the imprudent and the weak, it would amount
to depriving the capable, the prudent and the strong of their genuine share, and
thereby impeding social progress. Spencer's social philosophy implies applying
Darwin's principle of'natural selection' and 'survival of the fittest' to the realm
of human relations. It obliterates the distinction between rules of the animal world
and those of civil society. Hayek suggested that the state should positively promote
competition and ensure that the market is not reduced to an instrument of
distributive justice. Friedman eulogized competitive capitalism as an essential
condition of freedon and opposed all measures of human welfare and social
security. Nozick contended that the state has no authority to redistribute the
property of its citizens who were originally its clients. C.B. Macpherson (1911-87)
has rightly pointed out that the capitalist system destroys the creative freedom of
human beings who are constrained to employ their talents, skills and energies to
cater to the needs of the market place instead of pursuing their self-appointed
goals. Where is the scope of justice under such conditions of constraint?
In contrast, the idea of substantive justice corresponds to the philosophy of
socialism. It holds that test of justice in society consists in ascertaining whether
https://telegram.me/UPSCMaterials https://telegram.me/FreeUPSCMaterials https://telegram.me/MaterialforExam

Concept of Justice 425

the poor and the underprivileged have adequate opportunity to improve their lot.
It demands that the opportunities of self-development should be progressively
extended to the underprivileged and disadvantaged sections of society.

CONCLUSION
Justice is primarily a problem of moral philosophy. In politics, the concept of
justice is used as a guide to public policy. The question of justice arises under
two conditions: (a) in a scarcity situation—where goods, services, opportunities,
etc. are too scarce to satisfy all contestants; and (b) in an open society—where
allocation of various benefits is not tied to fixed status of various individuals but
they are free to demand a fair share on some reasonable ground. In a hierarchical
or authoritarian society where all social advantages are allocated to different
sections of society according to a predetermined scheme, justice is conceived as
the strict adherence to that scheme. In an open society, we may consider two
major criteria of allocation: (a) allocation according to need; and (b) allocation
according to desert, merit and ability. In a scarcity situation it is impossible to
meet everybody's needs. If we resort to an equal distribution of social advantages
for the purpose of equal satisfaction of everybody's needs irrespective of their
contribution, then no incentive will be left to work hard. The result will be less
production and a lesser availability of goods and services, etc. for distribution
and a general impoverishment of society.
On the other hand, if we introduce a purely competitive system, ignoring
needs altogether, some human beings might be constrained to lead sub-human
life. This would result in a general moral degradation as well as loss of potential
for social progress. Justice, therefore, requires that a provision should be made
for meeting some minimum needs of all human beings irrespective of their individual
contribution to society. Minimum needs could include means of subsistence,
health care, some level of education or literacy, and some job opportunities because
a job is not only a means of subsistence but also a means of self-respect. While
making allocation according to need, it is imperative that the neediest should get
priority. Needs should be determined on individual basis (or family-unit basis). If
some groups or classes are declared to, be entitled to special concessions, they
are bound to develop the vested interest in the system. As a consequence, the
claims of the neediest individuals (or family-units) among other categories are
bound to be ignored, resulting in injustice.
Once the provision for minimum needs has been made, an additional reward
can be given according to desert. Criterion of desert is, again, by no means a
simple issue. A purely competitive system is no answer to the question. In a
system based on desert, reward will depend on four factors: (a) one's talents and
skills; (b) effort; (c) opportunity; and (d) social demand. Of these, the first two
https://telegram.me/UPSCMaterials https://telegram.me/FreeUPSCMaterials https://telegram.me/MaterialforExam

426 An Introduction to Political Theory

factors, viz. talents and skills combined with effort, are hardly controversial, but
the last two factors, viz. opportunity and social demand might prove to be beyond
control of the individual. Talents and effort may go unrewarded or scantily
rewarded for want of adequate opportunity. Then variations in social demand
might result in overvaluation or undervaluation of talents. As John H. Schaar
('Equality of Opportunity, and Beyond' in Contemporary Political Theory, edited
by Anthony de Crespigny and Alan Wertheimer; 1971) has pointed out, talents
might not be rewarded according to their intrinsic worth due to variations in the
prevailing hierarchy of values in different social settings. Thus, soldierly qualities
and virtues were highly admired and rewarded in the ancient Sparta, while the
poets languished. C.B. Macpherson has lamented on the lack of creative freedom
for ordinary human beings in a capitalist system. In view of these constraints,
the state should create adequate opportunities for and give suitable encouragement
to sublime arts and professions in order to meet the requirements of justice.