Social Justice | CBSE Class 11 Political Science Notes

This note covers the meaning of justice, equal treatment, proportionate rewards, special needs, fair distribution of resources, John Rawls’ reasoning, basic conditions of life, and the debate over free markets and government action.

What is justice, and why should people be just?

Definition: Justice concerns how public life is organised and how society distributes goods and duties among its members. It involves concern for everyone’s well-being and giving each person their due.

People may recognise injustice even when they find justice difficult to define. Questions about fair treatment matter to politics because they concern the organisation of society, rather than just relationships with a few people whom we know personally.

How have thinkers understood justice?

In ancient Indian society, justice was associated with dharma, understood here as a just social order. Maintaining it was considered a primary duty of kings. In China, the philosopher Confucius argued that kings should punish wrongdoers and reward virtuous people.

In fourth century B.C. Athens, in Greece, Plato explored justice in The Republic. B.C. means Before Christ. The discussion takes the form of a dialogue involving Socrates and his young friends, Glaucon and Adeimantus.

The young people observe that dishonest people often appear more successful. People who manipulate rules, avoid taxes or deceive others may seem better off than those who act justly. They therefore question why anyone should choose justice if wrongdoing can escape detection.

Socrates’ response concerns everyone’s long-term security. If everybody manipulated rules for personal advantage, nobody could be sure of benefiting. General insecurity was likely to harm them all. Obeying laws and acting justly therefore served their own long-term interests.

In Glaucon’s account, people regard suffering injustice as worse than the advantage of committing it. Having experienced both, and being unable to secure only the advantage, they agree to avoid both. Laws and mutual agreements arise from this understanding.

What does giving each person their due mean?

Justice goes beyond helping friends, harming enemies or advancing one’s own interests. A just government should care for people’s well-being, just as a doctor cares for patients. What people are considered entitled to has, however, changed over time.

The German philosopher Immanuel Kant associated human beings with dignity, the standing that calls for due and equal consideration. Recognising everyone’s dignity means allowing each person opportunities to develop their talents and pursue their chosen goals.

The modern understanding of a person’s due, meaning what they should receive, is thus linked to their standing as a human being. The issue is how to make equal consideration effective when people’s work, circumstances and opportunities differ.

How does equal treatment for equals prevent discrimination?

Equal treatment for equals means that people who share relevant characteristics should receive equal rights and treatment. Human beings share certain characteristics simply as human beings. This provides a basis for recognising the equal importance of all people.

Recognising equal importance does not settle every question about what each person should receive. It does establish that people should not face discrimination, or unequal treatment, because of their class, caste, race or gender. Work and actions should guide assessment rather than group membership.

Which rights express equal treatment?

In most liberal democracies, democratic societies granting civil, political and certain social rights, several kinds of rights express this principle. The following distinctions show how equal standing applies to personal life, participation in politics and opportunities within society.

How do unequal wages illustrate injustice?

Consider two people from different castes doing the same work, such as breaking stones or delivering pizzas. If one receives ₹100 and the other ₹75 because of caste, their treatment is unjust. The symbol ₹ denotes Indian rupees.

The relevant comparison is that both perform the same kind of work. Caste does not justify different rewards. Similarly, paying a male schoolteacher more than a female schoolteacher because of gender is unjustifiable.

Note: Equal treatment judges people through their work and actions. It does not mean that every kind of work must receive an identical reward, regardless of effort, skill or danger.

This principle therefore challenges unequal treatment based on group identity while leaving room to consider relevant differences in work. That distinction leads to the idea of proportionate justice.

Why can proportionate justice require different rewards?

Proportionate justice means rewarding people in proportion to the scale and quality of their effort, provided everyone begins from the same base of equal rights. It supplements equal treatment by recognising relevant differences in the work people perform.

Why should examination marks differ?

Suppose everyone who sits the same examination receives equal marks simply because they belong to the same school. This can seem unfair because the answers may differ in quality. Equal membership of a school does not make every answer paper equally good.

A more appropriate assessment would consider the quality of answers and also, possibly, the effort put in. Effort may also be considered alongside answer quality, but it does not automatically determine examination marks.

Which differences in work can matter?

Most people would accept the same reward for the same work while allowing different rewards for different kinds of work. Relevant considerations include the effort a task requires, the skills it demands and the possible dangers involved.

Miners, skilled craftsmen and policemen illustrate why existing wages deserve examination. Policemen perform work that is sometimes dangerous but socially useful. Such workers may not always receive rewards that adequately recognise relevant factors when compared with what others earn.

A difference in earnings is therefore not, by itself, proof of justice. The reason for that difference matters. Equally, identical rewards are not automatically fair when the scale, quality or demands of work differ.

Justice requires a balance between equality and proportionality. Equal rights provide the starting point; relevant differences in effort and work can then guide rewards. Applying either principle without considering the other can leave important claims unrecognised.

How does recognising special needs extend equal treatment?

Recognition of special needs means considering people’s particular disadvantages when distributing rewards or duties. Equal rights and proportionate rewards might not be sufficient to ensure equality in other aspects of social life or make society as a whole just.

People may share equal basic status while differing in their ability to use available opportunities. Those with special needs or disabilities could be considered unequal in a particular respect and deserving of special help.

Which circumstances may justify help?

In many countries, physical disabilities, age and lack of access to good education or health care are considered grounds for special treatment. Agreement is not always easy about which inequalities should qualify people for assistance.

Consider people with very different living standards and opportunities. Treating those deprived of basic necessities exactly like people who already enjoy those necessities is likely to produce an unequal society, rather than an egalitarian society, meaning one based on equality.

Special help does not necessarily contradict equal treatment. Treating equals equally can imply treating people differently when they are unequal in important respects. Assistance can extend the principle by making opportunities more meaningful for disadvantaged people.

Why are reservations discussed in this context?

In India, lack of education, health care and similar facilities is often combined with caste discrimination. The Constitution, the framework of the country’s governing rules, therefore allowed reservations in government jobs and quotas in educational admissions for people belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Tribes.

Reservations and quotas set aside opportunities for specified groups. Here, Scheduled Castes and Tribes are the groups identified as beneficiaries of these constitutional provisions. The justification connects unequal access and social discrimination with the need for special assistance.

Cartoon: Impartiality and special needs (NCERT Class 11, p. 58, unnumbered cartoon). Two cartoon children discuss why the statue of justice is blindfolded. One explains that justice needs to be impartial; the other wonders how it can then see people’s special needs.

Impartiality means judging without favouring a particular person or group. The cartoon raises the problem of combining impartial judgement with attention to relevant disadvantages. It does not show a statue; it shows children discussing one.

Why must governments harmonise the three principles of justice?

The three principles are equal treatment for equals, proportionate recognition of effort and skill, and attention to special needs. Governments might sometimes find it difficult to bring them together in policies that promote a just society.

Pursuing equal treatment by itself might sometimes work against giving due reward to merit, meaning the effort, skill or quality relevant to a reward. Conversely, emphasising merit might disadvantage marginalised groups lacking good nourishment or education.

Marginalised groups are sections of society disadvantaged in access to facilities and opportunities. Their circumstances matter when assessing whether a competition or distribution is fair. Different groups may support different policies because they emphasise different principles of justice.

What do the classroom situations ask us to examine?

These situations raise questions about fair treatment. The task is to identify relevant differences and explain which principle supports a judgement. They should be treated as matters for reasoned discussion, rather than as a single rule that settles every situation.

A proposal to reserve seats for women can be assessed by asking whether special assistance would address unequal political opportunities. Likewise, identifying a disability does not by itself settle every question about what kind of assistance is appropriate.

Harmonising the principles involves taking equal standing, relevant differences in work, and unequal access to basic opportunities seriously. The government’s responsibility is to bring these claims together instead of treating one principle as sufficient in every situation.

Why does social justice require a just distribution of resources?

Distributive justice concerns the fair distribution of goods, services, benefits and burdens. It applies both between nations and between groups or individuals within a society. Social justice can therefore require more than laws and policies that treat individuals fairly.

Where serious social or economic inequalities exist, it might become necessary to redistribute resources, meaning to change how important resources are shared. The purpose is to provide something like a level playing field, or fairer starting conditions, for citizens.

How do laws and living conditions connect?

Equal treatment under laws and policies matters, but people also need some basic equality in living conditions and opportunities. These conditions help each person pursue their objectives and express themselves. A legal promise of equality does not exhaust the requirements of justice.

In India, the Constitution abolished untouchability, a practice of caste-based exclusion, to promote social equality. The aim included ensuring that people belonging to castes treated as “lower” could access temples, jobs and necessities such as water.

Different state governments have also introduced land reforms, measures to redistribute land more fairly. This example concerns the distribution of an important resource, alongside the removal of barriers to equal social treatment.

Why can redistribution produce disagreement?

Debates about distributing resources and ensuring access to education and jobs can arouse fierce passions. People believe that their own future and their families’ future may be at stake. Disputes have sometimes even provoked violence.

Proposals for reserved educational places and government employment illustrate these tensions. The existence of opposition does not settle whether a policy is just. The relevant task is to examine the arguments through the principles of justice.

John Rawls, a political philosopher, offers a rational justification for helping the least privileged. Here, rational justification means a defence based on reasoning. His argument asks how people could choose fair social arrangements without allowing their present advantages to determine their choice.

The question joins individual interests to the organisation of society: can people have good reasons to protect disadvantaged members even when they ordinarily think in terms of their own welfare?

How does Rawls use the veil of ignorance to defend fairness?

People asked to choose their preferred society are likely to favour arrangements that give them a privileged position. They may also consider their children’s future. Such preferences are understandable, but they cannot provide a fair basis for deciding how everyone should live together.

Definition: The veil of ignorance is an imagined situation in which people choose society’s rules without knowing their own future position, family, caste, wealth or advantages within that society.

Rawls argues that the only way to arrive at a fair and just rule is to imagine deciding society’s organisation without knowing which position we would occupy. Without knowing who we will be, we will be likely to support rules fair to everyone.

What are the steps in the reasoning?

1. Set aside knowledge of personal position. Imagine not knowing whether you will belong to a rich or poor family, a caste treated as “upper” or “lower”, or a privileged or disadvantaged section.
2. Continue to consider your interests. The argument does not ask you to stop caring about yourself. You must choose without knowing which particular arrangement will benefit your future position.
3. Consider the worst-off. The worst-off are those in the most disadvantaged positions. Since you might occupy such a position, it makes sense to consider what opportunities would be available there.
4. Protect reasonable opportunities. Seek arrangements making important resources, including education, health and shelter, available to everyone, including weaker sections and people outside the upper class.
5. Consider society as a whole. Also seek policies that do not make the better-off weaker, since you could occupy a privileged position. Protection for the worst-off and benefits for the whole society must go together.

Why is this an argument from reason rather than generosity?

Imagining oneself without a social identity is difficult. Yet expecting most people to share their good fortune with strangers through extraordinary self-sacrifice is also difficult. Rawls therefore uses a framework that expects people to remain their usual rational selves.

Self-interest, concern for one’s own welfare, remains part of the choice. Uncertainty about personal position makes it sensible to protect people in disadvantaged circumstances. Fairness emerges through reasoning rather than through a demand for benevolence, meaning generosity towards others.

The imagined veil is the first step towards fair laws and policies. No moral goals or rules are supplied in advance: people remain free to judge what is best for themselves. Rawls argues that rational thinking could lead them to distribute benefits and burdens impartially.

The argument thus connects concern for the weakest with the interests of all members. It does not ask people to know their future position, nor to choose rules that benefit just one particular section of society.

What basic conditions should a just society provide?

A society lacks social justice when deep and persistent divisions separate people with wealth, property and power from those excluded and deprived. The issue is more serious than ordinary differences in living standards among individuals.

Justice does not require absolute sameness in people’s lives. But a society is unjust when rich and poor seem to inhabit different worlds and deprived people have no chance to improve their condition however hard they work.

What counts as a basic minimum?

Basic minimum conditions are the conditions needed for healthy, secure lives, the development of talents and opportunities to pursue chosen goals. Governments and international organisations, including the World Health Organisation, an international health organisation, have devised methods of calculating basic needs.

In general, an important part of these conditions consists of:

• Nourishment: enough food to remain healthy.
• Housing: provision for a place to live.
• Clean drinking water: a supply of water suitable for drinking.
• Education: access to learning as a basic condition of opportunity.
• A minimum wage: a basic level of payment for work.

Providing basic needs is considered one responsibility of a democratic government. Doing so for all citizens may impose a heavy burden, particularly in countries such as India with large numbers of poor people. Agreement on the aim does not remove disagreement about methods.

Why must justice also be timely?

Cartoon: Justice delayed (NCERT Class 11, p. 61, unnumbered cartoon). A seated cartoon child asks why delayed justice is called denied justice. Another child explains that a long-delayed decision may bring the injured person no benefit and asks what use a favourable decision would be after death.

The cartoon draws attention to whether a person can actually benefit from justice. An eventual favourable decision may be of little use if delay prevents the injured person from receiving its benefit.

J. S. Mill connects justice with something an individual can claim as a moral right. A moral right here means a claim others ought to honour, rather than merely a favour they may choose to grant.

What arguments do supporters of free markets make?

A free market is an arrangement in which individuals are, as far as possible, free to own property, make agreements about prices, wages and profits, and compete for benefit. State intervention means government action affecting these arrangements or providing support and services.

Supporters believe that markets free from state interference would produce an overall just distribution of benefits and duties. In this argument, people with merit and talent receive appropriate rewards, while those lacking competence receive less.

Why do supporters connect markets with fairness?

The claim is that the market concerns itself with skills and talents rather than caste, religion or gender. On this view, outcomes produced by market distribution are just. This is a defence of markets that must be considered alongside objections about their actual effects.

Supporters also emphasise consumer choice, the ability to choose among goods and services. The market system gives people choices about the rice they eat or the school they attend, provided they have the means to pay.

Do all supporters reject government assistance?

Not all free market supporters favour absolutely unregulated markets. Many would now accept some restrictions, including government action to secure a basic minimum living standard so that people can compete on equal terms.

They might argue that markets in health care, education and similar services are the most efficient means of provision. Private agencies would supply services, while government policies would help people gain the ability to purchase them.

Coercion means compulsion rather than free agreement. Preventing it helps preserve the freedom of competition. This position gives the state a limited role, rather than eliminating government altogether.

The debate is therefore not simply between markets with no rules and complete government provision. Even among market supporters, there is room for minimum support and safeguards, although the preferred method of delivering services may remain private provision.

What limitations of markets support government action for justice?

More choice does not by itself ensure that everyone can obtain basic services. For essentials, the central issue is whether good-quality goods and services are available at prices people can afford. The ability to pay conditions the practical value of consumer choice.

How can profitability restrict access?

If private agencies do not find a service profitable, they may avoid entering that market or offer cheap, substandard services. There may therefore be few private schools in remote rural areas, and those established may be of low quality.

Similar difficulties can arise with health care and housing. In such circumstances, the government might have to step in. This argument concerns the availability and affordability of basic facilities, rather than simply the number of choices offered for sale.

Another defence of private enterprise is that its services are often superior to those in government institutions. However, their cost may place them beyond the poor’s reach. A service can be high-quality without being accessible to everyone who needs it.

How do the competing arguments compare?

Private business tends to go where it can make the greatest profit. Free markets eventually tend to favour the strong, wealthy and powerful. The result may deny opportunities to weaker people rather than extend them. These are tendencies, not claims that every market outcome is identical.

Many therefore argue that the state should ensure basic facilities for all. B. R. Ambedkar’s vision of a just society replaces graded reverence for those above and contempt for those below with a compassionate society.

Democratic debate allows disagreements over distribution to be negotiated through discussion. Such disagreements are inevitable and even healthy: they require people to consider other viewpoints and rationally defend their own. Understanding justice helps people assess competing ways to reduce social and economic inequalities.

Glossary

• Justice — Fair organisation of public life, involving people’s well-being and the distribution of social goods and duties.
• Dignity — Human standing that calls for due and equal consideration and opportunities to develop talents and pursue goals.
• Equal treatment for equals — Giving equal rights and treatment to people who share relevant characteristics, without discrimination based on group membership.
• Proportionate justice — Rewarding people according to the scale and quality of effort, from a starting point of equal rights.
• Special needs — Particular disadvantages that may justify assistance when society distributes rewards, duties and opportunities among its members.
• Egalitarian society — A society based on equality, rather than unequal access to basic living conditions and opportunities.
• Distributive justice — Fair sharing of goods, services, benefits and burdens between nations or among people and groups within society.
• Redistribution — Changing how important resources are shared to address serious social or economic inequalities within society.
• Veil of ignorance — An imagined situation in which people choose social rules without knowing their own future position or advantages.
• Worst-off — People occupying the most disadvantaged positions, whose opportunities matter when choosing fair rules for society.
• Basic minimum conditions — Conditions enabling healthy, secure lives, development of talents and opportunities to pursue chosen goals within society.
• Free market — An arrangement allowing individuals, as far as possible, to own property, make economic agreements and compete for benefit.
• State intervention — Government action affecting market arrangements or helping to provide basic facilities and support to people.
• Impartiality — Judging without favouring a particular person or group while considering relevant circumstances and claims.

Common errors and misconceptions

• Misconception: Justice means helping friends and harming enemies. Correct: Justice concerns the well-being of all people and giving each person their due.
• Misconception: Equal treatment requires identical rewards for every kind of work. Correct: Proportionate justice considers relevant differences in effort, skill, quality and possible danger.
• Misconception: Any special assistance contradicts equality. Correct: Recognition of special needs can extend equal treatment where people differ in important respects.
• Misconception: Fair laws alone are enough for social justice. Correct: Basic equality of living conditions and opportunities also matters; serious inequalities might require resource redistribution.
• Misconception: Rawls asks everyone to abandon self-interest and become unusually generous. Correct: People reason from their own interests without knowing their future social position.
• Misconception: A just society must make everyone’s life exactly the same. Correct: Justice requires basic conditions and fair opportunities, not absolute sameness of living standards.
• Misconception: All free market supporters reject every government role. Correct: Many accept restrictions, minimum support, help for people unable to compete, and laws protecting free competition.
• Misconception: Reserving opportunities for a disadvantaged group necessarily violates equal treatment. Correct: Special assistance can extend equality when it addresses relevant disadvantages.

Exam-style questions with model answers

Q1. Two workers from different castes do the same work. One receives ₹100 and the other ₹75 solely because of caste. Equal treatment requires judging work and actions rather than group membership. Explain in two points why the payment is unjust. [2 marks]

1. The workers perform the same work, so the principle of equal treatment supports giving them the same reward.
2. The difference rests solely on caste membership, which is an unjust basis for distinguishing their payment.

Q2. Students begin with equal rights and sit the same examination, but their answer papers differ in quality. Proportionate justice considers the scale and quality of effort; effort may also possibly be considered in assessment. Explain in three points why identical marks need not be fair. [3 marks]

1. Equal rights give students a common starting point, but sitting the same examination does not mean that their performances are equally good.
2. Since answer quality differs, identical marks would fail to recognise a relevant difference. Proportionate assessment would consider the quality of the papers.
3. Proportionate justice relates rewards to the scale and quality of effort. Effort may also possibly be considered, so fairness need not mean identical marks.

Q3. Suresh is visually impaired and receives three hours and thirty minutes for a mathematics paper, while classmates receive three hours. Special-needs justice recognises relevant disadvantages, and treating equals equally can allow different treatment where people are unequal in important respects. Explain why this arrangement can be justified. [2 marks]

1. The relevant circumstance is Suresh’s visual impairment. The arrangement responds to a stated special need rather than denying his equal standing as a student.
2. He receives additional time while his classmates receive three hours. Different arrangements can recognise that students do not face identical difficulties.
3. The special-needs principle allows assistance where a disadvantage matters. Identical treatment in every respect is therefore not the sole test of fairness.
4. Treating equals equally can permit different treatment in important unequal circumstances. The arrangement can thus be defended as extending equal treatment rather than necessarily contradicting it.

Q4. Equal treatment gives the same reward for the same work; proportionality considers effort, skills and danger; special-needs justice considers disadvantages such as lack of nourishment or education. Explain three reasons why a government must balance these principles. [3 marks]

1. Equal treatment prevents irrelevant differences in rewards for the same work. However, using sameness alone can overlook relevant differences in effort, skills or danger.
2. Proportionality recognises different demands and contributions. Yet focusing on merit alone might disadvantage people who have lacked nourishment or access to education.
3. Attention to special needs recognises unequal circumstances. A government must combine this assistance with equal standing and proportionate rewards to promote a just society.

Q5. Rawls asks people to choose social rules without knowing their future family, caste, wealth or status. They remain self-interested and could be among either the worst-off or the better-off. His reasoning seeks reasonable opportunities, access to education, health and shelter, and policies benefiting society as a whole without making the better-off weaker. Explain the argument in six points. [6 marks]

1. The veil of ignorance removes knowledge of the personal position that could otherwise encourage people to choose rules favouring their own group.
2. People still consider their interests. The argument therefore does not require them to become extraordinarily generous or to abandon concern for their welfare.
3. Since they might be among the worst-off, they have a reason to consider society from the perspective of people with few opportunities.
4. They would seek reasonable opportunities and access to important resources such as education, health and shelter, including for those outside privileged groups.
5. They could also occupy better-off positions, so it makes sense to seek policies that do not make those people weaker.
6. Protection for disadvantaged people and benefits for the whole society go together. Fair rules can thus be defended through rational self-interest under uncertainty.

Q6. A just society should enable healthy, secure lives, development of talents and opportunities to pursue chosen goals. Five generally accepted basic conditions are nourishment sufficient for health, housing, clean drinking water, education and a minimum wage. Present these five conditions as separate points, explaining their place in this basic minimum. [5 marks]

1. Nourishment: People need enough nourishment to remain healthy. This is part of the minimum conditions for a healthy life.
2. Housing: A place to live belongs among the basic conditions. It forms part of the provision for a secure life.
3. Clean drinking water: A supply of clean water for drinking is a basic requirement included among the conditions of healthy living.
4. Education: Access to education belongs in the basic minimum associated with developing talents and opportunities to pursue chosen goals.
5. A minimum wage: A basic level of payment for work is included among the generally accepted conditions of life that a just society should provide.

Q7. Market choice depends on the ability to pay. Private agencies may avoid unprofitable services or supply substandard ones. Private services are often defended as superior in quality, but their cost may exclude poor people; markets often tend to favour those already privileged. Give four arguments for government action using this information. [4 marks]

1. Having choices for sale does not ensure access. Government action can address basic needs when people lack the means to buy available services.
2. Profitability may leave some services unavailable or substandard. This supports intervention where private provision does not offer adequate basic facilities.
3. Even services of superior quality may be unaffordable for poor people. Quality therefore needs to be considered alongside access and cost.
4. Markets often tend to favour existing privilege. Ensuring basic facilities for all can address the limited opportunities available to weaker sections.

Q8. Fair distribution concerns both equal legal treatment and basic equality of living conditions and opportunities. Serious inequalities might require redistribution; land reforms aim to redistribute land more fairly. Explain two reasons why equal legal treatment alone may be insufficient. [2 marks]

1. People also need basic equality in living conditions and opportunities to pursue their objectives, beyond receiving equal treatment under laws.
2. Serious inequalities might require changing resource distribution, as illustrated by land reforms intended to share land more fairly.

Key takeaways

• Justice concerns public life, everyone’s well-being, and what each person is due as a human being.
• Equal treatment rejects discrimination based on group membership and supports the same reward for the same work.
• Proportionate justice considers effort, skill, quality and possible danger, provided people begin with equal rights.
• Special assistance can extend equality when people face relevant disadvantages in their circumstances or access to opportunities.
• Distributive justice concerns resources as well as laws; serious inequalities might require redistribution to improve starting conditions.
• Rawls’ veil of ignorance explains how rational self-interest can support opportunities for the worst-off and benefits for society.
• Basic minimum conditions include nourishment, housing, clean drinking water, education and a minimum wage, without demanding identical lives.
• Markets offer choice, but affordability and profitability can restrict access; democratic debate helps assess the case for government action.

Test yourself

Why does Socrates connect justice with long-term self-interest?

If everyone manipulated rules, nobody could be secure or certain of benefiting. Such insecurity was likely to harm all, making justice a long-term interest.

What does Kant’s idea of dignity imply for people’s opportunities?

Each person should receive due and equal consideration and opportunities to develop talents and pursue chosen goals.

Which three principles must governments try to harmonise?

Equal treatment for equals, proportionate recognition of effort and skill, and recognition of special needs must be brought together.

Why can special-needs assistance be consistent with equal treatment?

People may have equal basic status but differ in important circumstances, so different treatment can address relevant disadvantages.

Which Indian measures illustrate changing social treatment and resource distribution?

The abolition of untouchability promotes social equality, while land reforms aim to redistribute an important resource more fairly.

What information is hidden behind Rawls’ veil of ignorance?

People do not know their future family, caste, wealth, social position or whether they will be privileged or disadvantaged.

Does Rawls’ argument seek benefits for just the worst-off?

No. Considering the worst-off and benefiting society as a whole must go together, without making the better-off weaker.

Why might market choice fail to secure basic services for poor people?

Choice depends on the means to pay, while unprofitable services may be unavailable, substandard or beyond poor people’s reach.