Justice | ISC Class 11 Political Science Notes

This note covers justice: what it means, how different traditions understood it, the idea of giving each person his or her due, the three principles of equal treatment, proportionate justice and special needs, just distribution, John Rawls' theory of justice and the veil of ignorance, Amartya Sen's idea of justice, how the two theories differ, and the debate between free markets and state intervention.

What does justice mean?

We have an intuitive understanding of justice even though we may not be able to define it precisely. In that sense justice is a lot like love: no one hates it, and everyone wants it for themselves and, to some extent, for others.

Unlike love, which belongs to our relationships with a few people we know well, justice concerns our life in society.

It is about the way public life is ordered and the principles by which social goods and social duties are distributed among the members of society. That is why questions of justice are of central importance for politics.

Definition: Justice. Justice is the principle of giving each person his or her due, with equal consideration for all, in the way a society orders public life and distributes its benefits and burdens.

Today, what is due to each person is closely linked to what is due to each person as a human being. The German philosopher Immanuel Kant held that human beings possess dignity.

If all persons have dignity, then what is due to each is the opportunity to develop his or her talents and pursue his or her chosen goals. Justice requires due and equal consideration for all individuals.

How have different traditions understood justice?

All cultures and traditions have grappled with justice, though they interpreted it differently. In ancient Indian society, justice was associated with dharma, and maintaining dharma, a just social order, was considered a primary duty of kings.

In China, the philosopher Confucius argued that kings should maintain justice by punishing wrong-doers and rewarding the virtuous.

In fourth-century B.C. Athens, Plato discussed justice in his book The Republic, through a dialogue between Socrates and his young friends Glaucon and Adeimantus. The young men observed that unjust people who twisted rules, avoided taxes and lied often seemed better off than just people.

Socrates replied that if everyone were unjust and manipulated rules to suit themselves, no one could be sure of benefiting from injustice; nobody would be secure, and all would be harmed. It is therefore in our own long-term interest to obey the laws and be just.

Socrates also explained that justice does not mean only doing good to friends and harm to enemies, or pursuing one's own interests. Justice involves the well-being of all people.

Just as a doctor is concerned with the well-being of patients, a just ruler or government must be concerned with the well-being of the people, which includes giving each person his due.

What are the three principles of justice?

Agreeing that all people matter equally does not settle how to give each person his or her due. Three principles of justice are widely recognised: equal treatment for equals, proportionate justice and recognition of special needs.

Equal treatment for equals holds that all individuals share certain characteristics as human beings and so deserve equal rights: civil rights such as life, liberty and property, political rights such as the vote, and social rights such as equal opportunities.

People should not be discriminated against on grounds of class, caste, race or gender, but judged by their work and actions.

If two persons from different castes do the same work, whether breaking stones or delivering pizzas, they should receive the same reward.

Paying one person one hundred rupees and another only seventy-five rupees for the same work because of caste would be unjust, as would paying a male teacher more than a female teacher.

Proportionate justice holds that equal treatment is not always just. Giving every student equal marks for the same exam would be unfair; marks should reflect the quality of the answers.

Provided everyone starts from equal rights, justice may mean rewarding people in proportion to the scale and quality of their effort, the skills required and the dangers involved.

Recognition of special needs holds that a society should take account of people's special needs when distributing rewards and duties.

Physical disability, age, or lack of access to good education or health care are grounds for special treatment in many countries.

In India, such deprivation often combines with caste discrimination, so the Constitution allowed reservations in government jobs and quotas in educational institutions for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

Can the three principles be harmonised?

Recognising special needs does not necessarily contradict equal treatment; it extends it. Treating equals equally can imply treating people who are unequal in important respects differently.

Still, governments may find it hard to harmonise the three principles. Pursuing equal treatment alone might work against rewarding merit. Emphasising merit alone might leave marginalised sections at a disadvantage, because they lacked good nourishment or education.

Different groups favour different policies depending on which principle they stress. It becomes a function of governments to harmonise the different principles to promote a just society. A just government balances equal rights, fair reward for effort and a minimum standard of living with equal opportunities for the needy.

"A Just society is that society in which ascending sense of reverence and descending sense of contempt is dissolved into the creation of a compassionate society"
B. R. Ambedkar

What is just distribution?

Social justice requires more than laws and policies that treat individuals fairly. It also concerns the just distribution of goods and services, between nations and between groups and individuals within a society.

Where there are serious economic or social inequalities, it may be necessary to redistribute some important resources to create something like a level playing field.

Within a country, social justice requires not only equal treatment under the law but also basic equality of life conditions and opportunities, so that each person can pursue his or her objectives.

In India, the Constitution abolished untouchability so that people of "lower" castes would have access to temples, jobs and basic necessities like water. Several state governments carried out land reforms to redistribute land more fairly.

Questions of redistribution arouse fierce passions, and proposals for reservations have sometimes provoked anger and violence, because people believe their families' futures are at stake.

Political theory asks whether schemes to help the disadvantaged can be justified by a theory of justice. John Rawls argued that they can, on rational grounds.

How does the Indian Constitution reflect the idea of justice?

The Indian Constitution puts justice first among its aims. Its Preamble promises to secure to all citizens justice, social, economic and political, along with liberty, equality and fraternity.

Article 38, a Directive Principle of State Policy, directs the state to promote the welfare of the people by securing a social order in which justice, social, economic and political, informs all the institutions of national life. It also asks the state to strive to minimise inequalities in income.

Article 39A, added by the 42nd Amendment in 1976, directs the state to ensure equal justice and free legal aid, so that no citizen is denied justice because of economic or other disabilities. Article 46 directs the state to promote the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections, especially the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

These provisions show all three principles at work: equal rights for all citizens, fair reward through equal opportunity, and special help for those with special needs. They also show that, in India, social justice is a constitutional duty of the state and not only a moral ideal.

What is John Rawls' theory of justice?

If people choose the kind of society they want to live in, they will tend to choose rules that give them a privileged position. Parents, too, naturally favour what is best for their own children. Such perspectives cannot form the basis of a theory of justice.

John Rawls, the American political philosopher who set out his theory in A Theory of Justice (1971), answered this problem. He argued that a fair and just rule can be reached only if we imagine deciding how society should be organised without knowing what position we would occupy in it.

We would not know whether we would be born into an "upper" or "lower" caste family, rich or poor, privileged or disadvantaged. Rawls called this thinking under a veil of ignorance.

Since no one knows who he or she will be, each person will view the future society from the point of view of the worst-off.

The reasoning under the veil of ignorance runs in clear steps:

1. Each person imagines choosing the rules of society without knowing his or her own future caste, class, wealth or talents.
2. Each still acts as a rational person, choosing what is in his or her own interest.
3. Because anyone might be born among the worst-off, each seeks rules that give the weaker sections reasonable opportunities, such as education, health and shelter.
4. Because anyone might also be born privileged, each ensures that the rules do not weaken the better-off and that society as a whole benefits.
5. The result is a set of fair laws and policies, reached through rational self-interest rather than benevolence or self-sacrifice.

What are the main features of Rawls' theory?

The first feature is that fairness comes from rational thinking, not morality. Rawls does not give us goals or moral norms in advance; we remain free to decide what is best for ourselves.

The merit of the veil of ignorance is that it asks people only to be their usual rational selves, not heroes who sacrifice for strangers.

The second feature is the perspective of the worst-off. Rational persons under the veil will see things from the position of the least advantaged and will want important resources such as education, health and shelter available to all.

The third feature is that the policies chosen must benefit society as a whole, not just one section, because each chooser might end up anywhere in society.

Rawls called his approach justice as fairness. He expressed it in two principles: every person should have equal basic liberties, and social and economic inequalities are acceptable only if they are attached to positions open to all under fair equality of opportunity and work to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged. The second part is known as the difference principle.

What is Amartya Sen's idea of justice?

Amartya Sen, the Indian economist and philosopher who received the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1998, set out his theory in The Idea of Justice (2009). He built on Rawls but questioned his starting point.

Sen called Rawls' approach transcendental institutionalism: it tries to identify perfectly just institutions for an ideal society. Sen proposed instead a comparative approach.

Justice, for him, is about comparing real situations and removing clear and identifiable injustices, such as famine, hunger or the denial of education, without first agreeing on what a perfectly just society would be.

Sen drew on two ideas from early Indian thought. Niti refers to organisational propriety and correct rules and institutions. Nyaya refers to realised justice: how people's lives actually go. A society with good institutions can still fail in nyaya if people's lives remain blighted.

Sen warned against matsyanyaya, "justice in the world of fish", where a big fish can freely devour a small one. Avoiding matsyanyaya, he argued, is a central task of justice, and it requires looking at outcomes, not just rules.

Sen's theory also uses the capability approach: justice should be judged by the real freedoms or capabilities people have to live the lives they value, not only by the resources or rights they formally hold.

Finally, Sen stressed public reasoning and impartial scrutiny that is open to views from outside one's own society, since several reasonable principles of justice may compete.

Rawls versus Sen: how do their theories differ?

Both thinkers seek a fair society and both care about the least advantaged, but they approach justice from different starting points.

Note: Sen does not reject Rawls. He accepts the importance of fairness and impartiality, but argues that waiting for agreement on a perfectly just society should not stop us from removing injustices we can clearly see today.

Should social justice be pursued through free markets or state intervention?

A society lacks social justice where deep divisions persist between those with wealth, property and power and those who are excluded and deprived.

Justice does not require absolute equality, but a society is unjust if rich and poor seem to live in different worlds and the deprived cannot improve their condition however hard they work.

A just society should provide the basic minimum conditions for healthy and secure lives: adequate nourishment, housing, clean drinking water, education and a minimum wage. Providing these is a responsibility of democratic government, though it is a heavy burden in a country like India with many poor people.

Supporters of free markets hold that individuals should be free to own property, make contracts and compete, and that market outcomes reward merit and talent.

Many now accept some state role, such as ensuring a basic minimum or helping the old and sick, but prefer private agencies to provide services. The market, they say, does not care about caste, religion or gender.

Critics reply that private agencies avoid unprofitable areas, so there may be few or poor-quality schools and hospitals in remote rural areas, and their services may be priced beyond the poor.

Free markets tend to work in favour of the already privileged, so many argue that the state should step in to make basic facilities available to all.

In a democracy such disagreements are healthy, since politics is about negotiating them through debate.

"Justice implies something which it is not only right to do and wrong not to do; but which some individual person can claim from us as his moral right."
J. S. Mill

Glossary

• Justice: the principle of giving each person his or her due, with equal consideration for all, in ordering public life.
• Dharma: in ancient Indian thought, the just social order that kings had a primary duty to maintain.
• Equal treatment for equals: the principle that people sharing common human characteristics deserve equal rights and no discrimination.
• Proportionate justice: rewarding people in proportion to the scale and quality of their effort, skill and risk.
• Special needs: the principle of giving extra help to those unequal in some important respect, such as disability.
• Social justice: just distribution of goods and services, with basic equality of life conditions and opportunities.
• Veil of ignorance: Rawls' imagined situation of choosing society's rules without knowing one's own future position.
• Difference principle: Rawls' rule that inequalities are acceptable only if they benefit the least advantaged.
• Justice as fairness: Rawls' name for his theory of justice.
• Niti: in Sen's usage, organisational propriety and correct rules and institutions.
• Nyaya: in Sen's usage, realised justice: how people's lives actually go.
• Capability: the real freedom a person has to live the kind of life he or she values.

Common errors and misconceptions

• Misconception: justice always means treating everyone exactly equally. Correct: equal treatment is one principle; proportionate justice and recognition of special needs are also principles of justice.
• Misconception: recognising special needs contradicts equal treatment. Correct: it extends equal treatment, since people unequal in important respects may need different treatment.
• Misconception: Rawls asks people to be self-sacrificing and generous. Correct: Rawls expects people to be their usual rational selves; fairness follows from rational self-interest under the veil of ignorance.
• Misconception: under the veil of ignorance people know their caste and class but ignore them. Correct: they do not know their future position at all, which is why they think from the point of view of the worst-off.
• Misconception: Amartya Sen rejects fairness and impartiality. Correct: Sen accepts them but argues for comparing real situations and removing manifest injustices rather than designing a perfectly just society first.
• Misconception: justice requires absolute equality in the way people live. Correct: it requires basic minimum conditions and equal opportunities, not sameness.

Exam-style questions with model answers

Q1. Name the book in which Plato discussed justice. [1 mark]

1. The Republic, through a dialogue between Socrates and his young friends Glaucon and Adeimantus.

Q2. What is meant by proportionate justice? [2 marks]

1. Proportionate justice means rewarding people in proportion to the scale and quality of their effort.
2. Factors such as the effort and skill required and the dangers of the work are taken into account.

Q3. Explain the meaning of the veil of ignorance. [2 marks]

1. It is Rawls' imagined situation in which people choose the rules of society without knowing their own future caste, class, wealth or position.
2. Not knowing where they will stand, they think from the point of view of the worst-off and choose fair rules.

Q4. Explain the three principles of justice with an example of each. [4 marks]

1. Equal treatment for equals: equal rights and no discrimination, so the same work earns the same pay regardless of caste or gender.
2. Proportionate justice: rewards according to effort and quality, so exam marks reflect the quality of answers.
3. Recognition of special needs: extra help for those unequal in an important respect, such as extra time for a visually impaired student.
4. Governments must harmonise the three, since stressing one alone can work against another.

Q5. State any four features of Amartya Sen's idea of justice. [4 marks]

1. It is comparative, focusing on removing manifest injustices rather than designing a perfectly just society.
2. It distinguishes niti, correct rules and institutions, from nyaya, realised justice in people's lives.
3. It judges justice by capabilities, the real freedoms people have to live lives they value.
4. It relies on public reasoning and open impartial scrutiny, accepting that several reasonable principles may compete.

Q6. Explain how John Rawls uses the veil of ignorance to argue that a just distribution can be defended on rational grounds. [8 marks]

1. People choosing society's rules normally favour rules that give them, or their children, a privileged position.
2. Rawls asks us to imagine choosing without knowing our future caste, class, wealth or talents.
3. He calls this thinking under a veil of ignorance.
4. Each person still acts in his or her own interest, as a usual rational self.
5. Since anyone could be born among the worst-off, each seeks rules that give the weaker sections access to education, health and shelter.
6. Since anyone could also be born privileged, each ensures that society as a whole benefits.
7. Fair rules therefore follow from rational self-interest, not from morality, benevolence or self-sacrifice.
8. Rawls expressed this as justice as fairness, with the difference principle favouring the least advantaged.

Q7. Distinguish between the free market view and the state intervention view of pursuing social justice. [4 marks]

1. The free market view holds that open competition rewards merit and talent and is neutral to caste, religion and gender.
2. It prefers private agencies to provide services, with the state ensuring only a framework of laws and a basic minimum.
3. The state intervention view argues that markets avoid unprofitable areas and price services beyond the poor.
4. It therefore holds that the state should ensure basic facilities for all, even through redistribution.

Key takeaways

• Justice concerns how public life is ordered and how social goods and duties are distributed.
• Traditions differ: dharma in ancient India, Confucius in China, Plato's Republic in Athens, and Kant's idea of human dignity.
• Giving each person his or her due today means equal consideration and the chance to develop one's talents.
• The three principles of justice are equal treatment for equals, proportionate justice and recognition of special needs.
• Social justice includes just distribution, such as abolishing untouchability and carrying out land reforms.
• Rawls' veil of ignorance shows that rational self-interest leads people to protect the worst-off and benefit society as a whole.
• Rawls' justice as fairness gives equal basic liberties and allows inequalities only if they benefit the least advantaged.
• Sen's comparative approach focuses on nyaya, capabilities and removing manifest injustices through public reasoning.
• Free markets offer choice and efficiency, but many argue the state must ensure basic facilities for all.

Test yourself

With what was justice associated in ancient Indian society?

It was associated with dharma, and maintaining dharma, a just social order, was a primary duty of kings.

What did Confucius say kings should do to maintain justice?

Kings should maintain justice by punishing wrong-doers and rewarding the virtuous.

According to Kant, what is due to each person?

Because all persons possess dignity, each is due the opportunity to develop his or her talents and pursue chosen goals.

From whose point of view does a person under the veil of ignorance see society?

From the point of view of the worst-off, because he or she does not know what position he or she will occupy.

What is the difference principle?

Rawls' rule that social and economic inequalities are acceptable only if they benefit the least advantaged members of society.

What is matsyanyaya?

"Justice in the world of fish", where a big fish freely devours a small one; Sen saw avoiding it as central to justice.

Name two basic minimum conditions a just society should provide.

Any two of adequate nourishment, housing, clean drinking water, education and a minimum wage, which support a healthy and secure life.

Why do critics say free markets may not ensure social justice?

Private agencies avoid unprofitable areas and may price services beyond the poor, so markets tend to favour the already privileged.