Social Justice Class 11 Political Science

How do We Define 'Justice'?

Justice can be defined as the fair and impartial treatment of all individuals, ensuring that they receive what they are due and that their rights are upheld. It involves upholding laws and principles that promote equality, fairness, and respect for human dignity. Justice seeks to correct injustices, protect the vulnerable, and ensure that everyone has the opportunity to thrive within society.

How Justice was interpreted throughout history?

• Across diverse cultures and traditions, interpretations of justice have varied significantly.
• In ancient India, justice was intertwined with the concept of dharma, where kings bore the responsibility of maintaining a just social order.
• Confucius, the renowned Chinese philosopher, emphasized the role of rulers in upholding justice by rewarding the virtuous and punishing wrongdoers.
• Plato, in his work "The Republic," explored the notion of justice during ancient Athens, emphasizing its importance in creating an ideal society.
• In contemporary understanding, justice is often framed around the principle of giving each person what they are due, reflecting an ongoing concern with fairness and equity.
• Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher, highlighted the inherent dignity of every human being and argued for equal opportunities for individuals to pursue their goals, underscoring the importance of justice in ensuring fairness and respect for all.

Equal Treatment for Equals

• The principle of treating equals equally emphasizes that every person has equal rights and deserves equal treatment, as they share common characteristics as human beings.
• Civil rights, political rights, and social rights are some of the important rights granted in most liberal democracies to ensure equal opportunities for all.
• Discrimination on the basis of class, caste, race, or gender violates the principle of treating equals equally.
• This principle also means that people should not face discrimination due to class, caste, race, or gender. They should be evaluated based on their work and actions instead of these traits.

Proportionate Justice

• While equal treatment is important, it may not always be just to treat everyone equally.
• Justice, in some cases, requires rewarding individuals in proportion to the scale and quality of their effort.
• Factors such as the level of effort, skills required, and potential risks involved in the work should be taken into account while distributing rewards.
• The principle of equal treatment needs to be balanced with the principle of proportionality to achieve justice in society.

Recognition of Special Needs

• The principle of taking into account special needs of individuals is another important principle of justice.
• This concept builds on the principle of treating those who are equal in the same way while also accommodating those with special needs or disabilities.
• Physical disabilities, age, and limited access to education or healthcare are factors that may require special consideration.
• In several countries, reservations and quotas are established for marginalised groups to combat social discrimination, especially regarding caste.
• Limited access to proper education or healthcare often goes hand in hand with social discrimination based on caste.
• The notion of equal treatment must be balanced with the principle of proportionality to create a fair society.
• Various groups within the country may support different policies based on their emphasis on specific principles of justice.
• It is the government's role to align these different principles to foster a just society.

Just Distribution

• Social justice also deals with the fair distribution of goods and services, whether between countries or within different groups and individuals in a society.
• When there are major economic or social differences in a society, it may be necessary to redistribute essential resources to create a fair environment for everyone.
• Social justice not only requires that people are treated equally by the laws and policies but also that they have some basic equality of living conditions and opportunities. This is seen as vital for each person to pursue their goals and express themselves.
• The Constitution removed the practice of untouchability to foster social equality, allowing people from 'lower castes' access to temples, jobs, and a basic standard of living, as well as equal opportunities.
• Striving for equality in treatment alone might sometimes undermine merit.
• Justice does not always mean complete equality and uniformity in how people live.
• Rawls argues that rational thought, rather than morality, can help us be fair and judge impartially about how to share the advantages and responsibilities in a society.

John Rawls: theory of Justice

• According to John Rawls, to create a fair and just society, we must imagine making choices about how society should be structured without knowing our own status within it. This idea is referred to as thinking under a "veil of ignorance". Rawls suggests that if we are uncertain about our future roles, we will likely support rules that are fair to everyone. In this context, people would typically think about their own interests, but because they don't know their future position, they would consider the needs of the worst-off individuals.
• Rawls argues that using rational thought, rather than just moral considerations, can lead to fair decisions about how benefits and burdens are distributed in society. The advantage of the “veil of ignorance” is that it promotes fairness and impartiality over purely self-serving interests. Justice does not demand complete equality but permits differences in living standards as long as these do not result in unfair inequalities.

Pursuing Social Justice

• In a society where there are significant and lasting divisions between those who possess greater wealth, property, and power and those who are excluded and deprived, social justice is deemed to be absent.
• Social justice does not necessitate absolute equality in the way people live.
• Various methods for determining people's basic necessities have been developed by different governments and international organizations such as the World Health Organization.
• Providing people with their fundamental requirements is regarded as one of the responsibilities of a democratic government. However, fulfilling such basic living standards for all citizens may impose a significant burden on governments, particularly in countries such as India that have a large population of impoverished people.
• In India, various political groups endorse different approaches and debate the relative merits of different schemes to assist marginalized sections of the population, such as the rural or urban poor.
• When serious economic or social inequalities exist, it may be necessary to redistribute some important resources to help create a fairer environment for everyone.
• The Constitution abolished untouchability to encourage social equality, ensuring that individuals from 'lower castes' have access to temples, jobs, and fundamental rights.
• Even if there is agreement on the need for states to assist the most disadvantaged to achieve some level of equality, there can still be disagreements about the best ways to do so.

Free Markets versus State Intervention

• Supporters of free markets argue that individuals should have the freedom to own property and make agreements about prices, wages, and profits. They believe in competition to achieve the greatest benefits.
• They claim that without state interference, market activities would lead to a fair distribution of benefits and responsibilities in society. Those who work hard and possess talent would be rewarded, while less capable individuals would receive less. They view this distribution as just and see free markets as essential for a fair society.
• However, many current advocates of free markets accept some regulation. They agree that governments might ensure a basic standard of living for everyone, helping to level the playing field. Markets are seen as neutral, focusing on skills rather than personal characteristics like caste or gender.
• A common argument for market distribution is that it provides more choices. The market allows consumers to choose products and services, assuming they can afford them. But for essential goods, the quality and availability are what truly matter.
• Another point made in favour of free markets and private enterprise is that they often offer a better quality of services compared to government institutions. Nevertheless, these services can be too expensive for poorer individuals.
• Both sides of the debate present valid arguments, but free markets can sometimes favour the already wealthy. This leads many to believe that the state should intervene to guarantee access to basic services for everyone in society.
• In a democratic society, differing opinions about distribution and justice are normal and beneficial, as they encourage us to consider various perspectives and defend our own. Politics revolves around managing these differences.