Justice | PSIR Optional for UPSC (Notes) PDF Download

Understanding Justice: A Fundamental Concept in Political Theory

Justice is a core idea in political theory and practice, often discussed in public policy and social movements. Thinkers in political science argue that justice is the first virtue necessary for a harmonious and decent society. John Rawls, a prominent political philosopher, emphasizes justice as the primary virtue of social institutions.
While justice originates in moral philosophy, it requires implementation by political systems. Throughout history, political thinkers have explored justice in various contexts, making it a central topic in political discussions.

The Concept of Justice

• The term 'justice' comes from Latin words meaning to bind or tie together. Justice, like a bond, organizes people into a fair order by distributing rights and duties. In political theory, justice is viewed as a principle of redistribution.
• As a moral political value, justice is connected to other values like liberty and equality. It involves ordering human relations based on fair distribution of rights, duties, rewards, and punishments. D.D. Raphael describes justice as both legal and moral, reflecting its dual nature.

Justice as a Dynamic Idea

• The meaning of justice varies across time and cultures. What was considered just in the past may be seen as unjust today. For example, slavery was once accepted in ancient Greece but is now universally condemned. The concept of justice has evolved from retributive ideas, like "an eye for an eye," to more reformative approaches.
• In ancient philosophy, Plato presented justice as a natural order in his work "Republic." He believed justice aligns with human nature and can be understood through reason. According to Plato, each person has a role—philosophers, warriors, and laborers—and justice is achieved when everyone fulfills their natural duties.

Aristotle, Plato's student, emphasized equality within the concept of justice. He proposed that rights and resources should be distributed based on merit, with penalties for those violating laws. After the Greek era, discussions on justice declined, often invoking divine justice.

With the Renaissance and Reformation, new ideas emerged from thinkers like Grotius, Hobbes, Locke, and Kant. Hobbes saw justice as obedience to state authority, while utilitarianism, espoused by Bentham, linked justice to pleasure and pain calculations. Marxists viewed justice in terms of ending capitalism and class struggles. Today, justice focuses on resource redistribution and affirmative action, reflecting its evolving nature.

As Tom Campbell notes, justice has become a central concept in contemporary political philosophy, reflecting its dynamic and commanding role in normative discussions.

Understanding Distributive Justice

Distributive justice is a concept in political philosophy that deals with how to fairly distribute limited resources among members of society. It involves determining the principles, methods, and procedures for distribution, which can be contentious due to the scarcity of resources.

Plato's Vision of Justice

• In ancient Greek philosophy, Plato emphasized the importance of justice in society. He believed that a just state is an ideal state, where justice, along with temperance, wisdom, and courage, defines a virtuous society.
• Plato proposed a hierarchical structure in society, where different classes are suited for different types of work. When each class performs its designated role, the society achieves justice by giving everyone their due.

Bases for Resource Distribution

• Need: Resources should be distributed based on the requirements of individuals, ensuring a minimum set of resources for everyone.
• Desert: Rewards should be based on individual merit, capability, and effort, with those who go above and beyond receiving greater rewards.
• Freedom of Choice: Distribution should respect individuals' choices and decisions, allowing for unequal outcomes based on personal choices.
• Utility Maximization: Distribution should aim to maximize happiness, welfare, or pleasure for the greatest number of people in society.
• Equality: Everyone should receive the same benefits and services, promoting equality, though this approach may not address underlying inequalities.
• Complex Equality: Recognizes that different groups may have different levels of resources and opportunities, advocating for equal treatment while considering these disparities.

Role of the State in Distributive Justice

• The state plays a crucial role in ensuring distributive justice by providing benefits and services through laws and policies. Different societies have various political mechanisms for resource distribution, but in a democratic context, it should be based on principles of equality, rights, and justice.
• Philosophers like Rawls and Nozick have proposed moral principles to guide distribution, emphasizing the need for a fair and impartial democratic process to sustain equitable resource distribution.

Procedural vs. Substantive Notions of Justice

Procedural Theory of Justice

• Focuses on just procedures and rules for ensuring justice.
• Emphasizes that a just procedure will lead to a just outcome regardless of context.
• Individual autonomy and liberty are prioritized, with minimal state interference.
• Robert Nozick's principle of justice exemplifies this theory.

Substantive Theory of Justice

• Stresses the importance of just outcomes in society.
• Considers fair distribution of goods like wealth, income, and opportunities.
• Ensures that differences in social position do not determine opportunities.
• John Rawls' concept of justice as fairness aligns with this theory.

John Rawls and Justice as Fairness

• In his book A Theory of Justice(1971), John Rawls proposed the idea of Justice as Fairness, which emphasizes the importance of fair distribution of primary goods such as rights, liberties, income, wealth, and opportunities. 
• Rawls believed that these primary goods should be distributed equally among all members of society, with any deviations justifiable only through rational explanations.
• He argued that justice can be achieved by following a just procedure, leading to a just outcome, and his theory is considered universalist and egalitarian. Rawls' theory has been criticized by communitarians for its universalist approach, but it remains a significant contribution to the understanding of justice in society.

Methodology of Rawls

Veil of Ignorance

• The "veil of ignorance" is a concept used by philosopher John Rawls to determine principles of justice in society. It involves imagining a hypothetical situation where individuals are stripped of all knowledge about their social status, personal characteristics, and life circumstances.
• In this original position, people do not know their future social class, wealth, abilities, or any other distinguishing factors. This ensures that the principles chosen are fair and impartial, as no one would want to create rules that could disadvantage themselves.
• Rawls argues that individuals behind the veil of ignorance would prioritize maximizing primary goods such as rights, liberties, and opportunities for everyone, especially the least advantaged. This is because they could potentially end up in any position within society.

Rawls’ Principles of Justice

• Rawls presents two principles of justice that are to be ordered lexically:
• First Principle: Each person has an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system for all.
• Second Principle: Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged (the difference principle) and attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity (the equal opportunity principle).

Equality Principle

• The first principle, known as the equality principle of justice, states that each person should have equal rights to liberty or freedom. This equal right to liberty and freedom should be maximized for every individual, with similar liberties or freedoms guaranteed to others.
• Thus, the state should ensure that everyone has free and equal rights, with maximum liberty and freedom available to them, just as it is available to other members of society.

Difference Principle

• The second principle, known as the difference principle, addresses social and economic inequalities by stating that they should be arranged to benefit the least advantaged members of society the most.
• In this principle, 2a) emphasizes that any inequalities in treatment should be made only if they benefit the least well-off or the least advantaged sections of society the most.
• 2b) specifies that offices and job positions should be open to all individuals, not just a select few, under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. This means that access to jobs or public offices should be available to everyone based on the principle of fair equality of opportunity.

Lexical Priority

• Rawls arranges the principles of justice in a specific order, known as lexical priority, where the first principle takes precedence over the second principles (2b and 2a).
• This means that the first principle, which guarantees equal basic liberties, must be satisfied before addressing the equal opportunity principle (2b) and the difference principle (2a).
• Rawls argues that the equal basic liberties protected in the first principle cannot be compromised for greater social or economic advantages provided by the second principles.

Reflective Equilibrium

• Rawls introduces the concept of reflective equilibrium, where individuals, in the original position and behind the veil of ignorance, would arrive at a state of moral equilibrium through rational deliberation.
• This process involves reflecting on moral judgments and decisions to reach a consensus on general principles that would guide individuals in society.
• If specific needs require deviation from these principles, such deviations must have rational justifications.

Criticism of Rawls’ Theory of Justice

• C. B. Macpherson critiques Rawls' theory of justice, arguing that its claims of universality are culturally specific. He contends that Rawls rationalizes liberal beliefs and values, making his theory applicable only to liberal societies with welfare-oriented governments.
• Macpherson believes that Rawls' theory defends liberal democratic governments and cannot be considered universally applicable. He emphasizes that Rawls' approach is limited to a particular cultural context, contrary to its claim of universality.

Amartya Sen's Capability Approach

• Sen's theory extends Rawls' ideas by emphasizing the importance of differential needs based on factors like age, sex, gender, and genetics. He argues that the focus should be on individuals' capabilities to convert primary goods into valuable outcomes, rather than merely distributing primary goods.
• Sen critiques Rawls for not addressing the varying capabilities of individuals to use primary goods effectively. His capability approach prioritizes enhancing individuals' abilities to make choices and lead lives they value, rather than solely ensuring equal distribution of resources.
• By focusing on capabilities, Sen advocates for real freedom and justice, emphasizing that individuals should have the capacity to utilize resources to achieve their desired goals.
• In contrast to Rawls, who viewed primary goods distribution as a means to freedom, Sen highlights the significance of individuals' specific needs and their capacity to transform resources into valued outcomes.

Nozick's Libertarian Critique and Entitlement Theory

• Nozick critiques Rawls' theory from a libertarian perspective, emphasizing the absolute value of individual freedom and property rights. He argues against redistributive policies that infringe upon individual liberty.
• Nozick defends a minimalist state with limited functions, such as protecting against force, theft, fraud, and enforcing contracts. He believes the state should not engage in welfare or redistributive activities, focusing instead on maintaining law and order.
• His entitlement theory of justice revolves around just acquisition and transfer principles, asserting that property rights are justified if acquired or transferred through fair means.
• Nozick's approach contrasts with Rawls' egalitarianism, prioritizing liberty and property rights over redistributive justice.

Amartya Sen’s Theory of Justice

• Amartya Sen's Theory of Justice critiques John Rawls' approach by emphasizing the importance of individual capabilities over the distribution of primary goods. Sen argues that people have different abilities to convert primary goods into well-being due to factors like health, location, and personal circumstances. He uses the example of a severely disabled person to illustrate that just focusing on primary goods can lead to unfairness. For Sen, what matters is not just what people have, but what they are capable of doing with what they have.
• In his book "The Idea of Justice," Sen presents a scenario involving three children—Ann, Bob, and Carla—arguing over a flute. Each child has a valid reason for wanting the flute, and Sen's point is that there can be multiple reasonable answers to questions of justice. This challenges Rawls' idea of a single correct answer. Sen believes that instead of trying to find one perfect model of justice, we should recognize the plurality of reasonable perspectives in contemporary society.
• Sen distinguishes between two concepts of justice from ancient Indian thought: 'Niti' and 'Nyaya.' Niti refers to proper procedures and rules, while Nyaya focuses on the outcomes of these procedures and the actual lives people lead. He argues that justice should be assessed based on the inclusiveness of institutions and the real-world impacts they have, not just their formal correctness.
• Sen advocates for a realization-focused approach to justice, which prioritizes preventing severe injustices rather than striving for an ideal society. He uses historical examples, like the abolition of slavery, to illustrate that justice is about addressing clear and present wrongs, even if a perfect society is not achievable.
• Sen's perspective emphasizes the need for justice theories to be inclusive and sensitive to global injustices, moving beyond narrow or parochial viewpoints. He suggests that a robust theory of justice should accommodate diverse viewpoints and address pressing global issues.

In "The Idea of Justice," Sen also discusses the qualities that a good theory of justice should have, such as impartiality and sensitivity to consequences. He illustrates these ideas with examples from the Bhagavad Gita, highlighting the importance of considering the outcomes of actions while also recognizing the complexity of moral choices.

Overlapping Consensus (John Rawls)

• In his later work, "Political Liberalism," John Rawls critiques his earlier theory of justice, acknowledging that he did not adequately address the reality of reasonable pluralism in society. Initially, he had assumed a shared moral code in a well-ordered society. However, he recognized that this was not the case. While Rawls does not abandon the concept of the original position, he reinterprets it significantly.
• A key aspect of "Political Liberalism" is the idea that a theory of justice must be political, deriving its motivational force from a specific sphere of life rather than a comprehensive moral standpoint. Rawls identifies various features of human interaction that lead to reasonable disagreements, such as conflicting evidence and the vagueness of concepts, which he refers to as the Burdens of Judgment.
• From the perspective of reasonable pluralism, Rawls explains how citizens with different reasonable comprehensive conceptions of the good can come to respect liberal political institutions. They develop an "overlapping consensus," where each reasonable comprehensive doctrine endorses the political conception of justice from its own viewpoint. Rawls argues that his theory is not a comprehensive conception of the good but rather a political conception that is compatible with liberal principles. This shift emphasizes the need for stability in a democratic society with diverse moral views.
• Rawls distinguishes between comprehensive moral theories, which address justice broadly, and political conceptions of justice focused on specific subjects. His political conception is rooted in the public political culture of a democratic society, emphasizing fairness, equality, and cooperation over time.
• In "Political Liberalism," Rawls refines his earlier ideas by emphasizing the compatibility of his principles with democratic society and the need for a freestanding, independent view free from comprehensive doctrines. He introduces the concept of overlapping consensus, where diverse reasonable doctrines find common ground in the political conception of justice. This approach contrasts with modus vivendi, which is based on mutual self-interest.
• Rawls argues that a just society should encompass major disagreements about values and conceptions of the good. "Political Liberalism" seeks to position justice as fairness within the realm of political philosophy, recognizing the importance of reasonable pluralism and the moral legitimacy of democratic processes in resolving conflicts among differing moral perspectives.

Rawls’s Framework for Global Justice

Introduction to Rawls’s "The Law of Peoples"

• John Rawls, in his book "The Law of Peoples," explores the concept of justice on a global scale, extending his ideas from national to international contexts.
• He aims to develop a framework for justice that can be applied to both liberal and non-liberal societies, emphasizing the need for international rules that respect the diversity of political systems.

The Society of Peoples

• Rawls envisions the international community as a "Society of Peoples," where different states, much like citizens within a nation, are seen as partners in a social contract.
• Just as citizens in a liberal society are considered equal participants in the social contract, Rawls argues that states, regardless of their political systems, should be treated as equal partners in the international arena.

International Justice for Diverse Societies

• Rawls's challenge lies in creating a theory of justice that can be applied to a variety of political systems, including liberal, decent, and non-decent societies.
• He categorizes societies into three groups:
• Liberal societies: These societies uphold principles of justice, such as individual rights and equality.
• Decent societies: These societies may not provide full political equality but respect certain basic rights and involve citizens in the political process.
• Non-decent societies: These societies are characterized by oppressive regimes that do not respect fundamental human rights.

The Eight Principles of the Law of Peoples

• Rawls proposes eight principles that should govern the interactions between peoples:
  • Independence and Self-Reliance: Peoples are independent and self-reliant, and their independence must be respected.
  • Equality in Agreements: All parties in agreements are equal and act as partners.
  • Right to Self-Defense: Peoples have the right to self-defense but not the right to wage war.
  • Rule of Non-Interference: Peoples should follow the rule of non-interference in the internal affairs of other societies.
  • Adherence to Agreements: Peoples should honor their agreements and pacts.
  • War Management Rules: Specific restrictions should govern the management of war, such as limiting it to self-defense.
  • Respect for Human Rights: Peoples should respect fundamental human rights.
  • Assistance to Those in Need: Peoples have a duty to assist those in adverse circumstances that hinder their ability to establish just and respectable political and social orders.

Decent Peoples and Liberal Peoples

• Rawls emphasizes that liberal peoples should respect decent peoples despite their differences because decent societies, although not fully liberal, uphold certain human rights and involve their citizens in the political process.
• This respect for decent societies is rooted in the liberal principle of tolerance and the need for mutual respect among diverse political systems.

Non-Decent Societies

• Rawls distinguishes between two types of non-decent societies:
  • Outlaw States: These are societies that are constantly ready to engage in war for their imagined benefits. Such states are deemed a threat to international peace and security.
  • Burdensome Societies: These societies face historical, social, and economic challenges that make it difficult for them to establish a well-ordered society. Rawls argues that these societies should be given a chance for self-management to eventually become part of the Society of Peoples.

Inequality and Global Justice

• In his framework, Rawls does not see inequality as a fundamental problem at the international level.
• He believes that societies are only required to ensure a basic minimum level of well-being for all individuals.
• Once this minimum is achieved, there is no further obligation for redistribution.
• Rawls’s focus is on providing support to burdensome societies that are unable to establish a just and well-organized society due to adverse circumstances, whether historical or natural.
• He also emphasizes the responsibility of well-organized societies to promote respect for human rights among other societies, particularly the rights of security and survival.

Critique of Global Distributive Justice

• Unlike his earlier work in "A Theory of Justice," where he emphasized distributive justice, Rawls does not extend this principle to the global level.
• Critics had hoped that Rawls would apply the differential principle globally, requiring prosperous countries to support the development of poorer countries through wealth redistribution.
• However, Rawls differentiates between national societies and the Society of Peoples, arguing that while wealthy societies may have a duty to ensure the supply of basic necessities, there is no obligation for wealth redistribution on a global scale.

Focus on Responsibilities

• Rawls limits his global justice framework to responsibilities under international law,human rights, and international peace.
• He emphasizes the importance of human rights and international law in guiding the actions of states within the Society of Peoples.
• Rawls’s vision of global justice is rooted in the principles of human rights and international law, rather than in the redistribution of resources.

Amartya Sen on Global Justice

• Amartya Sen emphasizes the need for justice and fair distribution of resources in the context of globalization. He argues that while globalization has its merits, it also raises doubts and requires corrections to ensure that its benefits are distributed fairly and acceptably.
• Sen questions whether the benefits of globalization are distributed in a way that provides better justice through less unequal distribution compared to economic, social, and political opportunities.
• He believes that national and international arrangements should be aimed at achieving better justice and distribution of opportunities in the context of globalization.

Redistributive Justice and Social Security

• Contrary to Rawls, Sen advocates for redistributive justice and critiques the current ideology of globalization. He does not oppose the neo-liberal world market economy, but emphasizes the importance of social security as a crucial factor in reducing inequality and poverty.
• Sen argues that both reforms in the market economy and social security can contribute to diminishing the levels of inequality and poverty on a global scale.

Human Rights and Poverty Alleviation

• Sen highlights the relationship between human rights and poverty alleviation, asserting that economic progress is not achievable unless it is linked with citizen freedoms, such as freedom of expression and freedom to assemble.
• He argues that governments that protect human rights are more likely to ensure that economic development benefits the people, reducing the chances of corruption interfering with lawful activities.

Communitarian Perspective on Justice

• The communitarian perspective on justice is best understood in contrast to the liberal perspective. Will Kymlicka, in his book ‘Contemporary Political Philosophy—An Introduction’, observes that communitarians believe that the value of community is not sufficiently recognized in liberal theories of justice or in the public culture of liberal societies.
• Liberalism, broadly speaking, holds that individuals should be free to pursue their self-interest as long as their freedom does not infringe upon the similar freedom of others. In contrast, communitarians argue that individuals find self-fulfillment by accepting the social roles, practices, and situations prevalent within their community, rather than in isolation from their fellow beings.
• Thus, while liberalism emphasizes the concept of the 'isolated self,' communitarianism introduces the idea of the 'situated self.' Liberals define the common good as the sum of individual goods, whereas communitarians treat the common good as a single entity that serves the interests of everyone.
• Communitarians also differ from liberals in their views on the status of 'right' and 'good' in determining principles of justice. In Rawls's theory of justice, 'right' takes precedence over 'good.' For communitarians, however, 'right' implies virtue, and accepting the 'good' inherently addresses the 'right.'
• Alasdair Macintyre, an early proponent of communitarianism, criticizes the liberal notion of individuals as 'autonomous moral agents' operating in a context detached from social considerations. He argues that individuals thrive only within the framework of socially established cooperative human activities aimed at fostering human excellence. He contends that liberals are committed to moral relativism by detaching themselves from any specific standpoint to practice tolerance, making it impossible for them to defend any particular view of justice or develop a unified concept of 'the good.'
• For communitarians, an individual's existence and personality are shaped by their social context, roles, and conventions embedded in society. While liberals allow individuals to pursue self-appointed goals, communitarians encourage them to pursue community-determined goals. Liberals emphasize individual rights and liberties, whereas communitarians highlight duties and obligations. Communitarianism underscores our shared identity and celebrates values and beliefs that are important to all members of society.

Communitarian Perspective on the Good

The roots of communitarianism can be traced back to the political ideas of notable thinkers such as Aristotle, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, G.W.F. Hegel, and T.H. Green. In contemporary times, philosophers like Alasdair MacIntyre, Charles Taylor, Michael Walzer, and Michael Sandel have further developed and advocated for communitarian principles.

T.H. Green's Contribution

• T.H. Green, considered a precursor to communitarianism, emphasized that individuals, as self-aware beings, understand the common good through their interactions within the community. He believed that people grasp the common good more profoundly than their self-interest.
• According to Green, the common good encompasses not only the welfare of all community members but also reflects a shared understanding among them. He argued that the state and politics exist to promote the common good, which serves as the basis for political obligation.
• Green maintained that the state is justified in enacting laws that advance the common good, and individuals are obligated to follow laws that align with this principle. He acknowledged that if a person believes they can better serve the common good by opposing a specific state order, their political obligation does not prevent them from acting on that belief.
• Green believed that the awareness of the common good motivates individuals to fulfill their duties, often prioritizing the common good over personal interests. He posited that self-realization is achieved through the pursuit of the common good.

Alasdair MacIntyre's View

• Alasdair MacIntyre, in his work "After Virtue," argues that individuals can only thrive within a framework of "socially established cooperative human activity." He warns that if the state treats individuals as isolated beings, solely focusing on their rights and neglecting their responsibilities, it could lead to societal breakdown and moral chaos.

Michael Sandel's Perspective

• Michael Sandel, in "Liberalism and the Limits of Justice," contends that individuals can only be fully understood within the context of their specific time, place, and culture. He believes that a political theory informed by this understanding can create laws and institutions that genuinely benefit society and promote justice.
• Sandel emphasizes the importance of "shared self-understanding" and emotional connections in fostering a deeper sense of community and commonality.

Michael Walzer's Ideas

• Michael Walzer, in "Spheres of Justice," presents detailed criteria for the distribution of social goods based on their appropriate spheres of application. He argues that social goods should be allocated in ways that contribute to the effective functioning of the community.

Charles Taylor's Support of Communitarianism

• Charles Taylor echoes MacIntyre's critique of the liberal view of individuals as isolated entities. In his "Philosophical Papers," Taylor argues that genuine human development requires an acknowledgment of one's situatedness within society.
• He asserts that individuals can achieve their good only through collaboration in the pursuit of the common good.

Core Principles of Communitarianism

• Communitarianism emphasizes the importance of pursuing individual goals within the framework of society. It advocates for individuals to seek their well-being as part of the collective good.
• The concept of the common good in communitarianism promotes cooperation over competition among individuals, fostering social solidarity.
• It encourages individuals to build positive relationships with one another and provides a path to emotional security.

Critique of Communitarianism

• Despite its strong ethical foundation, communitarianism lacks a robust political framework to ensure the universal adoption of its principles as guidelines for behavior.
• In summary, while communitarianism is rooted in a compelling moral philosophy, it does not possess an equally strong political philosophy to support its ideals.