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.

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 principle extends the principle of treating equals equally to accommodate individuals with special needs or disabilities.
• Physical disabilities, age, and lack of access to education or healthcare are some factors that may warrant special treatment.
• In some countries, reservations and quotas are provided for marginalized groups to counter social discrimination. 
• Different groups may have different policy preferences based on which principle of justice they prioritize.

Just Distribution

• Social justice involves the fair distribution of goods and services within a society, as well as between nations.
• When there are significant economic or social inequalities within a society, it may be necessary to redistribute important resources to ensure a level playing field for all citizens.
• Social justice not only requires equal treatment under the law and policies of the society, but also basic equality of life conditions and opportunities.
• Disagreements on matters such as resource distribution and equal access to education and jobs can lead to strong opinions and even violence in society.
• John Rawls, a renowned political philosopher, has argued that it is rational to acknowledge the need to provide assistance to the least privileged members of a society.

John Rawls: theory of Justice

• According to John Rawls, arriving at a fair and just society requires imagining ourselves in a situation where we make decisions about how society should be organized without knowing our own position in that society. This is known as thinking under a "veil of ignorance". Rawls suggests that in such a situation, each person would make decisions based on their own interests, but since no one knows their own position in society, they would predict the future society from the point of view of the worst-off.
• However, this approach may not be helpful for those born into disadvantaged sections of society. While it may be difficult to imagine oneself under a veil of ignorance, Rawls believes that rational thinking, rather than morality, could lead to fair and impartial judgment regarding the distribution of benefits and burdens in a society. The merit of the "veil of ignorance" position is that it expects people to think for themselves and make choices that they believe are in their own interest.

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.

Free Markets versus State Intervention

• Supporters of free markets believe that if markets are unencumbered by state intervention, the sum of market transactions would generally ensure a fair distribution of benefits and responsibilities in society.
• However, not all advocates of free markets would support completely unregulated markets. Many would now accept some restrictions, such as state intervention to guarantee a basic minimum standard of living for all people so that they can compete on equal terms.
• One of the arguments in favor of market distribution is that it offers us more choices.
• Another argument often heard in defense of free markets and private enterprise is that the quality of services they provide is frequently better than that provided by government institutions. However, the cost of such services may make them inaccessible to the poor.
• Arguments can be made on both sides of the debate, but free markets often demonstrate a tendency to favor those who are already privileged.
• In a democratic society, disagreements regarding issues of distribution and justice are unavoidable and even beneficial because they compel us to examine different perspectives and rationally defend our own views.
• Politics entails the negotiation of such disagreements through discussion.