Justice: Social and Political ideals | Philosophy Optional Notes for UPSC PDF Download

Justice in Political Philosophy

Justice is a fundamental aim of the state and a central concept in political philosophy. An understanding of justice is crucial for evaluating different political systems, policies, and ideologies. As Plato's 'Republic' demonstrated, justice plays a pivotal role in constructing a just state.

The Multi-Dimensional Nature of Justice: The concept of justice is multifaceted and multi-dimensional. Its definition is subject to change over time, making justice a protean notion. Various views on justice have evolved throughout history, including:

1. Egalitarian Justice: This perspective places the highest value on equality, striving for a just society where everyone enjoys equal treatment.

2. Libertarian Justice: Emphasizing liberty as the ultimate value, this view seeks to maximize individual freedom within the bounds of justice.

3. Divine Justice: According to this view, justice is the execution of God's will, reflecting a moral and religious interpretation of justice.

4. Hedonistic Justice: This perspective defines justice as promoting the greatest good for the greatest number, focusing on the well-being and happiness of society.

5. Harmonizing Justice: Justice is seen as the harmonization of different elements and values to achieve a satisfactory balance, reconciling conflicting interests.

6. Duty-Oriented Justice: Some see justice as synonymous with fulfilling one's duties and responsibilities, highlighting the importance of individual obligations to society.

7. Justice for Peace and Order: Justice is viewed as an essential function for maintaining peace and order within society, ensuring that conflicts are resolved through just means.

8. Justice as an Elitist Function: In this view, justice serves the interests of an elite group within society.

The Ethical Nature of Justice: Justice is an ethical concept that concerns the rights of individuals as well as the social order of society. It has both legal and moral dimensions. The word 'justice' is rooted in 'jus,' which signifies joining, fitting, or synthesis. Therefore, justice in political philosophy synthesizes other social and political ideals, including:

1. Individual and State: It balances the rights and interests of individuals with the needs and regulations of the state.

2. Individual and Society: Justice ensures that individuals' rights and responsibilities are in harmony with the broader societal framework.

3. Cementing and Joining People Together: It acts as a binding force that unites individuals within a community.

Justice and Law: Roman lawyers integrated the concept of 'natural justice' with positive state law. They believed that civil law and the law of nations should conform to the law of nature. However, the true essence of justice lies in the enforcement of positive laws and their application within society.

Justice and Discrimination in Political Philosophy

Plato and Aristotle offer different perspectives on justice, emphasizing "proportionate equality" and "righteousness." The concept of justice takes an empirical direction in the hands of Aristotle, who argues that injustice arises when equals are treated unequally.

• Equality and Discrimination: Aristotle's view highlights the importance of treating equals equally and unequals unequally. In a democracy, discrimination based on sex is considered unjust because it treats equals unequally. It is also unfair to pit individuals with significant differences against each other, such as a heavyweight wrestler against a lightweight one. Therefore, justice necessitates discrimination based on relevant differences, as long as it is fair and justifiable in the context of the functions being performed.
• Plato's Theory of Justice: Plato's theory of justice implies that individuals should conform to the principle of functional specialization. In this context, justice becomes synonymous with the concept of "proper stations," meaning that individuals should engage in activities that align with their natural aptitudes and abilities. This concept has both individual and societal dimensions.
• Individual and Social Aspects: Plato's theory of justice suggests that the highest good for both the individual and society is achieved when individuals work in roles that best suit their innate qualities. It is assumed that there is nothing better for an individual than performing work that aligns with their natural abilities. Similarly, there is nothing better for society than ensuring that each individual occupies a role that corresponds to their unique characteristics.
• Balancing Reason, Spirit, and Appetite: To achieve this, Plato identifies three elements within both the individual and the state: reason, spirit, and appetite. Justice is maintained when these elements are kept within their proper bounds. For individuals and society to function harmoniously, it is essential to ensure that each person is in the role that best suits their unique personality traits and capabilities. This concept of justice encourages the specialization of labor and the alignment of individual talents with societal needs.

Aristotle's Theory of Justice

Aristotle's theory of justice reflects a conservative view, as he advocated maintaining the existing social order. His perspective on justice focused on regulating human relations, and he believed that a shared understanding of justice among individuals was the foundation for the existence of the state.
Three Types of Justice: Aristotle identified three types of justice:

1. Distributive Justice: This form of justice is concerned with the fair allocation of honors and wealth in society. Its fundamental principle is "treating equals equally and unequals unequally." Aristotle suggested that customary law and prevailing customs should guide decisions on who is considered equal or unequal in a given context.
2. Retributive Justice: Also known as corrective, rectificatory, or remedial justice, this type of justice deals with punishment and the payment of damages. It requires the full restoration of any loss incurred involuntarily in transactions between members of the community.
3. Commutative Justice: Commutative justice focuses on determining the equivalence of goods or services exchanged in voluntary transactions, such as buying, selling, letting, or hiring. The guiding principle here is full equivalence in these transactions.

State Intervention in Discrimination
Aristotle's perspective allows for state intervention in cases where discriminatory treatment in private life causes social harm. For example, in instances of untouchability, where certain groups are denied their human rights, state intervention and legislation against such practices would be considered just.

Equal Facilities and Dr. Ambedkar's Views
Aristotle's theory suggests that separate facilities provided to certain groups cannot be truly equal. This notion aligns with the stance of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who advocated for the right of entry to temples for Scheduled Castes and opposed the provision of separate temples, schools, or hostels for these groups. The idea is that true justice involves providing equal access and opportunities rather than segregation and separate facilities.

Distributive Justice

Aristotle's explanation of justice distinguishes between distributive and corrective justice. Distributive justice focuses on equal distribution among equals, while corrective justice addresses remedies for wrongs committed. This distinction laid the foundation for the doctrine of distributive justice.

1. Modern Interpretations of Distributive Justice: The idea of distributive justice has found resonance in the works of recent political economists. J.W. Chapmen, in particular, sought to integrate the concept of justice with principles like "economic rationality" and "consumer's sovereignty," coupled with the individual claim of "moral freedom."
2. According to Chapmen, the first principle of justice involves the distribution of benefits to maximize benefits in accordance with the principle of consumer sovereignty. The second principle asserts that a system is unjust if the material well-being of a few is gained at the expense of many. This implies that justice demands that no one should benefit at the expense of another.
3. General Welfare and Socialism: Distributive justice is contingent on the condition of general welfare. In this context, the concept of economic justice aligns with a socialistic pattern of society. The primary objective of economic justice is to provide employment, food, shelter, and clothing to every able-bodied citizen.
4. Marxist Perspective: Marxist views on justice are rooted in economics. According to Marx, the laws of the state are imposed on its members by the authority of the class that controls the means of production. The content of justice is determined by the economic interests of the ruling class. When private property is abolished, and the working class gains control of the means of production, laws are expected to reflect the interests of the working class. In this Marxist perspective, justice is not bound to economic origins when the state eventually withers away, as envisioned by communists.
5. Redistributive Justice and State Intervention: Many writers advocate for "redistributive justice," which implies state intervention in the economy to promote justice and freedom for all. This intervention aims to rectify economic inequalities and ensure a fair distribution of resources and opportunities among the members of society.

Social Justice

Social justice is a concept that relates to achieving a balance between an individual's rights and social control, ensuring the fulfillment of the individual's legitimate expectations under existing laws, and providing them with benefits and protection against any encroachments on their rights. This term can be examined from the following aspects of justice:

1. Predominance of the Interest of the Community: As the laissez-faire doctrine has declined, there is a growing awareness that the rights of an individual should be reasonably restricted in the interests of the community. Social justice emphasizes the reconciliation of individual rights with the interests of the community. In cases of conflict between individual rights and community interests, social justice prioritizes the latter. It is closely associated with the concept of public good and community interests.
2. In less developed countries, the idea of social justice calls upon the state to make concerted efforts to improve the conditions of disadvantaged and marginalized sections of the community.
3. Reforms or Social Change: Social justice is often used to refer to the organization of society based on notions of fairness and equality that are relevant to the prevailing social norms. It stands for a just and equitable social order that results from reforming the existing order and redistributing rights to align with contemporary ideals of fairness.

Social justice seeks to address and modify the status quo, bringing about a more equitable society. Aristotle's concept of "distributive justice" can be seen as a form of reformative justice, aimed at changing the existing distribution of resources and opportunities. Over time, the duty of the state has evolved to include taking care of the unemployed and providing employment opportunities.

Pound's Illustration of Social Justice: 

• Dean Roscoe Pound presented a six-fold illustration of social interest and eight jural postulates to ensure social justice. This illustration emphasizes various aspects of social interest and the corresponding legal principles that promote justice.
• The idea of social justice aims to promote the welfare of people by establishing a just and equitable social order. It encompasses various aspects of social life, including security, social institutions, morality, resource conservation, progress, and individual rights.

Social justice, thus, encompasses a wide range of principles and values aimed at creating a more just and equitable society by ensuring the well-being and protection of individuals and their rights within a larger community.

Criticism of Social Justice

Enlarged State Activities

1. Critics argue that demands for social justice inevitably lead to an expansion of the state's role in society. This expansion requires the state to make decisions about who receives what, when, and how.
2. The subjective nature of these determinations may not serve the goals of social justice effectively, especially when state officials develop vested interests.

Curtailed Liberty

1. The pursuit of social justice policies often involves the curtailment of individual liberty. The extent to which personal freedom should be sacrificed to achieve social justice remains a challenging issue.
2. Balancing the need for social justice with the preservation of individual liberties presents a difficult dilemma.

Difficulty in Assessing Basic Needs

1. It is challenging to determine which needs are considered fundamental for achieving social justice and which justify departing from strict equality.
2. Deciding which specific needs should be addressed and how they should be addressed can be a complex and contentious process.

Reservation Policies in India

1. In the Indian context, the reservation of seats in legislatures, educational institutions, and public employment is an example of policies that depart from strict equality in the name of social justice.
2. Proponents of these policies offer several justifications, including compensation for historical deprivations, the need to achieve ultimate equality, and the belief that preferential policies are necessary to help marginalized groups gain social respect, economic viability, and political status.

Procedural Justice

Procedural justice is a narrower view of justice that focuses on the rules and procedures applied to individual actions and interactions within a society. It is not primarily concerned with prescribing the redistribution of wealth or values but rather aims to eliminate arbitrariness in human actions and uphold the rule of law. Procedural justice deals with the fairness and consistency of procedures in various contexts, such as legal systems, governance, and societal interactions. In this view, adhering to established rules and procedures, avoiding arbitrariness, and ensuring equitable treatment are central to achieving justice.

Key points related to procedural justice:

1. Eliminating Arbitrariness: Procedural justice seeks to ensure that decisions and actions are made based on established rules and principles, rather than arbitrary or discretionary choices. This helps in preventing unfairness and bias in various social, legal, and governance processes.

2. Rule of Law: Central to the concept of procedural justice is the rule of law, which means that individuals and institutions are subject to and accountable under the law. The rule of law promotes consistency, predictability, and fairness in society.

3. Equality and Fairness: Procedural justice emphasizes treating individuals equally and fairly, particularly in legal and administrative processes. This includes providing equal access to legal procedures, ensuring due process, and safeguarding individual rights.

4. Opposition to Wealth Redistribution: Proponents of procedural justice, such as Friedrich Hayek, argue that attempting to impose criteria for the redistribution of wealth can lead to totalitarianism and sacrifice individual liberty. They are concerned that state intervention to maintain equality can be overly intrusive and undermine freedom.

Critics of the procedural theory of justice argue the following points:

1. Unjust Outcomes: They contend that merely following rules and procedures does not guarantee a just result. In some cases, the rules themselves may be weighted in favor of certain groups, leading to unfair outcomes. Therefore, strict adherence to procedural justice does not always ensure fairness, particularly when the rules themselves are flawed or biased.

2. Coercion in Free Markets: While procedural justice proponents emphasize the importance of free markets and voluntary transactions, critics argue that in a free market, individuals who lack economic power may still face coercion. In such cases, the liberty of a free market can be meaningless for those who do not have the means to participate on an equal footing.

In summary, procedural justice focuses on the fairness and consistency of the rules and procedures governing individual actions and societal interactions. While it emphasizes the importance of the rule of law and the avoidance of arbitrariness, critics argue that it may not always lead to equitable outcomes, especially if the underlying rules are biased or if economic disparities result in coercion within free markets.

John Rawls's Theory of Justice

John Rawls's theory of justice, often referred to as "justice as fairness," offers an alternative to utilitarianism and has had a significant impact on modern political philosophy. Rawls's approach to moral and political philosophy is rooted in the contractarian tradition, which involves considering principles of justice that people would agree to under certain hypothetical conditions. His most influential work on this topic is the book "A Theory of Justice."

Key elements of John Rawls's theory of justice include:

1. Original Position and the Veil of Ignorance: Rawls asks us to imagine a hypothetical original position where individuals are behind a "veil of ignorance." In this position, people lack knowledge of their personal characteristics, such as their social status, wealth, talents, or even their own conceptions of the good. They only have a "sense of justice," which allows them to make impartial and rational decisions.

2. Two Principles of Justice: Rawls argues that in the original position, individuals would agree to two principles of justice, which are to be prioritized in a lexical order:

   • First Principle (Equal Basic Liberties): Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberties compatible with a similar set of liberties for others. This principle includes fundamental rights like freedom of speech, religion, and equal political participation.

   • Second Principle (Difference Principle): Social and economic inequalities are allowed only if they benefit the least advantaged members of society. This principle aims to address economic disparities and focuses on improving the well-being of the most vulnerable.

3. Constitutional Democracy: Rawls's theory of justice emphasizes the importance of a constitutional democracy—a government of laws that is restrained, responsible, and accountable. Such a system safeguards fundamental rights and ensures political equality.

4. Regulation of the Free Market: Rawls argues for the regulation of the free market "in a certain way" to maintain a just society. He believes that if the government enforces competition, ensures full employment, distributes property and wealth widely, and maintains a social safety net, the resulting distribution of resources will be just.

Critics of Rawls's theory of justice often make several arguments against it:

1. Efficiency vs. Equality: Critics, like Mare F. Plattner, argue that striving for equality may conflict with economic efficiency. They contend that Rawls's theory might be inconsistent in refusing to allow those who make a greater economic contribution to receive greater economic rewards while advocating for incentives to benefit the least advantaged.

2. Private Property and Liberty: Some critics argue that the redistributionist elements in Rawls's theory undermine the moral foundations of private property and, by extension, individual liberty. They claim that Rawls's vision of common assets for society could pose challenges to the principles of property rights and personal freedom.

In summary, John Rawls's theory of justice as fairness is a significant contribution to political philosophy. It introduces the original position and the veil of ignorance to establish principles of justice that prioritize equal basic liberties and address social and economic inequalities to benefit the least advantaged members of society. Critics raise concerns about the balance between efficiency and equality and the impact on concepts like private property and individual liberty. Rawls's work has inspired extensive debate and discussion in the field of political philosophy.

Amartya Sen's Approach to Justice

Amartya Sen, a Nobel Prize-winning economist and philosopher, offers a distinctive approach to justice that challenges conventional methods of political philosophy. His theory, often described as a "social choice theory of justice," diverges from the typical construction of ideal notions of justice. Instead, Sen focuses on comparative assessments and the remediation of actual injustices. He emphasizes real-world justice over the creation of utopian theories of justice.

Key aspects of Amartya Sen's approach to justice include:

1. Comparative Assessment Over Ideal Theories: Sen's approach differs from traditional political philosophy by centering on comparative assessments rather than attempting to construct an ideal concept of justice. He contends that the question of "what is a just society?" is not a useful starting point for a theory of justice.

2. Remedying Injustice: Sen's primary concern is addressing and rectifying real injustices in society. His theory aims to improve the world by eliminating specific injustices rather than striving for a perfectly just society.

3. Contrasting Approaches to Justice: Sen distinguishes between two approaches to justice:

   • Transcendental Institutionalism/Justice: This approach, adopted by many contemporary political philosophers, including thinkers like John Rawls, focuses on the creation of institutions that would establish a perfectly just society. It aims to differentiate between the just and the unjust and then construct institutions to ensure justice.
   • Realization-Focused Comparison: Sen's approach, which he identifies with, emphasizes evaluating social injustices in a comparative context. Thinkers like Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, and Karl Marx have adopted this approach. It focuses on achieving as just a society as possible, given the existing circumstances, rather than striving for a perfectly just society.

4. Comparativists vs. Transcendentalists: Sen's comparative approach to justice prioritizes the actual realization of justice and the removal of specific injustices. In contrast, the transcendental approach seeks to create institutions for a perfectly just society. Sen argues that contemporary political philosophy exhibits a bias toward transcendental justice, and he advocates for the development of the idea of comparative justice.

5. Niti and Nyaya: Sen employs the concepts of "niti" and "nyaya" to illustrate the distinction between the two approaches. "Niti" refers to the creation of proper institutions for justice, while "nyaya" relates to the comprehensive realization of justice in people's lives. Sen's focus is on "nyaya," which aligns with the lives and circumstances of individuals, aiming to produce the most just society possible.

6. Not Strictly Consequentialist: Sen's theory of justice encompasses both processes and outcomes and is not limited to a purely consequentialist view. It provides a comprehensive perspective on justice that considers the means and the ends.

Amartya Sen's approach to justice challenges the conventional ideals of justice by focusing on the practical elimination of injustices and the improvement of societal conditions. It prioritizes real-world justice over abstract, utopian notions of justice.

Justice as a Term of Synthesis

The concept of justice can be best understood as a term of synthesis, aiming to reconcile conflicting values, primarily liberty and equality. Justice functions as a mediator, harmonizing different forms of liberty (political, social, and economic) with each other and balancing liberty with equality. This synthesis seeks to create a state of equilibrium within society. Throughout history, prominent thinkers have weighed in on the tension between liberty and equality, often taking sides in this debate. Notable figures like Lord Acton and W.E. Lecky have offered differing perspectives, emphasizing either liberty or equality. Nevertheless, a comprehensive view recognizes that liberty and equality are intertwined concepts, mutually reinforcing each other.

Interconnected Values: Liberty and Equality

1. Balancing Freedom and Equality: The relationship between liberty and equality is symbiotic, with each enriching the other. The content of freedom gains meaning and significance when there is a degree of equality within society. Moreover, liberty empowers individuals to advocate for and demand greater equality.
2. Economic and Political Spheres: The interplay between liberty and equality is evident in both the economic and political realms. Gross economic disparities can undermine political liberties, as those with wealth often wield disproportionate influence over the political process and the dissemination of ideas.  Economic disparities can also affect the fairness of political processes, potentially leading to unequal access to the propaganda apparatus, thereby skewing the democratic process.
3. Political Values: Complementary and Interlinked - An examination of various political values reveals that seemingly contradictory values can be complementary when viewed more closely. The pursuit of political liberty and economic democracy is not contradictory but intertwined. In essence, both are essential for a just society.
4. The Role of Justice: Justice plays a pivotal role in synthesizing conflicting values. It serves as the ultimate principle that regulates the distribution of various rights – political, social, and economic – in the interest of both liberty and equality.

Historical Evolution

The concept of justice is not static but has evolved historically, reflecting the changing realities and aspirations of society. It continues to adapt to meet the evolving needs and values of the community. The ever-developing concept of justice serves as a means to address the intricate balance between liberty and equality, providing a framework for a just and equitable society.

In summary, justice acts as a term of synthesis, reconciling conflicting values such as liberty and equality. While some thinkers have emphasized one value over the other, the interconnection between liberty and equality is evident in various aspects of society, including the political and economic realms. Justice evolves over time, reflecting the dynamic nature of social thought and the ongoing pursuit of a just society