JUSTICE

image source: getty

 

The Greek Philosopher, Aristotle, Who Defined Justice As Equal And Unequal Treatment Of Unequals In Proportion To Their Inequalities.   He Also Distinguished Three Types Of Justice, Namely Distributive Justice, Corrective Justice And Commutative Justice (I.  E.   Justice Of Equality In The Exchange Of Different Types Of Goods).   What Makes A Society Or A State Right In A Basic Sense Is Its Right Or Proper Sequence Of Human Relations By Giving Each Individual Its Due Rights And Duties As Well As Appropriate Rewards And Punishments.   Justice Does This By Bringing About An Adjustment Between The Principles Of Liberty, Equality, Cooperation Etc.  

 

Procedural And Substantive Justice Fundamental Justice Refers To The Fairness Of Justice Or Material Or Result Of Laws, Policies, Decisions, Etc.  

Theories Of Procedural Justice Have Traditionally Been Based On The Idea Of ​​the Formal Equality Of Individuals, That Is, Their Equality As Human Beings Or As Subjects Of The Rule Of Law, Their Differences In Gender, Religion, Race, Caste, Wealth, Etc.   In Spite Of.   Often, Rights-Based Justice Is Seen As Procedural Justice, While Need-Based Justice Is Seen As Substantive Justice.  

Rawls' Theory Of Justice Is A Corrective To The Liberal Utilitarian Theory Of Rawls' Theory Of Social Justice.

The Greatest Happiness Of The Greatest Number.   For Utilitarians, The Criterion Of Justice In Society Is The Sum Total Of Utility Or Happiness Or Welfare, Not The Well Being Or Welfare Of Each Member Of The Society.  

 According To Kant, Every Human Being Should Be Regarded As An End In Himself And Not As A Means To The Goal Of Others.  

 

Rawls' Liberal Egalitarian Theory Of Justice; The Principles Of Social Justice Aim To Ensure That The Distribution Of The Benefits And Burdens Of A Society Is Fair Or Just To All Its Members.  

Principle 1 (Principle Of Equal Basic Freedoms) Each Person Has The Same Unavoidable Claim To A Perfectly Adequate Plan Of Equal Basic Liberty, A Plan That Is Conducive To The Same Scheme Of Liberty For All.  

 Principle 2 (2i: Fair Equality Of Opportunity; 2ii: Difference Principle) Social And Economic Inequalities Have To Satisfy Two Conditions: First, They Have To Be Linked To Offices And Positions Open To All Under Conditions Of Fair Equality Of Opportunity; And Second, They Must Be For The Greatest Benefit Of The Least Privileged Members Of Society.

 While He Opposes Any Unequal Distribution Of Basic Liberties, He Believes That Some Inequalities In Income And Wealth Are Inevitable And Perhaps Not Undesirable.   Accordingly, The Main Objective Of His Second Theory Of Social Justice Is To Place Inequalities As Fairness Within The Limits Of Justice.   Obviously, The Distinction Between Just Or Fair Inequalities And Unjust Or Unfair Inequalities Is Important In Rawls's Theory Of Social Justice.  

Rawls Believed That Excessive Equality In Income And Wealth Would Destroy The Economic Incentives Needed For Greater Creativity And Productivity.   It Will Be Harmful To Both The Rich And The Poor.   From The Point Of View Of The Poor (As Well As The Rich), Justice Does Not Require The Complete Elimination Of Economic Inequality.   Rawls Believes That Certain Inequalities, Which Serve As Incentives For Greater Creativity And Productivity Of Gifted And Gifted People, Are Not Unjustified If That Greater Creativity And Productivity Are To Be Distributed For The Benefit Of All.   Integrated Into A Social Structural Or Institutional System, Especially The Least Privileged Members Of Society.   He Also Thinks That Giving Benefits To The Least Privileged Must Necessarily Benefit All Others.  

His Difference Principle Is Not To Replace Inequality With Equality In Income And Wealth, But To Replace Unjustified Or Unjust Degree Or Types Of Economic Inequalities In A Just Or Proper Kind Or Degree By Maximizing The Benefits Of The Least Advantaged.   Is .   According To Difference Theory, Inequalities That Are Beneficial To The Better But Not The Least Advantaged Are Unjust.  

 

Some Criticisms Of The Rawlsian Concept Of Justice

Liberal Critique: Rawls' Liberal-Egalitarian Concept Of Justice Has Been Subjected To Harsh Liberal Criticism By His Late Colleague, Robert Nozick.   In His Book, Anarchy, State And Utopia (1974), Nozick Distinguishes Between "Final State" And "Patterning" Concepts Of Justice On The One Hand And "Historical" And Rights-Based Concepts Of Justice On The Other.   According To Him, The Individual Has Rights To Absolute Freedom, Which Includes The Right To Own Property And To Exchange It In The Market, Regardless Of The Final Position Or Pattern Of Distribution It Leads To.  

 Marxists Criticize Liberal Egalitarians For Their Preoccupation With Fair Or Just Distribution Within The Capitalist System And Their Failure To Address The Exploitative Or Alienating Inequalities That Are Inherent Or Inherently Between Capitalists And Workers.  

Communitarian Criticism Community Theorists Criticized Rawls' Liberal-Egalitarian Concept Of Justice For Emphasizing Individual Rights At The Expense Of The Good Of The Community.   Sandel M.   He Calls Rawls's Notion Of A Disjointed Or Weightless Self Or Subject, In Opposition To Which He Puts Forward The Notion Of A Situated Self, That Is, The Self Or Subject, Which Is Always A Member Of A Community.   Whereas, For Rawls, Right Precedes Good And Justice Is The First Quality Of Society, For Sandals, Justice Is Only A Remedial Quality That Is Needed In An Individualistic Society.  

Charles Taylor, Also A Prominent Communist Political Philosopher, Laments The "Atomic" Concept Of Liberalism Itself.   According To Him, The Well-Being Of The Individual Depends On The Well-Being Of His Community And, Therefore, The Recognition And Protection Of The Cultural Rights Of The Group Or Community Is No Less Important Than The Equitable Distribution Of Rights To Liberty And Equality To Individuals.