Chapter 4 Social Justice

Like love, justice is a concept that we often understand intuitively even if we struggle to define it precisely. It evokes strong positive responses; everyone desires justice for themselves and to some extent for others. However, unlike love, which is personal, justice concerns our lives within society, the way public life is structured, and the principles governing the distribution of social goods and duties among its members. As such, questions of justice are central to politics and political theory.

This chapter explores various principles and theories of justice, focusing on social justice. It examines what is meant by 'distributive justice' and presents the arguments of philosopher John Rawls on how a fair society can be justified on rational grounds.

What Is Justice?

The concept of justice has been a subject of inquiry across diverse cultures and historical periods, although interpretations have varied. In ancient Indian society, justice was closely linked to dharma, seen as maintaining a just social order and considered a primary duty of kings. In ancient China, the philosopher Confucius believed kings should uphold justice by punishing wrongdoers and rewarding virtue. In 4th century B.C. Athens, Plato explored justice in his work The Republic, engaging in a dialogue about why individuals should be just, particularly when injustice might seem more beneficial in the short term.

Through the character of Socrates, Plato argued that while individuals might benefit from injustice if undetected, widespread injustice would lead to insecurity and harm for everyone, including the potentially unjust person. Thus, it is in everyone's long-term interest to obey laws and be just. Socrates clarified that understanding justice involves recognizing that it is not merely about benefiting friends and harming enemies or pursuing self-interest; justice concerns the well-being of all people. Just as a doctor is concerned with their patients' welfare, a just ruler or government must be concerned with the welfare of the populace. Ensuring well-being includes 'giving each person his due'.

The idea that justice entails 'giving each person his due' remains central to our contemporary understanding. However, the interpretation of 'what is due' has evolved. Today, it is strongly linked to the concept of inherent human dignity. The German philosopher Immanuel Kant argued that all human beings possess dignity, and therefore, what is due to them is the opportunity to develop their talents and pursue their chosen goals. Justice, in this view, requires giving due and equal consideration to all individuals.

Equal Treatment For Equals

While there's broad agreement on the equal importance of all individuals, determining how to give each person their due is complex. One principle put forward is treating equals equally. This principle suggests that all individuals share fundamental characteristics as human beings and therefore deserve equal rights and equal treatment. In modern liberal democracies, this includes granting equal civil rights (life, liberty, property), political rights (voting, participation), and social rights (equal opportunities). This principle requires that individuals should not face discrimination based on class, caste, race, or gender but should be judged on their actions and work. If individuals from different backgrounds perform the same work, they should receive the same reward. Treating equals equally means applying the same standards and rules to all individuals who are considered equal in relevant aspects.

Proportionate Justice

However, sometimes strict equal treatment can feel unjust. For instance, if all students taking the same exam were given equal marks regardless of the quality of their answers or effort, it would seem unfair. This highlights another principle: justice as proportionality. Provided everyone starts with equal rights, justice in such cases means rewarding people in proportion to their effort, skills, and the quality of their work. Most agree that while the same work should receive the same reward, different kinds of work might justly receive different rewards based on factors like required effort, skills, danger, etc. Applying this principle, one might argue that certain essential but dangerous professions may not always be justly rewarded compared to others. Balancing equal treatment with proportionality is necessary for justice in society.

Recognition Of Special Needs

A third principle of justice acknowledges that a society may need to consider the special needs of certain individuals or groups when distributing rewards or duties. This is seen as a way to promote social justice and ensure a just society as a whole. While basic rights and status might imply equal treatment for all, people who are not equal in important respects (e.g., due to disabilities, age, or lack of access to resources) might need different treatment to ensure they can genuinely enjoy equality in other aspects of life. This principle doesn't necessarily contradict equal treatment but extends it by suggesting that treating non-equals differently can lead to more equitable outcomes. Physical disabilities, age, or severe lack of access to education or healthcare are often considered grounds for special help. Without such provisions, treating those who are severely deprived the same as those with better living standards and opportunities would likely perpetuate inequality, not create an egalitarian society. In India, the Constitution recognized social discrimination based on caste as creating unequal access to opportunities, allowing for reservations in jobs and education for Scheduled Castes and Tribes to address these specific disadvantages.

The principles of justice—equal treatment, rewarding proportionate effort/skills, and addressing special needs—can sometimes be difficult to reconcile and apply simultaneously. Different groups may prioritize different principles, leading to policy disagreements. Harmonizing these principles to promote a just society is a key function of government.

Just Distribution

Achieving social justice goes beyond simply ensuring fair laws and policies. It also involves the just distribution of goods and services within society. If a society is marked by significant economic or social inequalities, it may be necessary to redistribute resources to create a more level playing field. Social justice requires not only equal treatment under the law but also some basic equality in life conditions and opportunities, enabling each person to pursue their objectives and express themselves. In India, for example, the abolition of untouchability aimed to promote social equality and ensure access to public life for lower castes. Land reforms have also been implemented by governments to redistribute land more equitably.

Disagreements about how to distribute resources and ensure equal access to education and jobs are often contentious, as people believe their future and that of their families is at stake. However, political theory encourages us to calmly examine these issues using principles of justice. Can policies aimed at helping the disadvantaged be justified based on a theory of justice? The next section explores John Rawls' theory of just distribution.

The image of Justice blindfolded is symbolic of impartiality – that justice should be administered without bias based on who the individuals are. However, the question arises whether this impartiality (treating everyone identically) conflicts with recognizing special needs to ensure fairness for those who are disadvantaged.

An image depicting the symbolic representation of Justice, often blindfolded and holding scales, representing impartiality and balance.

John Rawls’ Theory Of Justice

John Rawls, a prominent political philosopher, proposed a theory of justice focusing on how rational individuals would choose the rules for a just society if they were making decisions under fair conditions. He argues that if people were asked to design a society, they would likely favor rules that benefit them personally. However, to arrive at rules that are truly fair and just for *all* members, personal interests need to be set aside.

Rawls suggests imagining oneself in a hypothetical situation he calls the 'veil of ignorance'. In this scenario, individuals have to decide on the principles of justice for organizing society, but they are unaware of their own future position within that society. They don't know their social class, caste, gender, talents, abilities, or family background – they are behind a 'veil of ignorance'.

Rawls argues that in this situation of complete ignorance about one's potential status, rational individuals, acting in their own self-interest (as people typically do), would choose principles that are fair to all. Since no one knows if they will be born into a privileged or disadvantaged position, the most rational choice for each person is to think from the perspective of the worst-off members of society. To protect themselves in case they end up in the least privileged position, they would advocate for rules and an organization that ensures basic opportunities and resources (like education, healthcare, shelter) are available to all, even those who might be born into disadvantaged sections.

Rawls' point is that this framework doesn't require extraordinary self-sacrifice or benevolence. It relies on typical human rationality. When choosing under the veil of ignorance, individuals will find that it is in their rational self-interest to consider the position of the worst-off and ensure policies benefit the society as a whole, not just a particular section. They would want rules that protect them if they are born disadvantaged, but also ensure that society benefits overall, as they could be born into a privileged position too. This fairness arises from rational action, not just morality or generosity.

Rawls argues that rational thinking, separate from pre-existing moral norms, can lead to impartiality and fairness in deciding how to distribute the benefits and burdens of society. Individuals behind the veil of ignorance determine what is best for themselves, and this rational choice leads to just principles that benefit everyone.

Pursuing Social Justice

A society lacking social justice is characterized by deep and persistent divisions between those who possess significant wealth and power and those who are excluded and deprived. Social justice is not simply about requiring identical living standards for everyone, but about ensuring that differences in wealth are not so vast as to create fundamentally separate realities for rich and poor, and that the deprived have genuine opportunities to improve their condition through their efforts.

A just society must provide individuals with basic minimum conditions necessary for healthy and secure lives, enabling them to develop their talents. It must also ensure equal opportunities to pursue chosen goals. These basic conditions include sufficient nourishment, housing, clean water, education, and a minimum wage. Providing these basic needs is considered a responsibility of democratic governments, although it can be challenging, especially in countries with large poor populations.

Even if there's agreement on the need to help the disadvantaged, debates persist over the best methods. Should promoting free markets be the primary approach, assuming benefits will 'trickle down' and empower the disadvantaged to compete? Or should the government actively intervene, providing a basic minimum to the poor, even if it requires redistributing resources? These different approaches are debated by political groups.

Establishing Formal Equality

A crucial step in pursuing social justice is establishing formal equality. This involves legally ending systems of inequality and privilege that historically prevented certain groups from accessing opportunities. Most modern constitutions and laws formally accept the principle of equality before the law, ensuring identical treatment regardless of background (e.g., prohibiting discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, and abolishing practices like untouchability).

Equality Through Differential Treatment

Formal equality is necessary but often insufficient. To truly realize equality, it may be necessary to treat people differently to address specific disadvantages or needs, enabling them to genuinely enjoy equal rights. This is known as equality through differential treatment or positive discrimination. Examples include providing ramps for disabled people in public buildings or special protection for women working night shifts to ensure their equal right to work. These are seen as enhancing, not infringing, equality by removing specific barriers.

Debates arise over which differences justify different treatment and what policies are appropriate. Some countries use affirmative action policies; India uses reservations. These policies aim to overcome historical and social disadvantages.

Affirmative Action

Affirmative action policies are based on the idea that formal equality alone is insufficient to address deep-rooted inequalities. They involve positive measures to minimize and eliminate entrenched social inequalities and correct the cumulative effects of past injustice. Forms of affirmative action range from preferential spending on facilities for disadvantaged communities (scholarships, hostels) to special consideration or quotas (reservations) in education and jobs.

In India, reservations for Scheduled Castes and Tribes are defended because these groups were victims of severe social prejudice, discrimination, and exclusion, leaving them unable to compete on equal terms immediately. Special protection is seen as a necessary, often temporary, measure to help them overcome disadvantages and achieve a more egalitarian society. Critics, however, argue reservations are unfair reverse discrimination, violating equal treatment and potentially reinforcing group divisions. They argue equality requires treating everyone alike. However, advocates argue that treating those with vast disadvantages identically to the privileged perpetuates injustice, and special help is needed for fair competition.

The debate often highlights disparities in access to education and healthcare in India, where children from deprived backgrounds lack resources for quality education or coaching, hindering their ability to compete for limited opportunities. While most theorists agree that equal opportunity is the goal, debates continue on the best state policies (reservations vs. providing early special facilities), and criteria for identifying the deprived (economic vs. social factors like caste). Policies should be justified by their success in promoting a more egalitarian and fair society.

It is important to distinguish between identical treatment and treating everyone as equal. The latter may sometimes require differential treatment to ensure people can enjoy the same rights. This differential treatment must be justified as a means to promote equality, carefully implemented to avoid creating new dominance structures.

Free Markets Versus State Intervention

Debates exist regarding the role of free markets versus state intervention in promoting social justice. Supporters of free markets advocate minimal state interference, allowing individuals freedom to own property, enter contracts, and compete. They believe merit and talent will be rewarded, leading to a just distribution determined by market outcomes. Some accept limited state intervention to ensure a basic minimum for fair competition, suggesting markets for services like healthcare and education, with state help for those unable to pay, and framework regulations.

Arguments for market distribution include promoting choices (as consumers). However, for basic goods/services, availability and affordability are key. Markets may not find it profitable to provide high-quality services in remote or poor areas, requiring government intervention. Arguments for private sector quality are offset by high costs potentially excluding the poor. Markets can favor the already privileged.

Critics argue that social justice requires the state to ensure basic facilities for all, not just rely on market distribution which tends to benefit the strong and wealthy. Disagreements on distribution and justice are seen as healthy debates in a democracy, forcing examination and rational defense of views. Studying principles of justice helps navigate these issues and pursue a more just society.

Justice implies a moral right that individuals can claim, not just charity (as per J.S. Mill).

Exercises

Content for Exercises is excluded as per your instructions.