2024-06-26
Each getting his/her fair share according to his/her capability, choices and preferences. It is what we should do as right and not do as wrong.
Sources: religion, historical tradition/customs, natural law, reason and rationality
Plato -> fundamental virtues: wisdom, justice, temperance, courage
Aristotle -> Justice: equality, proportionality, maintenance of equilibrium
Rawls -> Justice as fairness
Nozick -> Justice as entitlement
Sen -> making people capable to live life of dignity and fulfillment
Friedrich Von Hayek -> 1899-1992, The Road to Serfdom, derided social justice as mirage, advocated distribution as outcome of market transactions as just.
J.W. Sapmann -> distributive justice, book -> "Justice and fairness". He associated concept of "Economic rationality of man" and "consumer's sovereign"
His 2 principles
1. Distribution of opportunity show be arranged in a manner, that brings maximum benefits and rewards.
2. Distribution of social resources should not be arranged in a manner, that at the cost of majority's interest, minorities interest are fulfilled.
"Justice requires that no one shall gain at the expense of another"
Nations of Equality, Liberty, Rights are based on the concept of justice
Procedural justice:
Justice based on just, fair, and transparent rules/procedures, formal, legal, and institutional justice.
Fair play, formal justice, equality of opportunity, consistent with liberal ideology.
Following just rules and procedures shall result into fair outcome
4 principles:
closer to individualistic, liberalist ideology.
Both Nozick's and Rawl's theory of justice based on principles of procedural justice
Distributive justice:
Just distribution of goods (social primary goods) and services, benefits and responsibilities such as rights, liberty, income, wealth etc. May also imply social justice if equality of status, dignity of individuals, and minimum needs of people are ensured by society/community/state.
Idea of fair share - realized justice
Basis of distribution: merit, need, equality/equity, moral values
Rights (procedural justice more towards rights) and common good (distributive justice more towards common good)
Substantive Justice, justice of outcome, fair share, closer to communitarian and socialist ideology, realized justice.
Retributive justice:
Justice is reasonable and proportionate punishment to crime.
Restorative justice:
Repairing the harm caused to the victim and mend the offender to bring back to mainstream.
Global justice:
Pursuing justice at international level. How to bring procedural justice in international arena where no international government.
John Rawls's Law of Peoples provided different models of global justice
Conceptual map, hypothesis, models, and approaches to help understand justice and attainment of it.
Liberal theory of Justice
Based on social contract:
John Rawls - Justice as fairness,
Nozick's - Justice as entitlements
Non-social contract based theories:
Utilitarian theory of justice: greatest happiness to greatest number.
Kantian theory of justice: Moral duty based supreme principle of morality - categorical imperative
Capability based approach to justice by Amartya Sen
Non-liberal theories
Feminist theory of Justice
Marxist theory of Justice
Might be most important theory of 20th century.
Assumptions and definitions
Social contract: People come together, leaving 'state of nature' to frame rules to construct society.
Initial position: Beginning of a society or political system when members of society frame rules to govern social life.
Veil of Ignorance: Members of society framing rules are ignorant of their status and position in society.
Rawlsian individual: Stripped down abstract individual: free, and equal, rational, self-interested but not egoist, individualistic, autonomous but having 'sense of justice', and conservative risk takers.
If above conditions are true, then members of society will form rules that are based on justice or equality or distributive justice (if society do not possess equality), and further equality and distributive justice.
People will make rules for worse of people because they are conservative risk taker, they might think that they might be the worse of people.
Two principles of justice
Principle of Equality Liberty: Each person has an equal right to the most extensive liberties compatible with similar liberties for all.
Difference Principle: Social and economic inequalities should be arranged so that they are both - to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged persons, and - attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of equality of opportunity.
First preference -> Equality (first principle)
Second preference -> Difference principle -> second principle (justice as fairness)
Third -> Difference principle -> first principle
Features:
Under controlled conditions, rational individuals, having different notions of morality, would frame rules for social-political order consistent to idea of distributive justice.
It cancels out the role of natural and social brute luck in arriving at notion of justice
It blends of procedural and distributive justice, human and egalitarian approach to liberal ideology
Idea of 'chain connection': society is strengthened by strengthening its weakest link. Weaks and Strongs are connected.
Provide a standard for assessing distributive structure of any society
Combination of virtues of individual rights and societal good, is important plus point of his theory. It explains how even following individual self-interests and concept of good life, we can achieve social common good and reach a decision which bring just distribution in society.
Justice based on rationality independent of individual morality.
| Difference points | Liberal view | Communitarian View |
| Primacy to | Individual autonomy, reasoning, rationality | Community/society - shared identity, culture, history, world view, way of life |
| Chief virtue | Rights: life, liberty, property | Common Good |
| Economic Idea | Capitalism - free market | Socialism, welfare state |
| Nature of Individual | Isolated self, autonomous moral agent | Situated self, individual morality part of societal morality |
| Common good | Sum total of individual good | Societal common good source of individual good |
| Liberty, equality, justice | Negative freedom, equality of opportunity, procedural justice | Positive freedom, Equality of outcome, distributive justice |
| Political thinkers | John Lock, Adam Smith, Thomas Pain, J.S. Mill, John Rawls, Libertarian: Friedrich Hayek, Robert Nozick | MacIntyre, Michael Sandel, Charles Taylor, Michael Walzer, John Goodwyn, Robert Owen, MK Gandhi |
Communitarian critique:
Individuals are not separated from their social context, choices made by individuals abstracted from their socio-economic context cannot be consistent to societal conception of 'Good' and hence cannot be bring just social order.
Feminist Critique:
Ignore private sphere of family in which there is no gender justice.
Consider family a just and apolitical institution
Unjust family cannot develop 'sense of justice' in future citizen
'Public justice; around the reality of 'private anarchy and injustice'
His individual is head of family and is man. His individual characteristics are mostly men, female qualities such as caring, nurturing, empathy, co-operation, etc. undermined
No 'difference principle' inside family
No solution for gendered division of labor, patriarchy, women's subordination in family.
Based on moral norms of man - impersonality, rationality, universality, reason.
Work:
Anarchy, State, and Utopia
1974 -> counter view of Rawls with his libertarian view
People own themselves, part of natural world acquired fairly, and goods produced by their interaction with owned part of natural world.
Individual has absolute rights over legitimately acquired property
Legitimate acquisition: 3 ways
Initial Position: make property their own on first come first served in initially unowned world by making no one worse off.
Voluntary Transfer: of legitimately acquired property by fair contract and consent.
Rectification: unjust acquisition may be rectified by compensating transfers to one who suffered.
If the initial distribution of property just, society over time reached current position through just process of voluntary transfer and acquisition, if there are inequality, there is nothing for state or society to do in this case, as initial distribution of property is just, and process of distribution is just.
He said it no possible to know whatever initial acquisition and distribution is just or unjust. There is no option rather than accepting that initial distribution is just and transfers that will be happen in future should be just.
If state, distribute property equally among its people, after this again voluntary transfers will begin to happen. Which will lead to again an unequal distribution of property. To maintain equal distribution of property, state have to constantly redistribute property. Any attempt to enforce a pre-decided pattern of distribution impossible without constant intervention of individual's liberty and rights.
His view -> if initial acquisition and voluntary transfer were just, there is nothing to do for state. Individual liberty and property are highest. State should minimal and night watchmen state. Tax's are shitty things.
Protection of individual liberty to its core. Historical and un-patterned distribution better than patterned distribution.
Concept that seeks to find solution to problem of how best to secure a just life for all individuals on planet earth, regardless of their nationality or status.
Just and fair distribution of global resources, benefits and responsibilities, and equal status to all nations.
Attempt to theorize the concept to propose principles and institutions which is agreed by all and ensure just global order.
Problems as diverse as gender justice, immigration and refugees, hunger and poverty, rights of minority and indigenous people, warfare, terrorism, and climate change are tackled in the ambit of global justice.
Key Issues and Debates
What justice means at global level?
conception of justice depends on culture. Can there be global theory of justice? Can there be global different principle? What is the range and scope of our duty of justice for people of other countries? Does it mean global equality of opportunity and equality outcome? Is prosperity of a state due to enterprise and political culture and hence solely belong to it? Or everyone has equal right on global resources?
What should be the social unit for consideration of Global Justice?
state or people or individual
Interrelation between them in the context of global justice?
How and who to enforce global justice? Issues of Global governance:
to implement and dispense Justice Autonomy - state/govt., Judiciary - required.
Absence of any global govt. or supra-national authority.
It means political conception of right and justice that applies to the norms and principles of international relations among people of the world.
People: Politically organized society having sufficient commonality of culture, tradition, history, world view, way of life. They may have one or more state or none. People are represented by their legitimate govt.
3 kinds of people: Liberal, decent non-liberal, outlaws and burdened people.
Characteristics of Decent Non-liberal people: well-ordered hierarchical society.
4 Steps Realizing Global Justice:
8 principle:
3 Global Organizations:
Features
Attempt to propose just principles and institutional order on which widest possible agreement among people across globe can be realized.
Based on core liberal principles of tolerance.
Assumptions:
Proposes it as 'Realistic Utopia'
Critique:
Cosmopolitans (Pogge, Nussbaum) -> They believes that humans global citizens and humans have responsibility to all other humans.
Notion of a people is not clear - is it nation? or state? what about multi-state people or people without state or many people in one state?
Outdated view on relation among state, peoples, and individuals.
Cosmopolitans- criticize it for very limited obligation to help burdened or worst-off people, no global difference principle.
Allows tyrannical govt. deny rights to its citizen and plunder and loot the resources of the nation/people.
Why both liberal and non-liberal people agree on paired down list of human rights?
Gave more weightage to cultural pluralism, leaving to individual pluralism - undermine individuality.
many unrealistic assumptions: not realist, sacrifices full justice for wider agreement, here not utopic.
Book:
The Idea of Justice, 2009
Non-contraction theory of justice
3 components:
Instead of aiming for perfectly just order and institution, we may attempt to reduce injustice and advance justice by practical reasoning.