SCHOOL OF LEGAL STUDIES

ICFAI UNIVERSITY SIKKIM

ASSIGNMENT TOPIC

“CONCEPT OF JUSTICE,ITS RELATION WITH LAW & STATE &

THEORIES RELATED WITH JUSTICE”

YEAR 2024

DATE OF SUBMISSION 16/11/2024

Submitted by
Swastika Das
st
1 Semester, LL.M.
Introduction

The earliest known use of the word "justice" was in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, before 1160,
during the Middle English period (1150—1500). The word is derived from the Latin word
Justitia and the French word justice.1

Justice is the idea of fairness, ensuring that individuals are treated equally and receive what
they are due. For example, imagine a classroom where the teacher gives rewards based on
students’ efforts and achievements, rather than favoritism or bias. Justice here means
everyone has the same opportunity to succeed based on their work, and the teacher applies
the same standards to all students, ensuring fairness. In society, laws are created to ensure
that everyone’s rights are protected, and when someone breaks the law, they face appropriate
consequences based on the severity of their actions. The relationship between justice and the
law is evident in how laws are designed to reflect principles of fairness. For example, in a
country, the law may state that everyone is equal before the law, meaning no one is above it,
whether they are rich or poor, famous or ordinary. However, sometimes laws themselves can
be unjust, such as when they discriminate against certain groups, like racial minorities. In
such cases, people may seek to change or challenge these laws in the pursuit of greater
justice, highlighting the difference between what is legal and what is just.

Various theories of justice offer different ways to think about fairness. For instance, John
Rawls’ theory of justice suggests that society should be organized in a way that benefits the
least fortunate, ensuring fairness even for the most vulnerable members. On the other hand,
utilitarian justice focuses on creating the greatest good for the greatest number, even if it
means some individuals might be treated unfairly for the sake of overall happiness. Each
theory offers a different perspective on how society should balance fairness, equality, and the
common good, demonstrating that justice is not a one-size-fits-all concept but a complex
issue that depends on the values and priorities of a given society. Another important aspect of
justice is its role in the criminal justice system, where laws are enforced to maintain order and
protect society. For example, if someone steals, the law ensures they face consequences—
such as imprisonment or fines—to restore balance and discourage harmful behaviour.
However, justice also requires that the punishment is proportional to the crime. A small theft
should not result in the same punishment as a violent crime, reflecting the principle of
proportionality. Moreover, justice demands that the accused have a fair trial, with the
1
https://www.google.com/search?q=who+first+said+the+word+%22justice%22&hl=en-GB&pli=1
opportunity to present their defence, and that the punishment is not excessive or unjust. In
this sense, justice is not just about enforcing laws, but also about ensuring due process and
protecting individual rights.

Justice is also a key part of social and economic policies. For example, distributive justice
looks at how wealth and resources are shared in society. A government might use taxes to
redistribute wealth, ensuring that those who are economically disadvantaged have access to
basic needs like healthcare, education, and housing. This approach aims to reduce inequality
and give everyone the opportunity to thrive. In contrast, a purely market-based approach
might allow the wealthy to accumulate more wealth without much redistribution. The debate
over the right way to distribute resources is central to political discussions about justice, with
different philosophies advocating for either equality, merit-based rewards, or maximization of
overall happiness. Ultimately, justice involves making decisions about fairness, not just in the
courtroom, but in all aspects of societal organization.

Western thinkers later advanced different theories about where the foundations of justice lie.
In the 17th century, philosophers such as John Locke said justice derives from natural law.
Social contract theory, advocated by thinkers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, says that justice
derives from the mutual agreement of members of society to be governed in a political order.
In the 19th century, utilitarian philosophers such as John Stuart Mill said that justice is served
by what creates the best outcomes for the greatest number of people.2

According to Plato:

Justice, according to Plato, is about balance and harmony. It represents the right relationship
between conflicting aspects within an individual or a community. He defines justice as
everyone having and doing what they are responsible for or what belongs to them. In other
words, a just person is someone who contributes to society according to their unique abilities
and receives what is proportionate to their contribution.3

Idea of Justice according to Ambedkar:

2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/justice#:~:text=Early%20theories%20of%20justice%20were,that%20justice
%20issues%20from%20God
3
ibid
According to Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar, justice is the foundation of the Indian Constitution
and is achieved through social justice:

Equality of opportunity: Social justice provides equal opportunities for all to develop their
personalities and participate in society.

Removal of inequalities: Social justice aims to remove inequalities based on caste, race, sex,
power, position, and wealth.

Liberty, equality, and fraternity: Social justice is based on the principles of liberty,
equality, and fraternity. Individual as the end: The individual is the end, and society's purpose
is to help the individual grow and develop their personality.

Preferential treatment: The disadvantaged and economically exploited should be given

preferential treatment. No caste system: The caste system is the root cause of Hinduism's
problems and should be replaced with a social system where rank is determined by merit and
achievements.4

Reason For Why Justice is Important:

1. Social stability: When people feel they are being treated justly, they are more likely
to feel a sense of social unity. When people feel they are being treated unequally, it
can lead to social unrest.
2. Human dignity: Justice is based on the idea that all people have equal dignity and
deserve to be treated as equals. Fairness: Justice is about ensuring that people are
treated fairly and impartially.

3. Accountability: Justice can also mean ensuring that people are held accountable for
their actions.5

4. . Promotes Accountability and Trust in Institutions

4
https://www.google.com/search?q=justice+according+the+Ambedkar&hl=en=GB&pli=1
5
https://shorturl.at/Zxf9A
A just legal and political system promotes accountability by ensuring that those in positions
of power—whether government officials, business leaders, or law enforcement officers—are
held to the same legal standards as ordinary citizens. When people believe that their leaders
and institutions are just and fair, trust in those institutions increases, and the rule of law is
strengthened. This trust is vital for maintaining democratic systems, preventing corruption,
and ensuring the smooth functioning of society. Conversely, a lack of justice in institutions
can lead to corruption, abuse of power, and a breakdown of trust in the system.

5 . Facilitates Moral and Ethical Development

Justice is also important from a moral and ethical perspective. It encourages individuals and
society as a whole to reflect on what is right and wrong, and to act in ways that contribute to
the common good. The pursuit of justice involves a commitment to ethical principles such as
fairness, honesty, and respect for others. In a just society, people are encouraged to live in a
way that respects the dignity of others and contributes to the well-being of all. This, in turn,
helps to foster a culture of kindness, empathy, and cooperation.

6. Supports Human Flourishing

Justice is essential for human flourishing, as it creates an environment where individuals can
live freely, pursue their interests, and develop their potential. When people feel that they are
treated justly and have equal access to opportunities, they are more likely to contribute
positively to society. For example, education, healthcare, and employment are all areas where
justice plays a role in providing individuals with the tools and opportunities to succeed. By
ensuring fair access to these resources, justice enables individuals to live fulfilling lives and
contribute to the common good.

The Relationship Between Justice and Law

Law and justice are closely intertwined, but they are not synonymous. While law refers to the
system of rules established by a governing authority, justice is the ethical and moral standard
against which these laws are measured. Ideally, laws should promote justice, ensuring
fairness and equality in their application. However, there are instances where laws may be
unjust—either because they are inherently biased or because they fail to address the needs of
all citizens. In such cases, laws may be subject to reform or challenge in pursuit of justice.

Justice in law often refers to ensuring that individuals are treated fairly in legal processes,
such as criminal trials, civil disputes, and administrative procedures. It also involves the just
distribution of rights and responsibilities among members of society, ensuring that no
individual is unjustly disadvantaged or discriminated against.

Justice in the Ideal City-State

In The Republic, Plato describes an ideal city-state, or kallipolis, which is structured into
three distinct classes: rulers (philosopher-kings), auxiliaries (soldiers), and producers
(farmers, artisans, etc.). Justice, for Plato, is achieved when each class performs its
appropriate role without interfering with the other classes. The rulers, who are the wisest and
most knowledgeable, govern the city. The auxiliaries protect and defend it, and the producers
sustain the city with their work. When each class focuses on its own function and does not
overstep its boundaries, harmony is maintained, and the city is just.

Plato argues that justice in the city is analogous to justice in the individual soul. The soul,
according to Plato, has three parts: the rational part (reason), the spirited part (will or
emotion), and the appetitive part (desires or instincts). Just as the ideal city is just when the
rulers govern (reason), the soldiers protect (spirit), and the workers produce (appetites), the
individual is just when reason controls the will and desires. In other words, justice occurs
when each part of the soul performs its proper function and is in balance. The rational part
should govern the soul, guiding it with wisdom and knowledge, while the spirited part should
support reason by enforcing moral rules, and the appetitive part should be kept in check.

Theory of Justice:-

Classical Theory of Justice

The Classical Theory of Justice is largely derived from the works of ancient Greek
philosophers, especially Plato and Aristotle, and forms the foundation of many modern
conceptions of justice. At its core, classical theories view justice as the proper ordering of
society, ensuring fairness, and each individual receiving what they are due. Classical theories
emphasize the idea of balance, order, and the alignment of individuals with their roles within
society.

1. Plato’s Theory of Justice

Plato, in his dialogue The Republic, presents one of the most well-known classical theories of
justice. For Plato, justice is about harmony and order, both in the city-state and the individual.
His theory is grounded in the idea that everyone should perform the role for which they are
best suited, and that each part of society, and each part of the soul, must fulfill its proper
function.

 Justice in the City: Plato imagines an ideal society, divided into three distinct
classes: the rulers (philosopher-kings), the auxiliaries (soldiers), and the producers
(farmers, artisans, and merchants). Justice, according to Plato, is achieved when each
class performs its designated function without interfering with the roles of the others.
The rulers govern wisely, the soldiers protect the city, and the producers provide for
the community's needs. The just society, therefore, is one in which each part of
society is balanced and contributes to the whole.
 Justice in the Individual: Plato argues that the human soul has three parts: the
rational part (which seeks knowledge and truth), the spirited part (which is
responsible for courage and action), and the appetitive part (which desires pleasure
and material goods). Justice in the individual occurs when the rational part governs
the soul, controlling the desires and guiding the will, while the spirited part supports
reason in enforcing moral rules. Justice in the soul, like in the city, involves harmony
and the proper functioning of each part.

In sum, for Plato, justice is not just about fairness in distribution but also about the
appropriate ordering of society and the individual, where each part fulfills its role in harmony
with the others.

2. Aristotle’s Theory of Justice

Aristotle, a student of Plato, presented a more practical and systematic account of justice in
his work Nicomachean Ethics. Aristotle’s theory is based on two key types of justice:
distributive justice and rectificatory justice.
  Distributive Justice: According to Aristotle, distributive justice is concerned with the
fair distribution of goods, honors, and resources within a community. Aristotle argues
that justice involves distributing these benefits in proportion to individuals' merit,
which he sees as rooted in their virtue. For Aristotle, individuals should receive what
they deserve based on their contributions to society. A just society is one where
resources and benefits are allocated according to people's relative worth or merit.
 Rectificatory Justice: This type of justice deals with the correction of wrongs or
injustices in transactions or relationships. If someone wrongs another (e.g., through
theft or fraud), rectificatory justice seeks to restore fairness by making restitution. It
aims to restore balance by compensating the wronged party, ensuring that the
situation is corrected and made right.

Aristotle also makes a distinction between general justice, which refers to the overall virtue
of a person (a just person will act in ways that benefit society as a whole), and particular
justice, which refers to the specific fairness or equity in the distribution of goods, rewards,
and punishments.

3. The Classical Understanding of Justice

At its essence, classical theories of justice emphasize the idea of moral order and balance
within society and the individual. Justice is seen as a virtue that can be applied both to
individuals and to the entire community. It is a concept rooted in fairness and equity, but
also tied to the idea of fulfilling one's natural or social role.

 Justice as Harmony: Both Plato and Aristotle emphasize that justice involves the
proper arrangement and functioning of parts within a whole. Whether it’s the classes
of society or the elements of the human soul, justice is about balance and each part
performing its appropriate function.
 Justice as Giving People Their Due: Classical thinkers like Plato and Aristotle often
define justice in terms of giving people their due—whether it's the right to govern,
the right to property, or the right to have one's wrongs righted. Justice is seen as
ensuring that everyone gets what they deserve, based on their merit, their actions, or
their needs.
4. Critiques and Limitations of Classical Justice

While classical theories of justice laid the foundation for much of Western thought, they are
not without criticism. Some of the key critiques include:

 Exclusionary Views: Classical theories, especially in the context of Plato and

Aristotle, often overlook marginalized groups. For example, in Plato’s ideal society,
women and slaves are excluded from full participation, and Aristotle's concept of
justice is primarily focused on citizens who are free and possess wealth and status.
 Inequality in Distribution: Aristotle’s idea of distributive justice, which ties fairness
to an individual's virtue and merit, can be seen as justifying existing inequalities,
particularly in societies with rigid class structures. This concept does not always
account for systemic inequalities that prevent some individuals from fully realizing
their potential.
 Role of the State: Both Plato and Aristotle view the state as having a central role in
promoting justice, but modern critics argue that such an authoritarian approach can
limit individual freedoms and autonomy.

Natural Law Theory of Justice

Natural Law Theory is a classical and influential theory of justice that asserts that there are
objective moral principles inherent in nature and discoverable through human reason.
According to this theory, justice is not simply a product of human laws or conventions, but is
based on universal principles that can be understood by all people, regardless of their culture
or society. These principles are believed to be "natural" in the sense that they exist
independently of human legislation and reflect a higher moral order.

The key idea behind Natural Law Theory is that certain moral laws exist in nature and are
discoverable by human reason. These laws form the basis for justice, and any human-made
laws that contradict these natural principles are considered unjust.

Concepts of Natural Law Theory

1. Objective Moral Order: Natural law theorists believe that the universe is governed
by an objective moral order that can be discovered through reason. This moral order is
inherent in nature itself and is not contingent on human opinion or societal norms. For
 example, the idea that human beings have intrinsic dignity and should not be treated
unfairly or unjustly is a natural law principle.
2. Universal Principles: Natural law is often viewed as universal, meaning that the
principles of justice it defines apply to all humans, everywhere. These principles are
constant and do not change based on cultural differences or historical contexts. For
example, the basic principles of fairness, respect for human life, and the pursuit of the
common good are seen as universally applicable across time and space.
3. Reason as the Path to Discover Justice: According to natural law theory, human
beings have the ability to use reason to discern these objective moral laws. People are
not born with knowledge of these laws, but through careful reflection, reasoning, and
understanding of the world around them, they can uncover the natural principles that
should govern their lives and their societies. The use of reason to discover these laws
is a key aspect of the theory.
4. Human Nature and Rights: Natural law theory often connects moral principles to
the nature of human beings. Human beings, according to this view, are endowed with
certain inherent rights and responsibilities simply by virtue of their human nature.
These natural rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and property, are considered to
be self-evident and universal, not dependent on government or legal systems for their
existence.
5. The Role of Government: A central tenet of natural law theory is that governments
and legal systems should reflect and uphold the natural laws. In a just society, human-
made laws must align with the natural moral order, as any law that contradicts this
order is considered unjust. Therefore, the role of the state is not merely to enforce
laws, but to ensure that these laws are in accordance with natural moral principles.

Historical Development of Natural Law Theory

Natural law theory has its roots in ancient Greek and Roman philosophy, but it became
especially prominent in the medieval period with the work of philosophers like Thomas
Aquinas. Aquinas, a Catholic theologian and philosopher, argued that natural law is a part of
God's divine plan, and that human beings, through reason, can discern these laws as they
pertain to moral behavior and justice.
Aquinas believed that natural law could be divided into two types:

 Eternal Law: The plan of God that governs the entire universe.
 Natural Law: The part of the eternal law that humans can understand and apply
through reason, particularly in matters of ethics and justice.

Aquinas wrote that natural law is based on the essential nature of human beings and the world
around them, and it is directed toward achieving human flourishing. For example, he argued
that humans have an inherent desire for life, knowledge, and social relationships, and the
laws of nature guide them toward these ends.

Principles of Natural Law in Justice

1. The Principle of Reason: At the heart of natural law theory is the belief that human
beings can know the natural laws through reason. These laws are not arbitrary; they
reflect an underlying moral order in the universe. For example, it is reasonable to
assume that it is unjust to harm others unnecessarily or to take what does not belong
to you.
2. The Principle of the Common Good: Natural law emphasizes that justice involves
promoting the common good of society. Laws and social arrangements must be
oriented toward the well-being of all members of society, not just individuals or
particular groups. Justice is not simply about securing individual rights, but also about
ensuring that society as a whole flourishes.
3. The Principle of Human Dignity: Natural law theory holds that human beings
possess inherent dignity by virtue of their human nature. Therefore, a just society
must recognize and respect the dignity of each individual. This principle underlies
human rights and the recognition of rights such as life, liberty, and property. A just
legal system, according to natural law, must protect these basic rights.
4. The Principle of Equality: Natural law implies that all people are equal in the eyes
of the law because they share common human nature. Justice, therefore, requires that
people are treated equally under the law and that no one is discriminated against
arbitrarily. Discrimination or unequal treatment violates natural justice, which aims to
treat everyone fairly and justly.
Applications of Natural Law Theory in Justice

 Human Rights: Natural law has heavily influenced the modern understanding of
human rights, particularly the idea that all human beings are entitled to basic rights by
virtue of their nature as human beings. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
adopted by the United Nations in 1948, reflects the principles of natural law by
asserting that all people have inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by
governments or any other entity.
 Constitutional Law: Many constitutional frameworks, especially in democratic
societies, are influenced by natural law principles. For example, the U.S. Declaration
of Independence invokes natural law when it states that all people are endowed with
certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The
belief that there are inherent rights that exist outside of government control is a key
idea derived from natural law theory.
 Moral and Legal Reform: Natural law has been used as a basis for advocating moral
and legal reforms. For example, movements for the abolition of slavery, the
recognition of women's rights, and the civil rights movement in the United States
were often grounded in the natural law argument that all human beings are equal and
entitled to the same basic rights.

Critiques of Natural Law Theory

Despite its influence, natural law theory faces several critiques:

1. Cultural and Historical Relativism: Critics argue that the idea of universal natural
laws is overly idealistic, as moral values and concepts of justice can vary significantly
across cultures and historical periods. What one society considers a "natural" law may
not be the same for another, making the universal application of natural law
problematic.
2. Religious Foundations: Since natural law theory often has roots in religious thought
(particularly Christian theology, in the case of Aquinas), critics argue that it may not
be appropriate for secular societies. In this sense, the theory can be seen as too reliant
on religious assumptions about human nature and divine authority.
3. Vagueness and Interpretation: Critics also point out that the concept of "natural
law" can be vague and subject to different interpretations. What one person considers
 to be a violation of natural law may be seen by others as justifiable, depending on
their moral or cultural perspective.

Utilitarianism: Theory of Justice

Utilitarianism is a moral and philosophical theory of justice that advocates for actions,
policies, or laws that maximize the greatest happiness for the greatest number. It is a form
of consequentialism, meaning that the rightness or wrongness of an action is judged solely
based on its outcomes or consequences, rather than its intrinsic qualities. In the context of
justice, utilitarianism focuses on achieving overall social welfare by ensuring that the benefits
of policies and laws are distributed in a way that produces the maximum possible well-being
for the majority of people.

Principles of Utilitarianism

1. The Principle of Utility: The core of utilitarianism is the principle of utility, which
suggests that an action is morally right if it results in the greatest amount of happiness
or pleasure, and the least amount of pain or suffering. In other words, the goal of
justice is to maximize happiness (or well-being) and minimize harm or suffering. This
principle is often summarized by the phrase “the greatest good for the greatest
number.”
2. Consequentialism: Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory, meaning that the
rightness of an action is determined solely by its consequences. When making a
decision about what is just, utilitarians focus on the outcomes of the action or policy
in question. For example, a law that leads to significant benefits for the majority, even
if it harms a few, may be justified as long as the net effect increases overall happiness.
3. Impartiality: Utilitarianism emphasizes impartiality, meaning that everyone’s
happiness counts equally. When making decisions, utilitarians consider the happiness
of all individuals affected by an action, without giving special preference to any one
person or group. Each person’s well-being is considered of equal importance,
regardless of their social status, wealth, or identity.
4. Happiness as the Ultimate Good: In utilitarianism, happiness (or pleasure) is often
regarded as the ultimate good and the goal of justice. In classical utilitarianism,
happiness is understood as the experience of pleasure and the absence of pain. More
modern versions of utilitarianism, like those advanced by philosophers such as John
 Stuart Mill, expand this view to include the quality of pleasures, acknowledging that
intellectual and moral pleasures are of higher value than physical or sensual ones.

The Founders of Utilitarianism

1. Jeremy Bentham: Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) is often considered the founder of

classical utilitarianism. He developed the idea of "the greatest happiness principle"
and argued that human beings are motivated by the desire to seek pleasure and avoid
pain. Bentham’s version of utilitarianism is known as act utilitarianism, where each
individual action should be evaluated by its ability to produce the greatest good for
the greatest number. Bentham also proposed the idea of the hedonic calculus, a
method for calculating the balance of pleasure and pain produced by different actions.
2. John Stuart Mill: John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) further developed and refined
Bentham's ideas, particularly in his work Utilitarianism (1863). Mill introduced the
concept of higher and lower pleasures, arguing that intellectual and moral pleasures
(such as those gained from education, friendship, and personal growth) are of greater
value than physical pleasures (such as eating, drinking, and sensual enjoyment).
Mill’s version of utilitarianism is sometimes called rule utilitarianism, which
suggests that we should follow rules that, in the long run, will lead to the greatest
happiness, rather than evaluating each action individually as Bentham proposed.

Applying Utilitarianism to Justice

In a utilitarian view of justice, the laws and policies of a society should be aimed at
maximizing the well-being of the greatest number of people. This leads to several practical
implications for how justice might be approached:

1. Law and Policy: Utilitarianism would justify laws that increase overall happiness,
even if they result in some individuals or groups being disadvantaged, as long as the
overall benefits outweigh the harm. For example, utilitarianism might support the
redistribution of wealth (e.g., progressive taxation) if it increases the overall welfare
of society, even if wealthier individuals are taxed more heavily.
2. Punishment and Crime: In the context of criminal justice, utilitarianism justifies
punishment if it produces a greater good for society. For instance, punishment may be
justified if it serves to deter crime (general deterrence), rehabilitate offenders
 (rehabilitation), or protect society by removing dangerous individuals (incapacitation).
However, punishment should not be disproportionate or excessively harsh, as it could
lead to more harm than good. Punishment should be focused on achieving long-term
social benefits, not just retribution.
3. Distributive Justice: Utilitarianism suggests that resources, wealth, and opportunities
should be distributed in a way that maximizes the overall well-being of society. This
could mean implementing policies that promote education, healthcare, and social
services to reduce inequality and improve the quality of life for the greatest number of
people. However, utilitarianism might accept inequalities in society if those
inequalities benefit the overall welfare (for example, higher rewards for more
productive individuals might incentivize innovation and economic growth).
4. Social Welfare: Policies aimed at improving public health, education, and welfare
programs would be supported by utilitarianism as they are likely to lead to greater
overall happiness. For instance, providing healthcare to all citizens, regardless of
income, could be seen as a just policy if it increases the well-being of society as a
whole by reducing suffering and improving the quality of life.

Types of Utilitarianism

There are two primary forms of utilitarianism:

1. Act Utilitarianism: This is the classical form of utilitarianism, as developed by

Jeremy Bentham. Act utilitarianism judges each action individually based on the
amount of happiness or harm it produces. An action is morally right if it produces the
greatest good for the greatest number in that particular situation.

Example: If a government is deciding whether to implement a law that might reduce

the rights of a small group but benefits the majority, act utilitarianism would support
the law if it maximizes overall happiness.

2. Rule Utilitarianism: This form, associated with John Stuart Mill, argues that we
should follow general rules that, when followed consistently, lead to the greatest good
for the greatest number. Rule utilitarianism focuses on the consequences of following
a particular rule or principle over time, rather than evaluating each individual action.
 Example: Instead of evaluating each individual case of free speech, rule utilitarianism
would support the rule of freedom of speech because, in the long run, it maximizes
happiness by promoting individual autonomy, open debate, and democracy.

Strengths of Utilitarianism

1. Clarity and Simplicity: The central idea of utilitarianism—the greatest good for the
greatest number—is straightforward and easy to understand. It provides clear
guidance on how to approach moral and political decisions.
2. Promotes Social Welfare: Utilitarianism’s focus on maximizing happiness aligns
with the goal of improving overall social welfare. It supports policies and laws that
aim to enhance the well-being of society, such as healthcare, education, and social
safety nets.
3. Impartiality: Utilitarianism treats everyone's happiness as equally important,
regardless of status, wealth, or social position. This can lead to fairer and more
equitable policies.

Criticisms of Utilitarianism

1. Neglect of Individual Rights: One major criticism is that utilitarianism can justify
sacrificing the rights or well-being of individuals for the greater good. For example, if
a law discriminates against a minority group but benefits the majority, utilitarianism
might justify it, even if it violates basic rights.
2. The Problem of Measuring Happiness: Utilitarianism assumes that happiness can
be quantified and compared across individuals, but this is highly subjective and
difficult to measure. It is unclear how to determine the relative happiness or suffering
of different people.
3. Unpredictable Consequences: Utilitarianism relies on predicting the outcomes of
actions, which can be highly uncertain. The long-term consequences of policies or
actions are often difficult to assess, making it hard to judge their moral worth.
4. Justice and Fairness: Critics argue that utilitarianism can sometimes lead to unjust
outcomes. For example, it might justify extreme measures that harm a minority if they
benefit the majority, potentially undermining fairness
John Rawls' Theory of Justice

John Rawls' Theory of Justice, presented in his seminal book "A Theory of Justice" (1971), is
one of the most influential works in modern political philosophy. Rawls developed a concept
of justice as fairness, aiming to provide principles for structuring a just society. Below is a
detailed explanation:

Features of Rawls' Theory of Justice

Rawls' theory is based on two main principles of justice and the framework of the original
position and the veil of ignorance.

1. Justice as Fairness

Rawls’ conception of justice seeks to ensure fairness for all members of society, especially
the least advantaged. It contrasts with utilitarianism, which prioritizes the greatest good for
the greatest number, often at the expense of minorities.

2. The Two Principles of Justice

Rawls outlines two principles that govern the structure of a just society:

 First Principle: Equal Basic Liberties

Every individual is entitled to equal fundamental rights and liberties, such as
freedom of speech, religion, and the right to vote. These liberties must be
compatible with the same liberties for others.

 Second Principle: Social and Economic Inequalities

Social and economic inequalities are permissible only if they satisfy two
conditions:

1. Fair Equality of Opportunity

Positions and opportunities should be open to all, ensuring that
individuals with similar abilities and efforts have an equal chance to
succeed.
 2. The Difference Principle
Inequalities are acceptable if they benefit the least advantaged members
of society.

3. The Original Position and Veil of Ignorance

To derive these principles, Rawls introduces the original position, a hypothetical scenario
where individuals come together to choose the principles of justice for society.

 Participants are behind a veil of ignorance, meaning they do not know their own
social status, wealth, abilities, gender, or race.
 This ensures impartiality, as no one can design principles that favor their own
circumstances.

Under these conditions, rational individuals would choose principles that protect the most
vulnerable, as they could themselves be in that position.

4. The Priority Rules

Rawls establishes a lexical priority among the principles:

 The First Principle (basic liberties) has priority over the Second
Principle (inequalities).
 Within the Second Principle, Fair Equality of Opportunity takes precedence over
the Difference Principle.

Significance of Rawls' Theory

1. Focus on Equality and Fairness: Rawls emphasizes protecting individual liberties

while addressing inequalities in a way that benefits society's least advantaged.
2. Practical Framework: The veil of ignorance provides a thought experiment to
design fair institutions.
3. Critique of Utilitarianism: Rawls rejects utilitarianism for potentially sacrificing
individual rights for collective happiness.

Criticisms of Rawls' Theory

 1. Overemphasis on Redistribution: Critics argue that Rawls' focus on the least
advantaged may disincentivize productivity or innovation.
2. Abstract and Hypothetical: Some claim the original position is too theoretical and
disconnected from real-world conditions.
3. Neglect of Cultural and Identity Issues: Rawls’ theory has been critiqued for not
addressing justice related to cultural recognition and social identities, as later
theorists like Nancy Fraser and Iris Young emphasize.

Amartya Sen's Theory of Justice

Amartya Sen's Theory of Justice, outlined in his book "The Idea of Justice" (2009), provides
an alternative to traditional theories of justice, particularly John Rawls' "A Theory of
Justice". Sen critiques the focus on idealized principles and institutions, instead emphasizing
real-world issues and the enhancement of individual freedoms.

Core Ideas of Sen's Theory of Justice

Amartya Sen's approach is rooted in the capability approach, which prioritizes human
development and the actual freedoms people have to live the lives they value. Below are the
key aspects of his theory:

1. Critique of Transcendental Institutionalism

Sen criticizes theories like Rawls’ for their emphasis on:

 Ideal Institutions: Rawls focuses on designing "just institutions," assuming that these
will lead to a just society.
 Perfect Justice: Rawls' theory attempts to define an ideal state of justice.

Sen argues that focusing on perfect justice is impractical and unhelpful for addressing real-
world injustices. Instead, he proposes a comparative approach that identifies and reduces
injustices in specific contexts.
 2. Focus on Realized Outcomes

Rather than theorizing about perfectly just institutions, Sen emphasizes:

 The real-world effects of policies and decisions on people's lives.

 Evaluating justice based on how it improves the lives and freedoms of individuals.

For example, he would assess a society's justice by examining whether individuals can
achieve good health, education, and participation in society, rather than just evaluating its
legal or institutional frameworks.

3. The Capability Approach

At the heart of Sen’s theory is the capability approach, which focuses on:

 Capabilities: The actual opportunities people have to achieve their potential and lead
lives they value.
 Functionings: The realized achievements or states of being (e.g., being healthy,
educated, or participating in civic life).

Justice, in Sen's view, involves enhancing capabilities so individuals can achieve functionings
that contribute to their well-being.

4. Reasoning and Public Debate

Sen emphasizes the role of public reasoning in determining what justice requires in a given
context.

 Decisions about justice should not be dictated by abstract principles but through open
discussion and debate.
 Diverse perspectives, including those of marginalized groups, must be considered to
ensure fairness.

5. Plurality and Global Justice

Sen rejects the idea that there is one singular theory of justice. He advocates for:

 A pluralistic approach that recognizes multiple valid perspectives on justice.

  Addressing global justice, emphasizing that justice should not be confined to the
boundaries of a single nation-state. Issues like poverty and inequality require global
cooperation.

Comparison with Rawls

Aspect Rawls Sen

Focus Ideal institutions and principles Realized outcomes and reducing injustice

Approach Transcendental (ideal justice) Comparative (reducing actual injustice)

Key Concept Justice as fairness Capability approach

Global Justice Nation-state focus Global perspective

Significance of Sen's Theory

1. Practical Application: Sen’s focus on reducing injustice makes his theory

applicable to addressing real-world issues like poverty, inequality, and human rights
violations.
2. Human-Centric Approach: By prioritizing capabilities, Sen ensures that justice is
evaluated based on its impact on individual well-being.
3. Inclusivity: Sen emphasizes public reasoning, allowing for diverse perspectives
and voices in defining justice.

Criticism of Sen's Theory

1. Lack of a Unified Framework: Critics argue that Sen's comparative approach

lacks a clear, overarching definition of justice.
2. Operational Challenges: Measuring capabilities and functionings can be difficult,
making the approach complex to implement in policy-making.
3. Insufficient Institutional Focus: Some suggest that neglecting institutional design
might limit long-term solutions to systemic injustices.
Conclusion

The concept of justice is fundamental to the functioning of both law and the state, serving as
a moral and ethical framework to ensure fairness, equality, and the protection of individual
rights within society. Justice is inherently linked to law, as the law provides the structure and
mechanisms to uphold justice by establishing rules, resolving disputes, and enforcing rights.
The relationship between justice and the state is also pivotal, as the state is responsible for
maintaining order and ensuring that justice prevails through institutions like courts and
legislatures. Various theories of justice, including distributive justice, retributive justice, and
procedural justice, offer different perspectives on how justice should be administered. While
distributive justice focuses on the fair allocation of resources, retributive justice focuses on
the fair allocation of resources, retributive justice emphasizes punishment for wrongdoing,
and procedural justice stresses the importance of fair processes in decision-making. Each
theory contributes to the broader understanding of justice, providing valuable insights into
how legal systems can better serve society. Ultimately, the concept of justice seeks to balance
individual rights with the common good, ensuring that all members of society receive fair and
equitable treatment.
 Bibliography
https://rjhssonline.com/HTML_Papers/Research%20Journal%20of%20Humanities%20and
%20Social%20Sciences__PID__2013-4-2-7.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice
https://uk.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-assets/130458_book_item_130458.pdf
https://iep.utm.edu/justwest/
https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/Concept-of-Justice-under-Indian-Constitution
https://blog.ipleaders.in/john-rawls-theory-of-justice/
https://egyankosh.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/21021/1/Unit-20.pdf