Chapter 4 Social Justice

Just as we possess an intuitive understanding of complex concepts like love, we also tend to have an inherent grasp of what **justice** signifies, even without being able to define it precisely. In many ways, justice shares similarities with love; both evoke passionate responses, and everyone desires justice for themselves, and to some extent, for others.

However, unlike love, which primarily concerns relationships with a limited number of people we know well, **justice relates to our life in society**. It pertains to how public life is structured, the principles governing the distribution of societal goods (like resources, opportunities) and duties (like responsibilities, burdens) among its members. Consequently, questions of justice are central to the realm of politics and political theory.

Understanding social justice involves identifying key principles of justice proposed throughout history, explaining what distributive justice means, and exploring arguments for why a fair and just society is beneficial for all its members.

What Is Justice?

Throughout history and across various cultures and traditions, thinkers have grappled with the concept of justice, interpreting it in diverse ways. In ancient Indian society, justice was closely linked to the concept of **dharma**, seen as maintaining a just social and moral order, and a primary duty of kings. In ancient China, the philosopher **Confucius** believed that rulers should uphold justice by appropriately punishing wrongdoers and rewarding those who were virtuous.

In ancient Greece, particularly in 4th century BCE Athens, the philosopher **Plato** engaged with questions of justice in his famous work *The Republic*. Through dialogues, especially between Socrates and younger interlocutors, Plato explored the fundamental reasons why individuals should be just. The young friends raised a common concern: people who act unjustly often seem to benefit more than those who are just, achieving success by manipulating rules, avoiding obligations like taxes, and resorting to deceit if they can avoid being caught.

Socrates countered this view by pointing out that if everyone were to act unjustly, constantly manipulating rules for personal gain, society would become insecure and chaotic. No one, including the unjust person, could be certain of benefiting in the long run or even of their own security, as they too would be subject to others' injustice. Therefore, Socrates argued, it is ultimately in our collective long-term interest to obey laws and be just. He emphasized the need to clearly understand the meaning of justice to appreciate its importance.

Socrates clarified that justice is not merely about doing good to friends and harm to enemies, or solely pursuing one's own interests. Instead, true justice involves being concerned with the **well-being of all people**. He used the analogy of a doctor, whose concern is the well-being of their patients, to suggest that a just ruler or government must similarly prioritize the well-being of the people. Ensuring well-being includes **giving each person what is due to them**.

The idea that justice involves giving each person their due remains a crucial component of contemporary understandings of justice. However, the interpretation of what is 'due' to a person has evolved. Today, this understanding is closely tied to the concept of **human dignity**. The German philosopher **Immanuel Kant** argued that all human beings possess dignity and inherent worth. Therefore, what is due to each person is the opportunity to develop their talents and pursue their chosen goals. Justice, from this perspective, requires that we give due and equal consideration and respect to all individuals, recognizing their inherent dignity.

Equal Treatment For Equals

One of the foundational principles of justice in modern societies is **treating equals equally**. This principle recognizes that all individuals, by virtue of sharing certain fundamental characteristics as human beings (such as human rights and dignity), are entitled to the same basic rights and should be treated equally by laws and policies. In liberal democracies, this often translates to granting equal citizenship rights, including civil rights (like life, liberty, property), political rights (like voting), and certain social rights (like equal opportunities).

The principle of treating equals equally demands that people should **not be discriminated against** based on arbitrary factors like their class, caste, race, or gender. They should be judged and treated based on their actions, work, and merits, not based on the group they belong to. For example, if individuals from different castes or genders perform the same work, justice requires that they receive the same pay or reward. Unequal pay for equal work based on discriminatory criteria is considered unfair and unjust.

Proportionate Justice

While equal treatment is a cornerstone of justice, treating everyone identically in all circumstances might sometimes lead to injustice. This gives rise to the principle of **proportionate justice**. This principle suggests that while basic equal rights should be guaranteed for all, the distribution of rewards, burdens, or responsibilities should sometimes be proportionate to factors like effort, skills, qualifications, or even potential dangers involved in different types of work or contributions.

For instance, in a classroom setting, awarding marks based on the quality of answers and the effort put in is generally considered fairer than giving everyone the same marks. Similarly, acknowledging that certain professions require higher skills, greater effort, or involve more risks might justify different levels of reward. This principle emphasizes that while everyone should start from a baseline of equal rights and opportunities, justice in outcomes or rewards can be proportionate to individual contributions and the demands of the task, without implying that individuals themselves are unequal in their inherent worth.

Recognition Of Special Needs

A third important principle of justice acknowledges the need for society to take into account the **special needs** of certain individuals or groups when distributing benefits or duties. This principle is seen as a way to promote social justice and move towards an egalitarian society, recognizing that simply treating everyone equally or proportionally might not be sufficient to address existing disadvantages or ensure that everyone can genuinely enjoy their rights and opportunities.

The principle of recognizing special needs does not necessarily contradict the principle of equal treatment; rather, it extends it by suggesting that treating people who are unequal in certain significant respects *identically* can perpetuate inequality. By providing special help or differential treatment based on need, society aims to create conditions where individuals facing disadvantages can better compete and participate on more equal terms. Physical disabilities, age, or lack of access to essential resources like good education or healthcare are often considered valid grounds for providing special assistance or differential treatment.

For example, providing ramps for disabled people in public buildings is not about giving them more rights, but about enabling them to exercise their equal right to access those buildings. In India, the Constitution allowed for reservations in government jobs and educational institutions for Scheduled Castes and Tribes, partly based on the recognition of historical social discrimination and lack of opportunities, seen as a way to provide special help to overcome entrenched disadvantages and promote social justice.

Governments often face the challenge of balancing these three principles of justice: ensuring equal treatment for equals, justly rewarding differing efforts/skills, and providing special provisions for those with needs. Different groups within a society may prioritize different principles, leading to debates about which policies best promote a just society. The task of governance involves harmonizing these principles.

Answer:

What Is Equality?

(This subheading is a repeat of the earlier H2 and its content is already covered above.)

Equality Of Opportunities

(This subheading is a repeat of the earlier H3 and its content is already covered above.)

Natural And Social Inequalities

(This subheading is a repeat of the earlier H3 and its content is already covered above.)

Three Dimensions Of Equality

(This subheading is a repeat of the earlier H2 and its content is already covered above.)

Political Equality

(This subheading is a repeat of the earlier H3 and its content is already covered above.)

Social Equality

(This subheading is a repeat of the earlier H3 and its content is already covered above.)

Economic Equality

(This subheading is a repeat of the earlier H3 and its content is already covered above.)

Feminism

(This subheading is a repeat of the earlier H3 and its content is already covered above.)

Marxism And Liberalism

(This subheading is a repeat of the earlier H3 and its content is already covered above.)

Socialism

(This subheading is a repeat of the earlier H3 and its content is already covered above.)

John Rawls’ Theory Of Justice

If individuals were asked to design a society, they would likely structure it to benefit themselves. It's difficult to expect people to prioritize the common good over their personal interests, especially when considering their future and that of their children. This inherent bias makes it challenging to design a society's rules and organization in a way that is universally considered fair and just. The philosopher **John Rawls** proposed a thought experiment to address this problem.

Rawls argued that the only way to arrive at fair and just principles for organizing society is to imagine ourselves in a hypothetical situation where we have to make decisions about the structure of society without knowing what position or status we would occupy in that society. This condition of not knowing our future place – whether we would be born rich or poor, into a privileged or disadvantaged group, with talents or disabilities – is what Rawls calls thinking under a **‘veil of ignorance’**.

Rawls posited that under this veil of ignorance, each person, acting rationally in their own self-interest, would choose rules and a social organization that would be fair for everyone. Since no one knows their future identity, they would be motivated to ensure that even the worst possible position in society is acceptable. Rational individuals would anticipate the possibility of being born into the least privileged circumstances. Therefore, they would support rules that guarantee fundamental rights, basic minimum conditions of life, and reasonable opportunities, particularly for the most disadvantaged members of society.

The merit of the ‘veil of ignorance’ thought experiment is that it relies on individuals being rational and self-interested, not requiring extraordinary benevolence or self-sacrifice. Under this condition, rational self-interest leads to choosing principles that protect the vulnerable, because *you* might be one of the vulnerable. This process results in principles that benefit the society as a whole, not just a particular section, as you could end up anywhere in that society. Rawls concluded that rational thinking under the veil of ignorance could lead to principles of justice and fair distribution, arguing that fairness is the outcome of rational action rather than pre-existing moral norms. This makes his theory a compelling approach to understanding how to achieve a just distribution of society's benefits and burdens.

Pursuing Social Justice

A society is considered to lack **social justice** if there are deep and persistent divisions between those who possess significant wealth and power and those who are excluded and deprived, with little opportunity to improve their condition. While justice does not demand absolute equality in how people live, a society is unjust if the disparities between rich and poor are so vast that they appear to inhabit completely different realities, or if the disadvantaged have no realistic chance of improving their lives through effort.

To achieve social justice, a society should aim to provide people with the **basic minimum conditions** necessary for healthy, secure, and productive lives. This includes ensuring access to essential resources and opportunities that enable individuals to develop their talents and pursue their chosen goals. Providing these basic minimums is widely considered a responsibility of a democratic government, although fulfilling this can be a significant challenge, especially in countries with large impoverished populations.

There are ongoing debates about the best methods to promote social justice and provide this basic minimum. Disagreements exist regarding the role of free markets versus state intervention and the justification and implementation of affirmative action policies. Different political groups often support contrasting approaches based on their favored principles of justice.

How Can We Promote Equality?

Promoting equality involves implementing principles and policies to reduce existing inequalities. This requires debating and deciding on the most effective strategies, considering different viewpoints on the role of markets, government, and specific measures like affirmative action.

Establishing Formal Equality

The initial step towards achieving equality is ending all formal systems of inequality and privilege embedded in customs and laws. This means legally prohibiting discrimination based on factors like religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth and ensuring identical treatment by law for all citizens. Constitutions often guarantee this principle, aiming to remove formal barriers to opportunity and participation.

Equality Through Differential Treatment

Formal equality before the law is necessary but often insufficient to address deep-rooted inequalities. In some cases, **treating people differently** may be necessary to ensure they can actually enjoy equal rights and opportunities. This is known as differential treatment or special provisions. Such measures are justified not as exceptions to equality, but as means to enhance it by compensating for existing disadvantages. Examples include providing ramps for disabled people or special protection for women in certain jobs. Debates focus on which differences warrant such treatment and what policies are appropriate to overcome hindrances to equal opportunity.

Affirmative Action

**Affirmative action** is a set of policies based on the idea that formal equality is insufficient to rectify inequalities stemming from historical discrimination. These are positive measures designed to correct the cumulative effects of past injustices and promote equal opportunity for disadvantaged groups. In India, reservations in education and jobs are a form of affirmative action, defended as necessary help for communities that have suffered from historical exclusion and cannot compete equally immediately. Critics view reservations as unfair or reverse discrimination, arguing for identical treatment. The debate centers on whether differential treatment based on group identity is a legitimate means to achieve equality, especially when inequalities are rooted in circumstances of birth rather than choice. While most theorists recognize that social and economic inequalities hinder equal opportunities, the debate continues regarding the best policies (reservations vs. other facilities) and criteria for identifying the deprived.

Ultimately, policies aimed at promoting equality must be justified by their success in creating a more egalitarian and fair society. Differential treatment, when implemented, must be carefully justified as a necessary means to enable certain groups to enjoy the same rights as others, ensuring it does not lead to new forms of dominance but serves the goal of a just society.

The passage also introduces J.S. Mill's quote emphasizing that justice implies something that is not only right to do, but something an individual has a moral right to claim from us.

Exercises

(Exercise questions are not included as per instructions.)