Social and political ideals : justice

Q: The fundamental idea of the conception of justice is fairness.Discuss.2011-20 marks

According to john rawls the fundamental idea of the conception of justice is fairness.
He belives that a procedure of justice established using a just basic structure of
society arrived at by fair principles is bound to result in a just social order.
This procedure is one that has been formulated by a fair society in a fair manner
without being distorted by the subjective biases and prejudices of the form of religion
colour sex etc.
It is a just social order which treats all its citizens in a fair manner.
There are two principles of fairness the first one being equal liberty to all citizens
regardless of their standing in the society with any constraint on liberty of any
citizen being justified by a similar constraint on all othersThe second principle
postuates that social and economic inequalities if any must be based on two criteria:
1. They are to be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair
equality of opportunity;
2.They are to be to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society
(the difference principle).
These principles must also be publicized as they are to form the backbone of the
procedural justice system which is to prevail in the society and hence it is fair that all
citizens subject to this procedure must be made aware of its guinding principles.
The society whose basic structure is based on these two principles will be able to
take care of substantive notions of freedom and equality and hence fairness is
fundamental idea behind conception of justice which is necessary for taking care of
its constituent principles fraternity liberty equality and reconciling them in a
harmonious manner.
However critics do not agree with rawls notion of justice as fairness and raise
problems of implicit bias inherent in men who frame the basic structure using his
principles.
Also criticism is raised on the ground that rawls social contract of basic structure is a
mere abstraction which is divorced from real life situation and context making
fairness a mere utopian dream . it is also alleged to be indifferent to the aim of
common good.
Despite these criticisms rawls theory of fairness being fundamental to the idea of
justice stands its ground as any society however economically developed or culturally
progressive it may be runs a risk of implosion if all its citizens are not convinced of its
being fair to their interests.
For example the American initiave of welfare action by the state called obamacare
was defended by president Obama on the ground that it aimed at fair treatment of
weaker sections of society which felt victims of exploitation by the American
capitalist system.

Q: can issue relating to gender discrimination be met by the conception of justice as

fairness?discuss -20 marks

Gender discrimination leads to injustice to females or males members of a society on

many fronts chiefly cultural, economic and political spheres.

Females are treated as the weaker sex and similar gender roles are assigned to
women for upholding this world view of them. They are expected to be submissive to
male members in their private and public lives .All these expectations are enshrined
in norms established by religion or patriarchal social set up.The justice as fairness
approach can be used to tackle this problem as it ensures equal basic liberty and
freedom to all members of a society regardless of their gender or the prevailing
biases and mindsets in religious or cultural spheres.
If the society is fair to female members while allocating benefits and burdens and
treats them as equals to males according to a basic structure that is not infected with
personal biases and prejudices then it can lead to empowerment of women and allow
them equal opportunity to prosper. Similarly many male members face injustice in life
due to prevalent social norms where males are supposed to suppress their emotions
unlike women a s a token of muscularity which has lead to severe outbreak of
depression and stress among males worldwide a society that treats all males as
humans instead of attributing gender roles to them will be just and fair.eg recently
govt of india is providing paternity leave to male employees so that they can get to
enjoy the happiness of being a parent as much as the female members.
Similarly in political and economic spheres the problems like equal pay for equal work
, equal opportunity for participation in political set up and equal sharing of
responsibilities at home can be solved when society is setup on a basic structure
arrived at by fair principles of justice.
Justice as fairness approach is a very promising scheme of social set up which can
confront many problems of gender discrimination however the practical feasibility of
this approach unlike its theoretical aspect is a question that remains. The basic social
setup recommended by rawls using his social contract theory seems to be difficult to
achieve in real life where humans can rarely abstract themselves from their real life
contexts while formulating laws of a society.
An example is that most of directive principles of state policy which aim to achieve
socio-economic and political parity remain un achieved till date even after being
meticulously framed eg women reservation bill still hasnt been passed by the
parliament.

Q:which principle of justice can in your view be most helpful in addressing the issues
related to caste discrimination and why? 2011- 20 marks

In my view the second principle of john rawls concept of justice as fairness will be
most helpful in addressing issues related to caste discrimination.
Caste discrimination has lead to unjust distribution of social ,politicaland
economic capital among the indian society for several hundred years and
affirmative action by the state using laws formulated under the guiding principles
of justice as fairness can be expected to redress the prime grievances of the
depressed castes.
The first aspect of the second principle of justice according to john rawls is that
any social or economic inequalities in society must satisfy the condition that it is
thrown open to all under the condition of fair equality of opportunity that is in
case of caste discrimination the disadavantage caused by years of exploitation
and deprivation of social capital has first to be redressed using affirmative action
in form of reservations by the state which can finally result in a fair equality of
opportunity.

A mere formal equality of opportunity will not be able to take care of the inherent
and implicit advantages that accrue to the upper castes of society. The facility of
reservation provided for by the indian constitution oveririding the right to
equality is an embodiment of the second principle of justice as fairness.
The second aspect of second principle is that socio economic ineqality in society
must satisfy the difference principle that is it must be justified on the ground that
it leads to greatest benefit of the least advantaged in the society. Thus wealth
creation by the better off can be used by state to address the grievances of
depressed castes to uplift them by using schemes such as progressive taxation
system and economic wavers cheap loans etc to the lower castes in society.
This principle also ensures that the better off among lower castes cannot take
undue advantage using their caste position at expense of weaker among the
lower castes.

Q: justice is treating equals as equals and unequals as unequals.2008 -20 marks

Distributive justice in view of aristettotle is treating equals as equals and unequals

as unequals
It is the underlying principle behind the notion of equality before law and equal
protection of law as enshrined in the indian constitution. The law should be
objectively applied as per the prevailing customs of the time on a similar class of
cases.
This notion of justice treats the principle of equality as central to the administration
of justice and emphasizes that people in similar circumstances should be given
similar treatement in the eyes of law as well as people who differ in circumstaces
must not be subjected to same treatment by law.
It also means application of same rules under same conditions with integrity however
a fundamental flaw is that aristettotle leaves the definition of equal and unequal to
prevailing customs which are liable to flaws and injustice. Eg radical islamist treat
human beings as unequals by mere difference of faith.
Also this view of justice treats weaker sections of society as worthy of differential
treatment on the basis of their standing in society eg differentially abled and
diseased citizens can be justified to be allocated less resources of the society as they
may not as productive to the economy as the healthier ones.this theory hence fails to
treat all humans as rational beings which have to be treated with equal dignity. Eg
aristettole treated female citizens with contempt using his notion of equality and
inequality as they were unequal to men on basis of their sex.

Q:Free market economy is the only way of attaining social justice.2007 20

The quest for justice is only meaningful in an open society facing scarcity. A free
market economy has already decided the principle by which allocations will be
strictly made hence it cannot be relied upon for social justice.
A purely free market economy cannot have any mechanism to take care of the
substantive notions of equality freedom and liberty. It also fails to provide just
and humane conditions of living to weaker sections of the society.
A free market economy tries to create a basic scructure centered on the
philosophy of survival of the fittest and subordinates all other aspects of human
existence to his monetary worth in the market.

It ignores individual dignity and significance in favour of economic growth and

prosperity of few.
While trying to ensure reards according to deeds in a society it fails to account for
the advantages or disadvantages accuring to various individuals because of the
surroundings they were born into.
However free market economy subject to the difference principle of john rawls
can be helpful in establishing social justice as it treats the society analogus to a
chain of a machine in which the weakest link determines the performance of the
entire machine and hence continuous monitoring and fortification of the weakest
link is necessary to achieve a better performance of the whole system. The
democratic socialist state is an example of market economy regulated by the
state for welfare of citizens in an example of the above mentioned principle which
is visible in the progressive economies of Norway Sweden etc.
But under no circumstances is free market economy the only way of ensuring
social justice. The glaring example of inablity of free market economy in ensuring
social justice was visible in the form of the great economic depression of 1930s.

Q: according to some liberal political thinkers social and economical inequalities can be
justified only if they work to the advantage of the least advantaged members of society. Is
this view consistent with the liberalisms cardinal advocacy of individual freedom?discuss
2007- 60 marks

Some liberal political thinkers prominently john Rawlss have opined that socioeconomic inequalities if any can be justified only if they can be prooven to provide
greatest benefit to the least advantaged members of the society. This view is often
criticized by liberals on the pretext that it is a direct onslaught over their cardinal
principle of individual freedom.
Liberals argue that a hardworking talented member of society should have no
obligation to work for benefit of a weaker member as this goes against the principle
of individual freedom.
However rawls difference principle is not inconsistent with the principle of individual
freedom as rawls first principle of equal liberty to all has been envisaged as the
overriding principle of his conception of justice as fairness. No constraint can be
placed on liberty unless it is proven to facilitate equal liberty for all members of the
society.
All members of society are supposed to enjoy not mere formal equality of freedom
but substantive equality of freedom which can be achieved only if the disadvantages
occurring due to standing of persons in a society as well as their economic
disadvantages can be removed .
This alone can allow them to exercise equal basic freedom as compared to other
members of a society.
Rawls has envisaged society as a chain, the weakest link has to be identified and
fortified for flawless function of the entire chain any weak link is likely to bring down
the performance of the entire chain.
According to rawls the talented or successful people of society owe their prosperity to
the facilitating social system provided to them in which the weaker sections have

played an equal part and the fair basic structure hence requires them to work for the
benefit of the weakest members.
This difference principle is not opposed to his first principle of equal basic liberties as
every individual negotiator who creates the basic structure of the society is trying to
maximize his self intrest which turns out to be compatible with the self intrest of all
members of the society.
Infact the stability of the social structure arrived at by such negotiation is dependant
on the compatibility of individual freedom and the difference principle. Democratic
socialism for example are a system where basic human freedoms are assured along
with affirmative action by the state to uplift the depressed sections of society.

Q:Explain and evaluate Aristotle's conception of justice.-15 marks 2013

Aristettotles conception of justice was a conservative one .He believed that there
was an identical notion of justice in the minds of people which held them together as
a state.He thus described three types of justice:

1.distributive justice which was to be the prerogative of the legislator and aimed at
just allocation of honours and wealth in society .It was based on the notion that
equals must be treated equally and unequals unequally . the classification of
people as equal or unequals was to be based upon customary law.

2.retributive justice was to be the prerogative of the judge and dealt with imposition
of punishment and payment of damages to achieve full restoration of damages
involuntary incurred my a member of society.

3.commutative justice was to be the prerogative of the judge and seeks to determine
amount of one sort of good or service for another in voluntary transactions. Its
principle was full equivalence.

Aristettoles guiding principle behind distributive justice is subject to sevre criticism

on the ground that it leaves the classification of people as equals or unequals on the
whims and fancies of the prevailing customary law which can lead to gross injustice
meted out to weaker members of the society.

It results in validation of discrimination against backward classes of citizens as they

are accorded unequal status in society based on ascribed properties or economic
status.

Aristetotles conception of justice lays stress on formal equality and ignores the needs
of substantive equality which alone can take care of the impact of society on an
individual while classifying them as equals or unequals.this goes against the
treatment of all members of society as rational humans with equal dignity.

Thus aristettoles conception of justice is a mere procedural one and neglects the
need for substantive justice

Q: What is meant by Justice as fairness'? Explain the basic tenets of Rawls' theory of
Justice.15 marks 2013

Justice as fairness is the conception of justice as propounded by john rawls. It means

that a basic criteria of justice as enacted by law makers of a society who are
reasonable and rational and abstracted from their real life biases under fair
conditions will automatically lead to construction of a fair and just society once put
into practice.

Justice hence has fairness as its fundamental notion according to rawls .

The theory of justice by rawls is based on two fundamental principles on which the
fair and just basic structure will be built.

While trying to negotiate under fair conditions the negotiators are abstracted from
their real life surrondings and placed behind a veil of ignorance which rids them of
all biases and prejudices which infect them in real life. This negotiating position is
called the original position by rawls.

According to rawls all negotiators being rational and reasonable and endowed with a
sense of justice will enact two principles for the basic structure.

1. The principle of equal basic liberty for all : this first principle will be accorded the
heighest priority and any constraint on individual liberty will be allowed only if it
leads to equal liberty among all members of society.

2. The principle of inequality :any socio-economic inequality in society has to fulfill

two conditions:

2.1. principle of fair equality of opportunity: any socio-economic inequality in stature

or office in society can be permissible only if it is open to all members equally.here
equality of opportunity is not mere formal but substantial.

2.2. principle of difference : any rewards over and above basic necessities to a
talented member will be permissible only if it is proven to bring greatest benefit to
the weakest member, Thus rawls tries to achieve substantive justice using a fair
procedure of justice in his theory.

Q: How is Amartya Sen's approach to justice different from that of Rawls?20 marks 2013

Amrtya sen differs in his approach from rawls and alleges that rawls in his theory has
drifted too far from the actual world. That social context although complex does not
have to be abstracted from men while designing a just social order and can be
accounted for by using tools of economics.

Sen argues that economists have tended to content themselves with a laughably
simple picture of human motivation, rationality and well-being. People are not purely
self-interested. They care for others and observe social norms. This is also similar to
the implicit bias argument against rawls.

They do not always reason instrumentally, seeking least-cost means to given ends.
They question the point of their aims and the worth of their wants. Well-being has no
single measure and is not inscrutable to others

. Well-being's diverse elements (freedom from hunger, disease, indignity and

discrimination, to name four) are generally observable and, he believes, measurable.
They are, to put it crudely, matters of fact, not taste.

Rawls held that social justice depended on having just institutions, whereas Mr Sen
thinks that good social outcomes are what matter.

The practical brunt of Mr Sen's criticism, is that just institutions do not

ensure social justice.

Sen also maintains that one can recognise social injustices without knowing how a
perfectly fair society would arrange or justify itself. Hence Rawlsianism, though
laudable in spirit, is too theoretical, and has distracted political philosophers from
corrigible ills in the actual world.

Mr Sen wants to humanise canons of maximising rationality.by trying to

encapsulate ethics and economics as one discipline.

Q: what is meant by justice ?what are the necessary and sufficient conditions
for its availability discuss 2002-60 marks

Justice is a dynamic idea whose conception changes with time as the reason of the
society in question evolves.

There have been varied definitions of justice throughout human history with the
traditional conceptions of justice defining a just society as one in which individuals do
justice to their duties or develop virtues befitting their duty in society. The traditional
view thus defines justice as an idea which has multiple aspects manifested in society
through just citizens.

The modern view of justice however is citizen centric and puts the onus on the state
to achieve a just social order .Thus justice in modern sense means allocation of the
various benefits and burdens in society according to a just manner or criteria in a
situation of scarcity according to a criteria arrived at by discussion and
acceptable to all citizens or categories of citizens

There are two necessary conditions for availability of justice in a society viz:
1.The need for an open society : and open society where discussion is possible
while enacting the criteria for allocation of benefits and burden is a necessary
condition for availability of justice

Justice will not be available in a society which is not open eg in a purely free market
economy the criteria of justice cannot be debated and adopted as it already works on
the fixed method of allocation by market forces.

Similarly in a purely communist society justice is not available as the criteria for
justice cannot be debated and adopted by members but is imposed by the state
.Moreover the principle of to all according to their needs is not practical as resources
are scarce.

Justice is also not available in a totalitarian society as the criteria are dictated by the
autocratic individual or institution.

2. A situation of scarcity: This is second necessary condition for availability of

justice as if there is no scarcity there will be no need for justice as each member will
get as much as he wants from the surplus resources.

Apart from this there are sufficient conditions for justice viz:

1.Availability of a mutually agreed to and acceptable to all criteria: justice is

available when a criteria for its administration has been adopted after a debate and
is acceptable to all members or categories of members in a society.

2.Availability of recourse to protest or appeal: justice is an evolving idea and

must conform to the prevailing reason of the time and hence no enacted criteria can
be considered perfect. This necessitates the provision of procedures for appeal or
protest to the members of the society .

These two above mentioned necessary and sufficient conditions ensure that justice
can be made available in a society.

Q: Consider the following argument justice means getting what one deserves: a person
who contributes more to society deserves more than a person who contributes less to
society. The only fair way to determine how much a person has contributed to society is
to let people as a whole decide through free market. Therefore free market is the only
way to attain justice. Would you agree with above point of view? Defend your answer
2001-60 marks

The above mentioned notion of justice is a partial one as it merely focuses on the
reward one deserves according to desert and completely ignores the reward one
deserves by the mere conditions of his standing in a society.

Contribution of a person to the society is not merely in economic sphere but

encompasses all spheres of human existence. Some talents of individuals may yield
economic or monetary benfits but others such as art and cultural talents may not be
as beneficial in monetary terms but may help people of a society build their lives in
an aesthetic way around some shared values.eg poets like qazi nasrul islam have
contributed to nation building much more through their poems than many business
tycoons in India.

Also the contribution that a person makes to society in economic sphere does not
necessarily mean it was completely his or her individual effort. It is made possible by
the whole society which gives him or her a platform to showcase their talents.eg the
internet was invented by us govt. which could later be used by private companies like
facebook to make money.

Thus it is very hard to arrive at the real contribution made by a member of society by
just quantifying his contribution in monetary terms to the economy.

The second aspect of this opinion is also flawed as it considers free market economy
to be the criteria reflecting judgement of people as a whole. History is full of
evidences where market forces have tended to side with the the upper classes of
society who manipulate market effectively using unfair means. The biggest example
of this was the great economic depresson of 1930s . Social justice is the only way of
voicing of concerns of the weaker sections of society unlike a free market scheme.

Hence I do not agree with the assertion that a free market can be the only way of
faciliatating just distribution of burdens and benefits within a society. It has mostly
resulted in skewed distribution favouring the upper classes as is evident from the
glaring inequalities within the capitalist world. A free market subject to certain fair
conditions of distribution procedure is better equipped to administer justice than a
purely free market.