What is justice?
In simple words, justice means giving each person what is due to them. Old thinkers in many cultures linked it to a good society: in ancient Greece Plato discussed it through Socrates' debates; in China Confucius said rulers must punish wrongdoers and reward the virtuous; in India, the idea of dharma and nyaya tied a ruler's duty to justice. The German thinker Immanuel Kant said every person has dignity, so each must get the chance to develop fully.
Social justice applies this to society: how goods (income, land, jobs), services (schools, health) and chances are shared among people. Our Constitution's Preamble promises social, economic and political justice.
Just distribution: three principles
- Equal treatment for equals: people have equal rights as human beings; do not treat them differently because of caste, religion or gender. Equal pay for equal work.
- Proportionate justice: reward should be in proportion to effort, skill and risk. A surgeon who trained for years may earn more.
- Recognition of special needs: people with disabilities, or groups kept down for long, may need extra help to get equal chances.
These can pull in different directions, so a just society must balance them. In India, land reform, reservation and support for persons with disabilities are attempts at just distribution.
John Rawls: the veil of ignorance
The American thinker John Rawls asked: how can we choose fair rules when everyone wants rules that suit themselves?
- Imagine we must decide the rules of society before we know our place in it: rich or poor, man or woman, which caste or community, healthy or disabled.
- This is the veil of ignorance. Behind it, a rational person will think of the worst case and choose rules that protect the worst-off, because that might be them.
- This is not charity; it is rational self-interest leading to fairness. Inequalities are allowed only if they also benefit the least advantaged.
Pursuing social justice
A just society first ensures everyone can lead a healthy, secure life with basic minimum needs: enough food, clean water, housing, health care, education and a minimum wage. People disagree on how to measure this (for example, where to draw the poverty line) and on how to provide it.
Indian examples: free and compulsory schooling for children, midday meals, public health centres, subsidised food through ration shops, and a guarantee of rural work. Once a floor is secured, people can compete fairly.
Free market versus state intervention
| Free market view | State intervention view | |
|---|---|---|
| Belief | Open competition rewards talent and effort; gives cheaper, better goods | Markets ignore those who cannot pay; they can deepen inequality |
| State's role | Small: protect law and contracts, maybe a basic minimum | Large: provide schools, health, jobs, welfare |
| Worry | State services may be slow or poor in quality | Private services may be too costly for the poor |
Many countries, including India, follow a mixed path: markets for many goods, plus state action for basic needs and for those left behind.
Exam tips
This chapter carries about 6 marks. Common questions: three principles of justice with examples, Rawls' veil of ignorance, basic needs, and a debate on free market vs state. Always end a 'free market vs state' answer with a balanced conclusion.
Try it at home
Share 10 biscuits among 4 family members: one did the most housework, one is sick, two are equal. Try each rule: equal shares, shares by effort, extra for the sick. Then play Rawls: let one person divide and pick last. Write what changed.
Key formulas and definitions
- Justice: giving each person their due.
- Social justice: fair sharing of goods, services and chances in society.
- Equal treatment for equals; proportionate reward; extra for special needs.
- Veil of ignorance (Rawls): choose rules without knowing your own position.
- Worst-off: the least advantaged people in society.
- Basic minimum needs: food, water, housing, health, education, minimum wage.
- Mixed approach: market plus state welfare.
Worked examples
1. A company pays a woman less than a man for the same job. Which principle of justice is broken?
Equal treatment for equals: same work must get the same pay regardless of gender.
2. A doctor earns more than a helper at the hospital. Is this unjust?
Not necessarily. By proportionate justice, years of training, skill and responsibility can justify higher pay, as long as the helper also earns a fair, decent wage.
3. Why would a person behind Rawls' veil of ignorance support free schooling?
Because they do not know if they will be born poor. If they are, free schooling protects their chance. So rational self-interest leads them to support it.
4. Give two Indian schemes that pursue social justice by meeting basic needs.
Midday meals in schools (food and school attendance) and subsidised grain at ration shops (food security). Others: rural work guarantee, public health centres.
5. Argue both sides: should health care be left to the free market?
For: private hospitals compete, bring new technology and choice. Against: the poor may not afford treatment, and health is a basic need. Balanced view: a mix of private hospitals with strong public hospitals and insurance for the poor.
Common mistakes
- Thinking justice always means giving everyone exactly the same.
- Saying Rawls wanted charity. He argued that rational self-interest behind the veil leads to fairness.
- Forgetting the 'special needs' principle when explaining just distribution.
- Writing only one side in a free market vs state answer.