Concepts in Political Theory: Justice

For over two thousand years, justice has held a central place in political philosophy. Throughout history, political philosophers and theorists have envisioned the ideal society as one that embodies justice.

Justice is a multifaceted concept that touches every aspect of human life. While primarily a matter of moral philosophy, it also becomes a central issue in political philosophy since it must be implemented through political systems. At its core, justice concerns the idea that individuals should receive what they deserve. However, what constitutes “deserving” varies according to different fields and perspectives—ranging from morality, ethics, law, religion, equity, reason, and fairness.

In both ethics and law, the concept of justice plays a pivotal role. We apply it to individual actions, laws, and public policies, and when we deem these unjust, it often provides a compelling, if not conclusive, reason for rejection. Traditionally, justice has been regarded as one of the four cardinal virtues. Plato identified prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude (or courage) as essential virtues for both a happy individual and a well-ordered society. He also believed that those who possess these virtues should govern the ideal state, with justice often regarded as the most significant of the four virtues.

In modern times, John Rawls famously referred to justice as “the first virtue of social institutions.”

Meaning and Definition

The term “justice” originates from the Latin word jungere, meaning “to bind” or “to tie together.” Similarly, the word jus signifies “tie” or “bond.” In this sense, justice can be understood as a system in which individuals are interconnected through close relationships, serving as a unifying force within society. Justice aims to harmonize different values and structure human relations around these principles. Therefore, it refers to the process of bonding, joining, or organizing people into a fair and equitable order of relationships.

According to Webster’s Dictionary, justice involves upholding or administering what is right, especially through the impartial resolution of conflicting claims or the fair distribution of rewards and punishments. Plato defines justice as the practice of individuals doing and having what is properly theirs, while Aristotle views it as a virtue expressed through action. Salmond describes justice as ensuring that everyone receives their due share, and Raphael asserts that justice safeguards both individual rights and societal order. C.E. Merriam adds that justice consists of a system of understandings and procedures through which each person is granted what is agreed upon as fair. John Rawls famously defines justice as fairness.

Justice is a fundamental organizing principle of society and holds central importance in political theory. In defending or challenging laws, policies, decisions, and government actions, arguments are frequently made in the name of justice. Every movement that seeks to secure people’s rights or interests is grounded in the demand for justice. Civil rights movements, at their core, are movements for justice.

According to Salmond, Justice means to distribute the due share to everybody.”

According to Raphael, “Justice protects the rights of the individual as well as the order of society.”

C.E. Merriam has said, “Justice consists in a system of understandings and a procedure through which each is accorded what is agreed upon as fair.”

Historical Evolution

The Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle offer profound insights into justice, emphasizing both personal fulfillment and achievement—key elements in the idea of human emancipation. Plato defines justice as “the having and doing of what is one’s own,” meaning that justice is a virtue where individuals perform their duties honestly and refrain from interfering in the affairs of others. Thus, justice, for Plato, is fundamentally about promoting human welfare.

Aristotle similarly describes justice as a virtue expressed through action. For both Plato and Aristotle, justice represents a commitment to virtue and an adherence to the natural order and laws. Their theories aim to foster unity, harmony, virtue, and happiness within society by identifying a general principle of human capability. Consequently, they placed greater emphasis on the substantive aspects of justice, focusing on its content rather than procedural processes.

Aristotle, while admiring Plato’s ideas, expanded them in his own way. He is credited with founding the theory of happiness, stating that the state “comes into being, founded in the bare need of life, and exists for the sake of good living.” This connection between the state and the pursuit of a good life is rooted in ancient Greek tradition and remains central to contemporary theories of justice.

The Social Contract theories of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau primarily centered on the institutional structure of society, a perspective often referred to as “transcendental institutionalism.” This approach has two key characteristics. First, it emphasizes the concept of perfect justice rather than focusing on relative comparisons between justice and injustice. Second, in its quest for ideal justice, transcendental institutionalism places more importance on perfecting institutions rather than on the societies that will emerge from them.

In modern times, the concept of justice is closely tied to the idea of social justice, which addresses various forms of inequality within society. Social justice maintains that no one should be too poor to be exploited, nor too rich to dominate others. The principles of liberty and equality derive their meaning from social justice when they aim to transform existing social conditions and eliminate injustice.

John Rawls’ theory of distributive justice (1971) and Amartya Sen’s concept of justice, which will be discussed later in this chapter, both place significant emphasis on the importance of social justice.

Dimensions of Justice

When the modern idea of justice is applied to the various aspects of social life we get legal, political, and socio-economic notions of justice.

Legal Justice

Legal justice operates in two key contexts: the creation of just laws and the fair application of these laws. When formulating laws, it is essential that the will of the rulers is not imposed upon the people. Instead, laws should be grounded in public opinion and address the needs of society. Social values, morality, conventions, and the concepts of justice and injustice must be considered. When laws fail to align with societal values and moral principles, citizens are less likely to genuinely accept or follow them, making enforcement difficult. Laws are truly just when they are respected not out of fear of authority, but because people internally recognize them as fair, reasonable, and good.

Legal justice is based on the rule of law, not the rule of any individual. It encompasses two principles: that all people are equal before the law, and that the law applies equally to everyone. Legal justice ensures legal security for all without discrimination between the rich and the poor. Impartial and fair dispensation of justice by the courts is a fundamental aspect of legal justice. As Salmond stated, “The aim of the law is the establishment of what is legitimate, to provide legal security, and to prevent unjust actions.”

Political Justice

The political dimensions of justice emphasize that no one should be denied political rights, and ensuring equal political rights for all is central to achieving political justice. Political justice is built on several key conditions, including: universal adult suffrage, the right to contest elections, the right to criticize the government, the right to form political parties, the right to protest, and the right to petition. Additionally, respect for human rights and the protection of minority interests are crucial elements.

Political authority should be based on the consent of the people, supported by a democratic system. There should also be special provisions for safeguarding the interests of marginalized groups, such as backward classes and tribes, to promote inclusivity and fairness in the political sphere.

Economic Justice

Economic justice, as outlined in the Directive Principles of State Policy in Part IV of the Indian Constitution, represents a key objective of the state. This goal seeks to eradicate poverty not by expropriating wealth from the rich, but by increasing national wealth and resources and ensuring their equitable distribution among all who contribute to their creation.

Justice in economics is a branch of welfare economics and encompasses a set of moral and ethical principles for structuring economic institutions. Its aim is to create opportunities for every individual to lead a dignified, productive, and creative life that transcends mere financial considerations. Economic justice promotes the idea that a fairer economy is a more successful one, asserting that prosperity and justice complement each other rather than conflict. The ultimate goal is to provide opportunities for all to thrive.

Social Justice

Social justice is generally understood to mean that all individuals in a society should be treated equally, with no discrimination based on religion, caste, creed, color, sex, or status. However, different scholars interpret social justice in varying ways. Some argue that social justice involves ensuring that every individual receives their due share in the social sphere, while others believe it is about distributing social facilities and rights based on law and fairness. In essence, social justice is synonymous with equal social rights.

According to Barker, “Social justice aims to provide equal opportunities for every individual to develop their inherent qualities.” Gajendragadkar similarly explains that social justice means eliminating all forms of social inequality and ensuring equal opportunities for all. The modern concept of justice is deeply linked to social justice, which focuses on addressing and rectifying societal inequalities. It upholds the principle that no one should be so poor as to be exploited, and no one so rich as to oppress others. The values of liberty and equality derive their full meaning from social justice, as these principles strive to transform societal conditions to eliminate injustice.

The Indian Constitution embodies several provisions to secure social, economic, and political justice. It has abolished untouchability and grants every citizen the equal right to access public places, places of worship, and entertainment. The state cannot discriminate against citizens based on birth, caste, color, creed, sex, faith, title, or status. A society free from privileged classes is a key attribute of social justice.

Justice encompasses four major dimensions: social, economic, political, and legal. These dimensions are interconnected and mutually dependent. Justice is fully realized only when all four aspects are present. Without social and economic justice, true political and legal justice cannot exist. Social and economic inequalities inherently lead to the denial of political and legal justice, as those who are oppressed and marginalized are often unable to participate in politics or seek legal protection. Conversely, without political rights and equal legal protection, individuals cannot secure their social and economic rights.

Ultimately, justice requires the presence of rights, liberty, and equality in society, as only then can it truly shape the character of life within a community.

Types of Justice

Procedural and Substantive Justice

Procedural justice refers to the fairness in the processes used to resolve disputes and distribute resources. One key aspect of procedural justice is its connection to the administration of justice and legal proceedings. In organizational settings, procedural justice encourages positive attitudes and behaviors, while reducing negative actions within society. Rooted in liberalism, it emphasizes that the role of justice is to regulate relationships between individuals and groups, with a focus on creating reasonable, impartial rules applicable to all. Key proponents of procedural justice include Herbert Spencer, F.A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, and Robert Nozick.

In contrast, substantive justice pertains to the justice delivered according to the rules of law, while procedural justice ensures a fair and equitable process leading to that outcome. Substantive justice focuses on the essence or content of laws and whether they provide equitable opportunities for the poor and disadvantaged to improve their circumstances. John Rawls sought to integrate the principles of substantive or social justice into his well-known framework for procedural justice, ensuring fairness not only in the process but also in the outcomes that affect society’s marginalized groups.

Retributive and Distributive Justice

Aristotle defined retributive and distributive justice in line with his conservative perspective, but in modern times, these concepts must be reinterpreted in light of contemporary social consciousness. Retributive justice today is generally understood as a response to criminal behavior that focuses on punishing offenders and compensating victims. Typically, the severity of the punishment is proportional to the seriousness of the crime. David Miller outlines three conditions for ensuring justice in punishment: first, that only those proven guilty of wrongdoing should be punished, following proper legal procedures; second, that punishment should be applied uniformly, meaning the differences in penalties must correspond to the differences in crimes; and third, that penalties should be proportionate to the offenses—neither excessively harsh nor overly lenient.

On the other hand, distributive justice concerns how people perceive the fairness of what they receive or, more broadly, how they view the fairness of allocations. This aspect of justice has garnered significant attention in the field of organizational justice and continues to be a focus of study. Miller identifies three key principles of distributive justice, each associated with different social orders. The first is the “protection of acknowledged rights,” which corresponds to a hierarchical social order, with David Hume as its main advocate. The second principle, “distribution according to desert,” supports a competitive market system, championed by Herbert Spencer. The third principle, “distribution according to need,” aligns with a community based on solidarity, with Peter Kropotkin as its leading proponent.

Distributive justice aims to regulate the relationship between the state and individuals, focusing on how fairly people are treated and ensuring that the distribution of resources and opportunities reflects these principles.

Diverse Perspectives on Justice

Liberal perspective

The liberal perspective on justice emphasizes liberty as its central concern, often associated with John Rawls’ “theory of justice.” Rawls is renowned for his concept of justice as fairness, which establishes principles to govern a modern social order. He asserts that fairness is the primary virtue of a “well-ordered society.” In his seminal work, A Theory of Justice (1971), Rawls employs a variant of the social contract theory to address the issue of distributive justice. He argues that principles of justice should be realized through social cooperation, emphasizing the right to be a free and equal citizen. This notion is central to his theory of social cooperation, which is grounded in procedural justice and supported by overlapping consensus. Rawls criticizes any distribution of resources that disregards the moral worth of individuals in pursuit of predetermined goals. He notably challenges utilitarianism for its indifference to the suffering of individuals in the pursuit of the “greatest happiness for the greatest number,” arguing that the joys of the prosperous cannot justify the hardships of the distressed.

To uncover a unanimous or public conception of justice, John Rawls revives the tradition of social contract theory and introduces the concept of the “original position,” akin to a state of nature. In this hypothetical scenario, individuals are placed behind a “veil of ignorance,” where they deliberate as rational agents without knowledge of their personal desires, interests, skills, or social status. However, they retain a basic understanding of economics, psychology, and possess a sense of justice. Each person aims to maximize their well-being without envy, avoiding risk or gambling. In this state of uncertainty, they choose the safest course of action. This means each individual would hypothetically consider themselves in the least advantaged position when determining the criteria for the distribution of primary goods. As a result, they would advocate for the greatest benefit to the least advantaged.

From this imagined negotiation, two principles of justice emerge, agreed upon by all. In his book A Theory of Justice (1971), Rawls outlines these two principles:

1. Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all (later updated to “the fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties”).
2. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both:
   (a) To the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just savings principle, and
   (b) Attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.

The first principle is often referred to as the principle of equal liberty. The second principle is divided into two parts: (a) is known as the difference principle, and (b) is known as the equal opportunity principle.

Rawls orders these principles of justice in a lexical hierarchy: 1, 2b, 2a. The principle of equal liberty takes precedence, followed by the equal opportunity principle, and finally the difference principle. The first principle must be satisfied before 2b, and 2b must be satisfied before 2a.

By integrating the concepts of liberty and equality, Rawls presents a comprehensive view of social justice. He offers a method for using procedural justice as a tool to achieve substantive justice.

Critical Evaluation

John Rawls’s theory of justice has faced criticism from various perspectives. Marshall Cohen described A Theory of Justice as “magisterial,” praising Rawls’s use of analytic philosophy as the most formidable defense of the social contract tradition to date. However, Cohen also criticized Rawls for a lack of clarity in his understanding of some fundamental political concepts. Robert Nozick, in his defense of libertarianism, challenged Rawls’s account of distributive justice. From a Marxist standpoint, Robert Paul Wolff argued that Rawls’s theory serves as an apology for the status quo by constructing justice from existing practices and overlooking potential injustices rooted in capitalist social relations, private property, or the market economy. Michael Sandel criticized Rawls for encouraging people to think about justice in isolation from the values and aspirations that define their identities, thereby allowing people to determine what justice is without reference to their deeper personal convictions.

Feminist scholar Susan Moller Okin acknowledged Rawls’s theory as “the most influential of all twentieth-century ideas of justice,” but criticized him for failing to address the injustices and hierarchies present in familial relations. Economist Amartya Sen also raised concerns, arguing in Inequality Reexamined (1992) that Rawls’s focus on core social goods neglects how effectively individuals can use those goods to achieve their goals. Sen questioned Rawls’s emphasis on an “ideal theory” that claims universal applicability. G.A. Cohen criticized Rawls for accepting inequality under the difference principle, applying this principle only to social institutions, and what he perceived as Rawls’s fixation on using primary goods as the measure of equality.

Despite these criticisms, John Rawls’s theory of justice remains one of the most significant and influential theories of the twenty-first century. Rawls’s approach to justice, based on fairness, argues that fairness is achieved when every individual has access to the services they need. His theory posits that justice is not about absolute equity but about fairness, supported by two key principles. Amartya Sen also recognized Rawls’s theory as “the most influential – and in many ways the most important – of contemporary theories of justice.”

Amartya Sen’s View of Justice: A Critique of Rawls’s theory of justice

Amartya Sen’s perspectives on capabilities and justice provide a useful framework for analyzing John Rawls’s theory of justice. Sen’s capability approach aligns with the broader goals of justice by emphasizing the importance of individuals having the freedom to choose and live a life they value. Unlike Rawls, who focuses on the distribution of primary goods, Sen argues that justice should be measured by the extent to which individuals can convert these goods into meaningful lives. In this view, capabilities represent freedom, while Rawls’s primary goods are merely tools to achieve that freedom. Sen contends that equality of freedom to pursue personal goals cannot be guaranteed by simply distributing primary goods equally, as Rawls suggests.

Sen elaborates on his critique of Rawls in his book The Idea of Justice (2009). He challenges Rawls’s emphasis on an “ideal theory” of justice that claims universal applicability, arguing that such a perspective is problematic. Through the story of Ann, Bob, and Carla, Sen illustrates the challenges of limited resources and competing claims. He also introduces the concepts of “niti” and “nyaya,” where “niti” refers to the adherence to rules and norms, and “nyaya” focuses on the realization of justice in practice. While “niti” can be seen as an abstract activity aimed at maximizing public welfare, “nyaya” is concerned with the actual upholding of justice in society.

Sen’s main criticism of Rawls’s theory is that it is based on a moral assumption known as “transcendental institutionalism,” which, according to Sen, becomes problematic when it encounters real-world constraints. Sen argues that issues of justice are not just about institutional structures but also about human behavior and the actual experiences of individuals. Justice, in Sen’s view, is more about how people live their lives than merely about the design of the institutions that govern them. He also notes that striving for an idealized vision of society can lead to a reduction in overall injustice, even if perfect justice remains unattainable.

Both Rawls and Sen share a common critique of utilitarianism, rejecting the notion that a just society is one that merely maximizes the welfare of the majority. Instead of debating whether Rawls’s “Concept of Justice” or Sen’s “Idea of Justice” is superior, one could argue that Sen’s concept of justice builds upon and complements Rawls’s framework, offering a more nuanced and practical approach to understanding justice.

Libertarian perspective of justice

This perspective on justice is closely aligned with Robert Nozick’s libertarian views, which prioritize individual freedom as the foundation for justice. Libertarians argue that justice demands strong protections for individual liberty and imposes strict limits on coercion. While it may be justifiable to compel individuals to refrain from violating the rights of others, libertarians contend that no one should be coerced into serving the overall good of society or even their own good. Consequently, libertarians advocate for robust rights to individual liberty and private property.

Libertarian views are particularly controversial in the context of distributive justice. In this area, libertarians typically support a free-market economy, where economic order is based on private property and voluntary market exchanges between individuals. As a result, libertarians place great importance on rights related to freedom of contract and exchange, freedom of occupation, and the protection of private property.

Nozick’s view of Justice

In his influential book Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974), Robert Nozick presents a theory of justice that contrasts sharply with John Rawls’s. As a staunch advocate of pure libertarianism, Nozick does not focus on the distribution of goods as if they were gifts of nature; instead, he adopts a realistic approach that accounts for various “modes of acquisition” and the entitlements individuals have to own these goods. Nozick identifies three sources for acquiring goods:

1. Individuals have an absolute right over themselves, including the freedom to use their bodies and minds as they see fit.
2. An individual may acquire a portion of the natural world or resources through various methods, and principles of entitlement are needed to justify their use of these resources.
3. The things people create by applying themselves to the natural world are also subject to individual entitlement, which should not be questioned.

Nozick introduces the concept of “principles of entitlement” to explain how justice underpins individuals’ claims to resources and products of labor. He outlines three key principles that define just entitlement:

1. Initial Acquisition: This principle addresses how individuals come to possess unclaimed resources, including the various types of possessions that are permissible.
2. Voluntary Transfer: This principle explains how one person can acquire holdings from another, covering voluntary exchanges and gifts.
3. Rectification: This principle deals with correcting injustices related to unjust acquisition or transfer of holdings, including determining whether and how much compensation should be given to victims, addressing past transgressions or injustices by governments, and similar concerns.

Nozick emphasizes that the mode of acquisition should not create scarcity for others. Voluntary transfer applies to all property, whether it was acquired through initial acquisition or as the product of labor. Rectification is an area where the state and the international community may justifiably intervene to restore justice.

Critical Evaluation

Nozick’s concept of libertarian justice has several notable drawbacks. First, his strong support for a competitive market system tends to favor the wealthy while neglecting the welfare of the weak. Second, his approach often justifies existing social inequalities under the guise of justice. Third, Nozick employs moral principles to undermine the idea of a redistributive welfare state. Fourth, his views endorse the use of one group’s abilities and efforts to serve the ends of others. Fifth, he fails to acknowledge that the operation of a market economy can itself create conditions of injustice. Lastly, Nozick’s approach makes the well-being of the poor reliant on charity rather than on justice.

In summary, Nozick offers an alternative to Rawls’s theory of justice. While Rawls seeks to temper libertarianism with elements of egalitarianism and communitarianism—earning him the label of a “left liberal” or egalitarian liberal advocating for a substantially redistributive welfare state—Nozick is characterized as a “right liberal” or libertarian, committed to a minimal “night-watchman” state.

Marxist Perspective of Justice

Marx’s well-known phrase, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” encapsulates Marxism as a needs-based theory of justice. In contrast to contribution-based theories, which advocate for the distribution of resources based on each individual’s contribution to society, Marx argued for a system where the distribution is based on need. In his Critique of the Gotha Programme, Marx emphasized that the emancipation of labor requires the transformation of the means of production into common property and the cooperative organization of labor, coupled with a just distribution of the proceeds of labor. This emphasis on equitable distribution forms the core of Marx’s theory of justice, which is fundamentally distributive.

The distributive nature of Marx’s conception of justice implies that all benefits and burdens in society should be shared fairly among its members, without discrimination. Marx described this as fair distribution. Through their extensive analysis of capitalism, Marx and Engels concluded that the system was inherently unjust because it was rooted in exploitation. Marx viewed capitalism not only as unfair but as a system of theft, depriving the working class of its rightful share of profits and benefits. He argued that only the abolition of capitalism and the establishment of communism could bring about true justice. Marx believed that a complete revolution was necessary to eliminate the wrongs and injustices inherent in the capitalist system. After such a revolution, a new society would emerge where justice would be realized through the equitable distribution of goods and services.

The essence of socialist justice, according to Marx, lies in the collective ownership of the means of production and the elimination of exploitation. In a socialist society, distributive justice would be the norm, with workers receiving compensation in proportion to their contribution to production. With the abolition of private ownership and exploitation, society would be collectively owned by the workers, who would also control the means of production. Marx’s analysis suggests that the establishment of socialism would usher in a new form of justice, distinct from the capitalist version, which he condemned for its inherent injustice toward workers.

Marx saw the concept of justice in capitalist society as fundamentally flawed, built on a foundation of exploitation and dehumanization. He and other interpreters of Marxism, such as Kolakowski in Main Currents of Marxism, argued that capitalism strips away the human qualities of individuals, subjecting them to the harsh economic laws and cruel behaviors of the capitalists. A system that dehumanizes cannot provide true justice. Therefore, Marx contended that genuine justice could only be achieved in a classless and stateless society—communism—where class struggle, division, and injustice would be eradicated, and everyone would live by the principle of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

Critical Evaluation

The Marxist view of justice has certain shortcomings. While the concept of a classless society is appealing, the idea of the state withering away seems utopian and unrealistic in practice. This perspective assumes that private property is the sole source of class distinctions. However, in reality, class distinctions can reemerge based on the possession of political and bureaucratic power, even after private property is abolished. This could lead to new forms of dominance and injustice. Therefore, addressing the problem of injustice would require tackling it at much more complex and nuanced levels.

Communitarian Perspective of Justice

Communitarianism is a modern political ideology that emphasizes the interests of the community over those of the individual. It is often seen as the opposite of liberalism, which prioritizes individual rights above communal needs. The communitarian view of justice is best understood in contrast to liberalism, as it seeks to mend the broken relationship between individuals and the community. According to communitarians, liberal ideas of justice fail to adequately respect the community, promoting instead a concept of the ‘situated self’ in place of the liberal ‘isolated self.’ Communitarianism advocates for replacing the politics of individual rights with the politics of the common good. In liberal theory, particularly in John Rawls’ view, individual rights are paramount, and justice is considered “the first virtue of social institutions.” Communitarians, however, argue that doing what is right is inherently linked to doing what is good, and that by embracing the common good, justice is naturally achieved.

Communitarianism gained prominence as a critical response to John Rawls’ “A Theory of Justice” (1971) in the higher echelons of Anglo-American academia. Thinkers like Alasdair MacIntyre, Michael Sandel, Charles Taylor, and Michael Walzer drew on the insights of Aristotle and Hegel to challenge Rawls’ view that the state’s primary role is to protect and fairly distribute the liberties and resources necessary for people to lead freely chosen lives.

Alasdair MacIntyre, in his seminal work “After Virtue” (1981), critiques the limitations of Rawls’ notion of virtue. He argues against the liberal idea of individuals as autonomous moral agents disconnected from social contexts, asserting that people flourish within socially established cooperative activities that promote human excellence. MacIntyre also criticizes liberals for their commitment to ‘moral relativism,’ which he believes prevents them from developing a unified concept of justice. However, in his later work “Whose Justice? Which Rationality?” (1988), he acknowledges the pitfalls of moral absolutism and concedes that liberal tolerance is, in itself, a virtuous practice.

Michael Sandel, an American political theorist, further critiques Rawls’ liberal concept of justice in his book “Liberalism and the Limits of Justice” (1982). Sandel argues that Rawls’ theory, which portrays individuals as rational negotiators behind a ‘veil of ignorance,’ fails to account for our embeddedness in specific social, cultural, and historical contexts. He contends that justice cannot be achieved by isolated individuals seeking personal gain but by those who create a ‘deeper commonality’ through shared self-understanding and mutual affection. While liberalism posits that the ‘self is prior to its ends,’ Sandel argues that the self is actually shaped by its ends and that Rawls’ notion of the ‘unencumbered self’ does not align with our deepest self-understanding.

Charles Taylor, a Canadian philosopher, critiques the liberal concept of ‘atomistic individualism,’ which is central to liberal thought. Taylor challenges the notion that individuals are purely autonomous choosers, arguing that such a view overlooks the reality that people continuously reflect on their lives to find meaning. He believes that human development is deeply embedded within social contexts rather than being merely a product of individual will. In his book Sources of the Self (1989), Taylor emphasizes ’embodied individuals’ who are engaged in self-interpretation and constant interaction with others. He argues that human agency, rights, and freedom exist only within their social contexts, a perspective that modern liberal political theory often neglects by failing to account for the reciprocal relationships among individuals and between individuals and society.

Michael Walzer, in his influential book Spheres of Justice (1983), presents a distinct version of communitarian justice. He argues that it is futile to seek a universal principle of justice outside the context of specific communities. Instead, he believes that justice can only be understood within the framework of a particular community’s practices and institutions. Walzer asserts that justice has shared meanings and emphasizes the principle of ‘complex equality’ in the distribution of social goods. This principle aims not to equalize all goods but to prevent inequalities in one sphere (such as wealth) from perpetuating inequalities in other spheres (such as healthcare and political power). He stresses that social goods should be distributed according to the appropriate justifications for each domain. For example, money should only influence the sphere of commodities, nepotism should not affect political offices, and kinship should not be driven by profit motives. He also argues that family structures should not be modeled on male dominance, which is more relevant to military organization.

While Walzer’s model of communitarian justice offers a robust moral philosophy, it lacks a strong political framework to enforce its principles. His theory envisions a just society, but it does not provide mechanisms to persuade dominant actors in various spheres to adhere to these rules. Thus, while Walzer’s theory is compelling in its moral arguments, it does not fully address the practical aspects of achieving and maintaining justice in society.

Critical Evaluation

The communitarian perspective on justice has faced significant criticism. Liberal theorists, such as Simon Caney, argue that communitarianism fails to offer substantive critiques of liberalism. They reject the communitarian claim that liberalism undervalues the community and relies on an “atomized” or asocial view of the self. Additionally, Peter Sutch identifies several key criticisms of communitarianism: that it inevitably leads to moral relativism, which in turn may reinforce the status quo in international politics, and that it relies on a discredited ontological argument that places the community or state in a foundational role. However, Sutch notes that these criticisms do not necessarily apply to specific communitarians, such as Michael Walzer.

Moreover, some critics argue that communitarianism is closely linked to neoliberalism and the push for dismantling welfare state institutions in favor of expanding the third sector.

Despite these criticisms, communitarianism remains a philosophy that underscores the relationship between individuals and their communities. It posits that a person’s social identity and personality are largely shaped by community interactions, with less emphasis on individualism. Communitarianism highlights the role of the community in defining and forming individuals, contrasting with classical liberalism, which views communities as emerging from the free choices of pre-community individuals. Communitarians argue that liberal views of justice do not sufficiently recognize the significance of community.

Conclusion

Justice is a multifaceted concept that permeates every aspect of human life. Primarily a concern of moral philosophy, justice also intersects with political philosophy because it must be implemented through political systems. The term “justice” originates from the Latin word jungere, meaning ‘to bind’ or ‘to tie together,’ and jus, meaning ‘tie’ or ‘bond.’ Thus, justice can be understood as a system in which individuals are closely connected. Aristotle described it as a virtue in action, reflecting a readiness to adhere to nature’s rules and laws, a view shared by both Plato and Aristotle.

Both Aristotle and Plato sought to identify a general principle of capability to promote unity, harmony, virtue, and happiness within society. Justice is typically categorized into four major dimensions: Social Justice, Economic Justice, Political Justice, and Legal Justice. These forms are interrelated and interdependent; justice is truly realized only when all four dimensions are present. Substantive justice involves adherence to legal rules, while procedural justice ensures that the processes leading to legal outcomes are fair. Retributive justice focuses on punishing lawbreakers and compensating victims, whereas distributive justice concerns perceptions of fairness in the distribution of resources.

John Rawls defined justice as fairness, combining liberty and equality to outline a comprehensive concept of social justice. He proposed a method for using procedural justice to achieve substantive justice. In The Idea of Justice (2009), Amartya Sen extends and critiques Rawls’ ideas.

The Libertarian perspective on justice, closely associated with Robert Nozick, emphasizes individual freedom and the protection of personal liberty. Nozick’s approach, grounded in libertarianism, focuses on the various ‘modes of acquisition’ of goods and the entitlement of individuals to own them, rather than distributing goods as natural gifts.

According to Marxist theory, true justice can only be achieved in a classless and stateless society, i.e., communism, where class struggle and division are abolished, and the principle “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” is realized.

Communitarianism, in contrast to liberalism, emphasizes the importance of the community over individual rights. It seeks to mend the relationship between individuals and their communities. Communitarians argue that liberalism fails to adequately respect the community and introduce the concept of the “situated self” versus the “isolated self” of liberal thought. They advocate shifting from a politics of rights to a politics of the common good.

References

• Aggarwal, R.C. (1976) Principles of Political Science, S.Chand Company, New Delhi.
• Badyal, J.S.(2012) Political Theory, Raj Publishers, Jalandher
• Bhargava, R. (2008). Political theory: An introduction. Pearson Education India.
• Gauba, O.P.(2014) An Introduction to Political Theory, Macmillan Publisher, Delhi.
• Heywood, Andrew. (2005) Political Theory An Introduction, Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
• Johari, J.C.( 1989) Principles of Modern Political Science, Sterling Publishers, New Delhi.
• Misra, K.K& Iyengar Kalpana.(1988) Modern Political Theory, S.Chand Company, New Delhi.
• Ray Amal,(1988) Political Theory: Ideas and Institutions, The World Press Private LTD. Calcutta.
• Rawls, John. (1971). A Theory of Justice, H U P.
• Rawls, J,.(1993).Political Liberalism.Columbia University Press, New York.
• Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom New York: Alfred Knopf.
• Sen, A.,(2009). The Idea of Justice. Allen Lane & Harvard University Press
• Srivastav, D.S., (2016) ‘Rawls’s Theory of Justice Through Amartya Sen’s Idea’.