{"id":3448,"date":"2026-08-11T22:10:54","date_gmt":"2026-08-11T16:40:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/psir\/notes\/conceptions-of-justice\/"},"modified":"2026-08-22T11:55:43","modified_gmt":"2026-08-22T06:25:43","slug":"conceptions-of-justice","status":"publish","type":"psir_note","link":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/psir\/notes\/conceptions-of-justice\/","title":{"rendered":"Conceptions of justice"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
PSIR Notes<\/a>\u203a<\/span>I-A Political Theory and Indian Politics<\/a>\u203a<\/span>Conceptions of justice<\/span><\/div>\n
\n
Paper I \u00b7 Political Theory and Indian Politics<\/div>\n

Conceptions of justice<\/h1>\n
Syllabus \u00b7 Paper I-A \u00b7 3<\/b> \u2014 Justice : Conceptions of justice<\/span> with special reference to Rawl\u2019s theory of justice and its communitarian critiques.<\/div>\n<\/header>\n
\n
<\/p>\n

Meaning & Nature of Justice<\/h3>\n

Justice belongs to moral philosophy but is finally realised through political order, law and institutions. John Rawls<\/span>: \u201cjustice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought.\u201d It performs three functions \u2014 gives individuals their due; arranges rights, duties, rewards and punishments; balances liberty, equality, welfare, merit and need.<\/p>\n

Etymology & binding function<\/span><\/p>\n

Latin Jungere<\/span> (to tie or bind together) and Jus<\/span> (bond or tie). Justice is a bonding idea \u2014 it organises people into a fair order and distributes rights and duties, rewards and punishments, benefits and burdens, honours, opportunities and obligations.<\/p>\n

Justice as ideal & dynamic truth<\/h4>\n

Justice is an ideal \u2014 the pursuit of absolute truth \u2014 with two dimensions: a static<\/span> dimension (comprehension of ideal truth) and a dynamic<\/span> dimension (its evolving realisation through reason and social consciousness). Social consciousness is spatial and temporal: slavery, the subjugation of women and caste discrimination were once rationalised as just and are now seen as deep injustice. Julius Stone<\/span> too treats law and justice as contextual \u2014 law develops with social conditions, making justice dynamic, not frozen.<\/p>\n

Justice as a balancing idea<\/h4>\n

Justice balances conflicting values \u2014 liberty and equality, rights and welfare, merit and need, individual claims and social good, procedure and outcome. Theories differ because they pick different ultimate values:<\/p>\n

Liberalism: liberty \u00b7 Socialism: equality \u00b7 Utilitarianism: utility \u00b7 Rawls: liberty + egalitarian correction \u00b7 Sen: capability \u00b7 Communitarianism: community & the good<\/p>\n

Justice remains the harmonising principle of political morality.<\/p>\n

Classical Principles \u2014 Rome, Plato, Aristotle<\/h3>\n

Roman principles<\/h4>\n

Emperor Justinian<\/span> gave two classical legal principles: Alterum non laedere<\/span> (do not harm others) and Suum Quique Tribuere<\/span> (allocate to each what is due). These became the base for justice as non-injury and due allocation.<\/p>\n

Plato \u2014 justice as harmony<\/h4>\n

For Plato<\/span>, justice is harmony: each person performs the function suited to their nature, each class keeps its proper place, non-interference is central. Justice in the individual is harmony among parts of the soul; justice in the state is harmony among classes, with wisdom, courage and temperance arranged under reason.<\/p>\n

\n

Justice is \u201cminding one\u2019s own business and not being a busy-body.\u201d<\/p>\n

Plato, Republic<\/cite><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Features: teleological, duty-oriented, hierarchical, linked to the ideal state, not based on modern individual rights.<\/p>\n

Aristotle \u2014 the central virtue<\/h4>\n
\n

\u201cjustice is the bond of men in states, and the administration of justice \u2026 is the principle of order in political society.\u201d<\/p>\n

Aristotle<\/cite><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

General justice<\/span> aims at the complete goodness of society. Particular justice<\/span> splits into distributive justice<\/span> (honours, wealth, offices and goods by merit) and corrective \/ rectificatory justice<\/span> (correction of wrongs). His principle: treat equals equally, treat unequals unequally in proportion to relevant differences \u2014 justice is proportional, not arithmetical<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Greek Perspective & the Rawlsian Concept<\/h3>\n

Both treat justice as the organising principle of political life, but the moral frame differs sharply.<\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Basis<\/th>\nGreek Perspective<\/th>\nJohn Rawls\u2019 Perspective<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Moral frame<\/td>\nvirtue, harmony, common good<\/td>\nrights, fairness, basic liberties<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Method<\/td>\nnatural hierarchy and social function<\/td>\nhypothetical contract<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Subject<\/td>\npolis and duty<\/td>\nliberal-democratic society and free citizens<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Equality<\/td>\nproportional equality<\/td>\nmoral equality<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Distribution<\/td>\nbased on merit and function<\/td>\nbased on primary goods and least advantaged<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Good and right<\/td>\ngood life precedes right<\/td>\nright precedes good<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

Greek justice is teleological<\/span>, duty-centred and hierarchical, accepting inherent inequality; law is believed to carry higher moral or natural authority and the state applies it rather than freely creating it. John Rawls<\/span> begins from moral equality, uses the original position and veil of ignorance, protects liberty first, and allows inequality only when it benefits the least advantaged. Norman Barry<\/span> highlights Rawls\u2019 concern for the neediest through the chain principle<\/span>. The movement from Greek justice to Rawls is the movement from polis ethics to constitutional pluralism.<\/p>\n

UPSC 2020 \u00b7 20m<\/span>Make a comparative assessment of the Greek perspective of justice with the Rawlsian concept of justice.<\/span>Answer<\/a><\/div>\n

Procedural \u00b7 Substantive \u00b7 Distributive Justice<\/h3>\n

Procedural justice \u2014 fairness of the method<\/h4>\n

Justice of rules, procedure and process \u2014 impartial courts, due process, formal equality before law, fairness in decision-making. Close to liberalism<\/span>: liberty is the ultimate value, equality of opportunity is preferred over equality of outcome. In Rawlsian terms a just procedure runs through entering the contract, unanimous agreement, basic conditions (e.g. freedom of speech), protection of the most disadvantaged and stability.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cIt doesn\u2019t matter who wins if the rules and the procedures followed in a race are just.\u201d<\/p>\n

Norman Barry<\/cite><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Critique: it rejects discrimination on caste, creed, sex and religion and accepts equal dignity, but may overstretch competition. Crawford Brough Macpherson<\/span> argues a strictly procedural capitalist model can destroy creative freedom; John H. Sachar<\/span> notes talents may not be rewarded by intrinsic worth because social hierarchies distort competition. In India, procedural justice dominated until the Maneka Gandhi<\/span> judgment, after which adjudication moved towards a mix of procedure and due process.<\/p>\n

Substantive justice \u2014 fairness of the outcome<\/h4>\n

Fairness of the content of laws, policies and decisions \u2014 actual distribution of rights, duties and opportunities, reduction of inequality, correction of historical and structural injustice. Close to socialism<\/span>: equality is the ultimate value, substantive equality over formal equality, needs-based justice a stronger form. Key elements: equity, fair distribution, redressing injustice, rights and entitlements, social welfare.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cJustice requires us to respond to structural injustice, not only by individual actions, but by changing the structures themselves.\u201d<\/p>\n

Iris Marion Young<\/cite><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The fault line of justice \u2014 method versus outcome<\/span><\/p>\n