THEORIES OF JUSTICE

AUTHOR: SUHANI DAS, A STUDENT AT KIIT LAW SCHOOL, KIIT DU

TOPIC: THEORIES OF JUSTICE

ABSTRACT

This article examines key theories of justice, exploring their philosophical foundations and implications for distributive equity. Justice has deep roots in Indian tradition, reflected in the Vedas and adapted through British colonial laws. Theories by Rawls, Nozick, Dworkin, and others are discussed, emphasizing their stances on equality, resource distribution, and individual freedoms. Rawls’ “Justice as Fairness” introduces the “original position” and “veil of ignorance,” advocating equal liberty and structured economic equality. Dworkin’s theory of resource equality distinguishes between ambition-sensitivity and endowment-sensitivity, proposing hypothetical insurance to address brute luck. Nozick’s entitlement theory prioritizes individual ownership rights, limiting state intervention to ensure voluntary and just transactions. Utilitarianism evaluates actions based on maximizing collective utility, while common ownership theories like Steiner-Vallentyne emphasize shared societal rights over external resources. The analysis contrasts these perspectives on equity, exploring how they balance fairness, personal responsibility, and societal needs. Theories of justice are framed as either outcome-focused, emphasizing equality, or process-oriented, protecting liberty and self-ownership. The article also critiques challenges in applying these theories, such as rectifying historical injustices and addressing moral arbitrariness in personal attributes. Together, these insights illuminate enduring debates on fairness, resource allocation, and societal organization.

INTRODUCTION

“Speculations of distributive equity look to determine what is implied by an only circulation of merchandise among citizenry. The process or outcome of individuals’ free actions, according to liberal theories of justice, is just unless it is based on morally arbitrary factors, such as personal characteristics. Individuals’ preferences, abilities, and land holdings may be examples of these factors in the current setting. According to which of these factors each theory deems morally arbitrary, these theories can be categorized. From the very beginning, justice was practiced in India, and it was even regarded as the very embodiment of God, with the sole purpose of upholding justice, truth, and righteousness. Vedas additionally showed its profound responsibility towards equity. With the coming of the Britishers, they followed the status qou and didn’t go for much change to the regulations authorized by Hindus and Muslims. However, as a matter of fact it was during the pioneer time frame, the Britishers drafted regulations epitomizing significant and procedural equity where thoughts of law and order, opportunity of people, common freedoms, normal equity, and uniformity were reflected. As can be seen from the Preamble, Parts III and IV of the Constitution, these became law after the Constitution was enacted. The libertarian and egalitarian theories of justice are in some ways at odds with one another. The viewpoints of Dworkin, Rawls, Nozick, and Sen are given special consideration in the following section. According to Justice, moral principle determines just behaviour on the part of individuals. Theories of justice, according to John Rawls, emerged from political philosophy and ethics. There are a few hypotheses of equity that incorporate utilitarianism hypothesis, equity as reasonableness hypothesis and libertarianism hypothesis. According to utilitarian theory, an action is considered morally right if it combines several alternative actions to produce the highest utility compared to the other actions. Utilitarianism started from the Unified Realm because of the judiciousness of people who fostered an ethical society in view of reason.

BENTHAM’S THEORY OF UTILITY

In France, utilitarianism emerged following the religious war of 1562–1598, the same time that modern science was born. The English civil war, which lasted from 1642 to 1651, demonstrated that humans were immoral and violent. Utilitarian theory was last revised in 1999, according to John Rawl. In utilitarian practice, debauchery is the most persuasive. Indulgence emerges from the condition of people needing to carry on with a daily existence brimming with satisfaction with practically no other uneasiness that is bliss is a harmony between delight and agony. According to utilitarianism, when a person tries to strike a balance between the pleasure and pain they get from an action, happiness results in both intrinsic value and intrinsic disvalue. A few utilitarians are against debauchery, that’s what certain individuals contended, in case of falling very sick, they like to be taken off life support machines to pass on regardless of the way that the existence support units will provide them with the delight of a typical living individual and expand their life. Utilitarian theory includes the concept of distributive justice; Non-utilitarian justice and utilitarian justice are further subsets of distributive justice. Utilitarians adhere to principles of justice in which the distribution of goods and services is only considered to be fair if the outcomes outweigh those of any other system.

FOUR THEORIES OF JUSTICE

It is discussed four theories of justice: Egalitarianism of Rawls, or justice as fairness; Dworkinian egalitarianism, also known as resource equality; Steiner-Vallentyne libertarianism, or normal proprietorship; and entitlements, or Nozickian libertarianism. For each theory, the following is the description of the theories: its meaning of equity; the individual characteristics that it considers arbitrary and adjusts for; the idea of the organization under which this might be accomplished; the rationale behind any inequality it accepts; also, the degree to which it is reliable with freedom. A distribution is just if it maximizes the amount of food that the person with the least food receives (this is the “maximum” outcome in terms of food, which is the sole primary good). Justice as fairness defines this as the case. It takes into account preferences, ability, and land ownership. It is accomplished through income taxes and subsidies (i.e., on food consumption). As long as the maximum requirement is met, income disparities are accepted because they benefit those with lower incomes. All differences in leisure are tolerated. Responsibility is not acknowledged, and neither self-ownership nor resource ownership rights are upheld. A distribution is just if everyone has the same effective resources, that is, if for a given amount of work, each person can get the same amount of food and if resources are equal. It takes into account abilities and land ownership, but not preferences. It is accomplished by assessments and endowments on pay. Disparities in both food and recreation are acknowledged in light of the fact that they emerge exclusively from decisions made by people who have similar choices. Privileges to neither self-possession nor asset proprietorship are kept up with, yet obligation is perceived. Normal possession hypotheses characterize a conveyance to be simply in the event that every individual at first has similar measure of land and all exchanges between people are wilful. It doesn’t adjust for preferences or abilities, just land holdings. It is accomplished by a redistribution of possessions of land. Food and leisure disparities are accepted because they are solely caused by differences in preferences or abilities. Rights to resource ownership are not preserved, but rights to self-ownership are. According to entitlements theory, a distribution is considered just if it arose from the appropriation of previously unowned land by individuals and voluntary transfers between individuals, as well as if all other transactions between individuals are voluntary. Except for correcting any erroneous acquisitions or transfers, it doesn’t change and doesn’t require any imposed institution to be achieved. All inequality is tolerated. Both self-ownership and resource ownership rights are protected.

JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS

John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice (1971) redefined fairness as the cornerstone of justice. Rejecting utilitarianism’s majority tyranny, Rawls emphasized equal rights and opportunities. The original position hypothetical allowed resource distribution without bias through a veil of ignorance, where individuals disregard traits like race or socioeconomic status.

  • The Two Principles of Justice:
  1. Equal Liberty Principle: Guarantees fundamental freedoms like speech and democratic rights while limiting personal property rights.
  2. Equality Principle: Advocates economic structuring to benefit society’s poorest and ensures equal opportunities for individuals of similar abilities.

EQUALITY OF RESOURCES

Dworkin’s theory emphasizes balancing ambition and endowment sensitivity. Justice permits inequalities from voluntary choices but compensates for disadvantages beyond individual control.

  • Initial Resources: Equal starting points ensure fairness, but subsequent disparities due to talent or luck require redress.
  • Fortune: Distinguishes between option luck (calculated risks) and brute luck (uncontrollable outcomes), suggesting hypothetical insurance to address the latter.
  • Handicaps: Hypothetical insurance compensates for inherent disadvantages, such as disabilities, through taxation-based funds.
  • Talents: Advocates against starting-gate theories, promoting continual adjustments for resource inequalities.

ENTITLEMENTS

Nozick’s entitlement theory emphasizes individual property rights and voluntary exchanges, framing justice as laissez-faire.

Core Principles:

  • Justice in Acquisition: Acquiring resources is fair if freely available and sufficient for others.
  • Justice in Transfer: Transfers are just if voluntary and comply with the Lockean proviso, ensuring no deprivation of others.
  • Justice in Rectification: Addresses injustices in acquisition or transfer, seeking to restore fairness while leaving broader questions unresolved.

COMMON OWNERSHIP

Steiner-Vallentyne’s theories emphasize shared societal rights over external resources while preserving individual self-ownership.

Framework Highlights:

  • Property Transfers: Balances unrestricted property rights with generational wealth limitations.
  • Holding Interventions: Proposes taxing natural resources to reflect their shared origin.
  • Social Fund: Redistributes taxes equally or compensates unchosen disadvantages, addressing moral arbitrariness.

CONCLUSION

This article highlights the complexity of justice theories and their diverse approaches to fairness, equity, and resource distribution. Rawls’ “justice as fairness” emphasizes structured equality, while Dworkin seeks balance between ambition and arbitrary disadvantage. Nozick champions minimal state intervention, prioritizing self-ownership, and utilitarianism evaluates outcomes based on collective utility. Common ownership theories advocate for shared societal stewardship of resources. Each framework offers unique insights but also faces practical challenges, such as addressing historical injustices and moral arbitrariness. Understanding these theories deepens our grasp of justice’s multifaceted nature, guiding efforts to create equitable and morally grounded societal structures.

REFERENCES

Distributive Justice | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

https://ivypanda.com/essays/theories-of-justice-utilitarian-theory/#:~:text=According%20to%20John%20Rawls%2C%20theories,fairness%20theory%20and%20libertarian

FAQ:

  1.  What are the key theories of justice discussed?

Ans: The document covers several theories, including Utilitarianism, Rawls’ Justice as Fairness, Dworkin’s Equality of Resources, Nozick’s Entitlement Theory, and Steiner-Vallentyne’s Common Ownership.

  1. What is Rawls’ concept of the Original Position?

Ans: Rawls’ Original Position is a hypothetical situation where individuals decide on principles of justice under a “veil of ignorance,” unaware of personal traits like race, gender, or socioeconomic status, ensuring fairness.

  1. How does Dworkin address inequalities caused by luck?

Ans: Dworkin distinguishes between “brute luck” (uncontrollable risks) and “option luck” (deliberate gambles), proposing hypothetical insurance to address brute luck and emphasizing personal responsibility for option luck.

  1. What is Nozick’s stance on distributive justice?

Ans: Nozick argues for minimal state intervention, focusing on justice through voluntary exchanges, acquisitions, and rectifications, respecting self-ownership and property rights.

  1. How do common ownership theories view property?

Ans: Common ownership theories advocate that external resources belong to society collectively, emphasizing self-ownership and free association while proposing taxation or redistribution for fairness.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *