Ch 4 SOCIAL JUSTICE

What is Justice?
Although it is understood differently in each culture and tradition,
justice is a universal notion.
Dharma, which upheld a fair social structure, was connected to
justice in ancient Indian civilization.
In China, Confucius strongly emphasized justice by penalizing
wrongdoers and rewarding the righteous.
Through conversations, Plato's "The Republic" examined justice in
Athens in the fourth century B.C.
Plato discussed the need for justice in his conversations with
Socrates, Glaucon, and Adeimantus.
It was noted that being unjust frequently seemed more
advantageous than being just.
According to Socrates, if everyone behaved unfairly, society as a
whole would suffer.
According to Socrates, justice is the welfare of every person, not
simply one's interests.
Applying justice means ensuring that everyone has equal
opportunity and providing each person their due.
The modern definition of justice places a strong emphasis on
respecting human dignity and treating every person equally.
Principles of Social Justice
 Equal treatment for Equals
 Proportionate Justice
 Recognition of Special Needs
1. Equal treatment for Equals
While maintaining fairness in today's culture isn't easy, there are a
few guiding principles. The idea of treating equals equally is one of
these. It entails acknowledging that everyone is entitled to the same
respect and treatment because of their shared humanity. These
rights encompass social, political, and civil liberties like equality of
opportunity, voting, and life. This principle is violated by
discrimination on the basis of class, caste, race, or gender. To be
fair, one must evaluate people based on their deeds, not on who
they are. For example, equal remuneration for equal effort is vital,
regardless of caste or gender. Maintaining this idea promotes an
inclusive and just society.
2. Proportionate Justice
Justice is more than just treating people equally. Rewarding
individuals according to their effort and the calibre of their job is
sometimes fairer. Giving everyone the same grades in school, for
instance, might not be fair. Rather, grades ought to demonstrate
pupils' proficiency and diligence. Comparably, in society, various
occupations could be deserving of various compensation according
to elements like danger, effort, and talent. In order for justice to
triumph, proportionality and equitable treatment must be balanced,
making sure that each person is compensated equally for their
contributions.
3. Recognition of Special Needs
Acknowledging and meeting the unique needs of individuals within a
community is a crucial component of the justice principle. It's
important to treat everyone fairly and to provide credit for
contributions in comparable amounts, but it's also important to take
into account those who might need additional assistance because of
age, disability, or lack of access to healthcare or education. By
recognising that certain people could require extra assistance to
attain equality, this principle expands on the notion of equal
treatment. For example, in our nation, caste-based societal
inequality is addressed through reservations in employment and
education. Governments may find it difficult to strike a balance
between these ideals, yet doing so is vital to build an equitable and
just society.
Just Distribution
The equitable distribution of commodities and services is a
component of social justice, which goes beyond just treatment
under the law and other regulations.
To level the playing field, governments may need to redistribute
resources in response to economic and social inequality.
Social justice within nations is guaranteeing each and every citizen's
fundamental equality in terms of opportunities and living situations.
Policies that work to advance social equality and equitable resource
distribution include the abolition of untouchability and the
implementation of land reforms.
Conflicts over the allocation of resources, access to training, and
employment opportunities can incite intense feelings and even
violence.
Political theory aids in examining these matters in the context of
justice ideals.
Prominent political philosopher John Rawls put forward a theory of
just distribution.
Rawls made the case that it is rationally acceptable to assist the
most underprivileged members of society.
Programmes to assist the underprivileged are assessed according to
how well they follow the rules of justice.
Gaining an understanding of theories like as Rawls' makes it easier
to evaluate the justification for social policies that seek to advance
justice and equality.
John Rawls' Theory of Justice
Humans are inherently drawn to societies that benefit them,
particularly in light of what lies ahead for their children.
John Rawls suggests a way to attain justice and fairness by picturing
decision-making via a "veil of ignorance."
Unaware of their future rank or position, people consider society's
laws while hiding behind a curtain of ignorance.
Since rational people don't know what the future holds, they put the
needs of the least fortunate first.
People are prompted to consider the viewpoint of the least fortunate
while they are under the cloak of ignorance.
This strategy makes sure that just laws and policies help everyone,
not just particular groups.
If someone was born into the lowest socioeconomic group, they will
choose policies that protect them out of rational self-interest.
They also strive for laws that benefit society as a whole, even
though they know they might be born into privilege.
When it comes to attaining justice and an unbiased allocation of the
advantages and disadvantages of society, Rawls places more
emphasis on reason than morality.
His idea emphasises how crucial it is to base fairness decisions on
reasoned considerations rather than moral precepts.
Pursuing Social Justice
In a society where there are significant gaps between the wealthy
and the excluded, social justice is lacking.
While complete equality is not required, society is unfair if
differences are so great that they lead to the creation of parallel
universes.
A just society offers equal possibilities for development and the bare
minimal requirements for safe, healthy lives.
Food, shelter, clean water, education, and a minimum wage are
examples of basic requirements.
Governments must provide these fundamental necessities, but this
can be difficult, particularly in nations with sizable impoverished
populations.
There is disagreement regarding the most effective ways to assist
the underprivileged, including government intervention or free
markets.
Diverse political factions support different programs aimed at
helping marginalized groups, like the impoverished in rural or urban
areas.
The relative benefits of various strategies for achieving social justice
are examined in this ongoing discussion.
Free Markets versus State Intervention
Those who favour a free market believe that people should be able
to own property, enter into contracts, and compete for benefits.
They contend that fair benefit distribution based on ability and merit
would be guaranteed by unrestricted markets.
Certain limitations are acceptable to proponents of the free market,
such as guaranteeing a minimal quality of life.
They suggest enabling people to purchase services while allowing
markets to grow in industries like healthcare and education.
Proponents contend that the market is impartial and concentrates
on abilities and capabilities, giving customers more options.
However, unregulated markets could not offer everyone access to
high-quality products and services at reasonable costs.
Private businesses could disadvantage the underprivileged by being
expensive despite providing better services.
Free markets, according to their detractors, favour the rich and
powerful while excluding the weak and disadvantaged.
In democratic societies, disagreements on fairness and distribution
are constructive because they encourage discussion and
compromise.
It is necessary to research various justice tenets and come to
consensus on the pursuit of justice in order to address social and
economic disparities.
Conclusion
In Conclusion, the proper balance between state involvement and
free markets is still a contentious issue in the social justice debate.
Free market proponents stress the importance of individual liberty
and merit-based benefit distribution, whereas state interventionists
stress the need of providing equal opportunity and fundamental
necessities for all members of society. The distribution of resources
and the formulation of policy are guided by the concepts of justice,
which are based on equality, fairness, and the recognition of specific
needs. Notwithstanding differences in viewpoint, democratic
societies gain from these discussions because they force a critical
analysis and negotiation of social norms and practices. In the end,
attaining social justice necessitates a sophisticated comprehension
of diverse theories of justice and a joint endeavour to tackle
systemic disparities and advance equity and inclusivity within
society.