Introduction
The term justice derives from the Latin term "Jungere" which means to bind or tie together. The philosophy of social-economic, justice is a living principle that gives substance to the rule of law and purpose and significance to a welfare state 's ideal. The Indian constitution is an illustration of the socio-economic jurisprudence forces at work. It sets out the Directive Principles of State Policy that are central to the country's governance and establishes a constitutional order in which Justice, Legal, Economic and Political, shall notify all National Life Institutions. Social justice aims at the reduction of all inequality and equal opportunity for all Citizens in both social and economic relations. Social justice is a political and philosophical term according to which all people should have equal access to resources, health, well-being, fairness and opportunities.
Theory of Justice by John Ralws
In A Theory of Justice, Rawls begins with the assertion that "Justice is the first virtue of a social system," which means that a healthy society is one that is constructed according to justice principles. Rawls claims that existing theories of justice, developed in the philosophical field, are not adequate. A philosophy of justice that is a realistic alternative to those ideologies that have long dominated philosophical practice. "He calls his philosophy-oriented definition of the fundamental nature of society as fairness in conjunction with social justice. Rawls sets out to determine the fundamental principles on which to base a good society. He discusses the value of the principles of justice for two main purposes: first, to provide a means for the basic institutions of society to delegate rights and responsibilities, and secondly, to fairly allocate the rewards and burdens of society. He states that well-ordered communities, by their nature, are uncommon since what is just and unjust is generally in dispute. He further states that a well-ordered and perfectly just society must be structured in such a way as to resolve the issues of performance, cohesion and stability
Rawls claims in A Philosophy of Justice for a restoration of liberty and equality on principle. Terms. Rawls claims in A Philosophy of Justice for a restoration of liberty and equality on principle. Justice principles are sought as to guide the behaviour of the parties. These parties are confronted with moderate scarcity, and they are neither naturally altruistic nor purely selfish: they have ends that they seek to advance, but wish to advance them on mutually acceptable terms through cooperation with others. Rawls provides a model of a situation of equal choice (the original condition with its veil of ignorance) where the parties should choose mutually reasonable. Rawls offers a model of an equal choice situation (the original state with its veil of ignorance) where the parties will make mutually acceptable choices.
Critism
- Rawls' Harvard colleague, Robert Nozick, published a defense of libertarian justice, anarchy, society, and utopia in 1974; Partly a reaction to A Theory of Justice, the two books are now often read together.
- Another Harvard colleague, Michael Walzer, read, as a result of a seminar he co-wrote with Nozick, a defense of collective political theory, Spheres of Justice;
- In a similar line of critique, Michael Sandel (also a Harvard colleague) wrote Liberalism and Justice Limits, which prompted Rawls to challenge us to think about justice while divorcing from the very ideals and expectations that characterize us.
- Sandel's line of reasoning partially builds on Rawls' objections, proposed by both Charles Taylor and Alasdair Macintyre, who argue for the value of ethical claims in moral ontology.
- The premises of the original position, and in particular the use of maximin logic, were often criticized (most notably by Kenneth Arrow) with either the suggestion that Rawls constructed the original position to benefit from the two principles, or that an original position more faithful to its original intent would not lead to his favourite principles.
- Philosopher Allan Bloom, a student of Leo Strauss, criticized Rawls for failing to account in his theory of justice for the existence of natural law, and wrote that Rawls absolutizes social union as the ultimate goal which would conventionalize everything into artifice
- Recent criticisms of Rawls' theory have come from philosopher G.A. Cohen 's influential series of papers culminated first in his book, If You're An Egalitarian, How Come You Are So Rich? And then in his later work, to rescue justice and equal opportunities. Cohen's criticism is levelled against Rawls' affirmation of inequality under the principle of difference, against his application of the principle only to social institutions, and against Rawlsian fetishism with primary goods (again, the metric which Rawls chooses as his equality currency).
In reaction Rawls stressed the importance of the original position as a "tool of democracy" to make sense of the concept of a situation of fair choice for free and equal people. Rawls also emphasized the relatively modest role that maximizes in his argument: given the curious features of choice behind the veil of ignorance, it is "a useful heuristic rule of thumb" Some democratic critics raised questions about Rawls' focus on basic social goods
Views of Rawls on Justice
John Rawls 'Theory of Justice (1971)[1] is "one of the most important works published in the twentieth century of moral and political philosophy," according to Samuel Freeman of John Rawls' Collected Papers (1999) In reaction to the then predominant theory of utilitarianism, Rawls writes that justice is defined by the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Rawls suggests a theoretical individual who, wrapped in a veil of ignorance, will construct a just society without foreknowledge of his or her own status within that society. Rawls claims that from this objective point of view, which he calls original position Individuals will choose a justice system which adequately provides for those placed on the lowest levels of society. The individual will do so as he or she may end up in such a disadvantaged position and want adequate provision for it. Rawls draws from earlier theories of political philosophy that posit a social contract by which individuals implicitly agree on the terms that govern them in any society. Rawls concludes that such a social contract, formulated from the perspective of the original position, will ensure a just society, without sacrificing any individual's happiness or freedom.
Rawls addresses issues of freedom, social equality, democracy, and interest conflict between the individual and society[2]. It turns out that the revolution Rawls created was based on a basic yet utterly specious shift in human nature beliefs, and he built a shaky edifice on this rotten basis to justify liberal aspirations. To complete the revolutions. In this state of existence, men were believed to be entirely self-centred and only committed to their own needs, resulting in life being "nasty, harsh, and poor" and surviving only the strongest. But slowly people got tired of the blood sport and signed a social contract wherein they surrendered some personal sovereignty to a central governing entity, which, in whatever form, would enforce a set of impartial laws in order to protect men from one another.
Concepts of Justice given by Rawls
The fundamental reform that Rawls created was to replace the State of Nature with his "original position” in which, when it came time for the primordial man to enter into a social contract because he was ignorant of his own capacities (the "veil of ignorance"), he followed a low-risk strategy and chose a social contract based on egalitarianism; he wanted the most equitable distribution of wealth. If Rawls is right, if men act on the assumption that, once the race of life begins, they would be one of the ones left behind, then the rest of his theory might be worth examining. Yet this presumption of course runs contrary to everything we believe about ourselves and our fellow human beings. It turns out that people act a lot like the great philosophers John Rawls was thought to be perhaps the most influential intellectual in philosophical ethics to have written in the past hundred years. In contemporary philosophy it's almost difficult to discuss ethics without saying anything about John Rawls. The ideas of fairness and equality under what he considers a "veil of ignorance" are fundamental to his philosophy of justice; The veil of ignorance on Rawls is a component of how people can create society. He refers to a "original position" in which a individual attempts to decide a society's equal arrangement without preconceived notions or biases. In this original position, people are behind what Rawls calls a "Veil of Ignorance" and do not know where, in terms of race , gender, sex , disability and other related factors, they may fall into the social hierarchy. A person behind the "veil of ignorance" doesn't know which side of a social contract he or she is going to be on, doesn't know his or her race, class, sex or status in society. A person who is unaware of what rights he or she is born with (or without), In Rawls' opinion, it is more possible to create a community that does not arbitrarily grant rights based on features that should have little effect on what people are getting. Rawls seeks to do a logical analysis of social ethics in A Philosophy of Justice by using reason to decide what a just society would look like and how a logical group of people should organize themselves. One of Rawls' key topics of interest is the veil of the idea of ignorance, and its role in establishing the original position. The principle of difference and the concept of individual freedom in society are two further concepts of importance to the theory of a just society. These Current society and can assist in developing potential social structures to avoid prejudices. Rawls' method of justice as a theory suggests that a veil of ignorance can determine the principles of justice through the rational thinking of individuals. The veil of ignorance creates an original position of equality in a purely hypothetical situation in which people under the veil have no knowledge of status, position in society, personal wealth or natural abilities. A rational, objective and disinterested group of people would be choosing from behind the veil of ignorance a justice system that ensures equal distribution of rights and duties.
Conclusion
Law and justice operate in parallel, procedural justice provides uniformity and procedural clarity, which also grants rights and responsibilities. Justice is an action in keeping with society's requirements, all members of society must be treated equally, justice is the remedy for saving society and preserving peace and harmony among individuals. Justice is an aspect that ties people together in a society and strikes a balance in human relations.
[1] http://egyankosh.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/23678/1/Unit-6.pdf
[2] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rawls/
