Theories of Justice
Justice
Some questions:
• Why do you think that justice is seen as a centrally important in political
philosophy?
• Do you think that we should care whether the state is just?
• Is justice important, but separable from the existence and role of the state?
• What do we mean by justice?
• How can a state be just?
…why care?
Some suggestions. Which do you agree with?
• Well, the provision of justice is essential to the very possibility of
good governance.
• Without justice our communal life together lacks the stability of
expectation and reciprocity. Life becomes uncertain and
precarious. The problem of how to deal with conflicting
interests.
• ‘Justice removed, then, what are kingdoms but great bands of
robbers’ (Augustine).
• A just state is one in which the citizens are happier than in any
other.
• Justice is necessary if one’s rights are to be respected.
What do we mean?
Two applications of the concept of justice identified by
Aristotle.
• Commutative – question of justice arises when
someone deserves something through his actions
whether it be a reward or punishment.
• Distributive – question of justice arises when there is
some good or resource to be distributed among those
with a claim to it.
…meaning
• ‘Justice is the constant and perpetual will to render to
each his due’ (Justinian, Institutes 1.1, 533 A.D.).
• So, the primary focus of justice is the individual.
• Each person is treated according to the same criterion
or standard. Treatment of individuals is non-arbitrary
and consistent.
• The role of laws and a system or infrastructure for their
administration becomes apparent.
…meaning
• Is consistency sufficient for justice? Think of a reason
why not.
• It would be consistent to require that all people shorter
than 1.70 metres pay a special penalty super-tax. But
surely it would not be just.
• A more serious example is the kind of consistency
characteristic of political and judicial systems which
embody systematic discrimination against particular
groups or communities.
…meaning
• Justice requires that the treatment of individuals is
appropriate or relevant to what the matter in hand.
• If individuals are to be treated differently in a particular
circumstance then that difference must be grounded in
reasons that are relevant to the matter in hand.
• Justice may involve discrimination in the sense that
individuals are treated in different ways – but it also
requires that the grounds for doing so are relevant to
the treatment.
…meaning
• If I am to be punished or rewarded for acting in a
certain way, then the state is picking me out for a
different kind of treatment from those who have not
acted in such a fashion.
• That someone is male, young, black, gay, an asylum
seeker or whatever seems on the face of things to be
irrelevant as general grounds for determining how they
ought to be treated.
…meaning
• As well as consistency and relevance the idea of justice
seems to entail a commitment to
• Proportionality
• The way in which one is treated should be in line with,
in proportion to what one has done or in proportion to
whatever relevant feature justifies a difference in
treatment.
• If Jones’ essay is twice as good as Smith’s which is
awarded 30% then Jones should get 60%.
…meaning
• Justice involves the non-arbitrary, relevant and
proportionate treatment of individuals. Justice requires
that the individual gets what she deserves.
• We can add that for a state to be just it must then
regard individuals impartially and with equality.
• One way in which this thought can be captured is to say
that as bearers of (equal) rights justice demands that
the state respect each individual’s rights in its treatment
of them.
Distributive justice
• Distributive justice is concerned with the
principles determining the (just) distribution of
goods and resources within a society.
• If justice is a feature of the institutions and
arrangements between individuals within a state,
then we can ask what principles (if any) ought to
govern the distribution of rights, duties, social
and economic goods.
Why a theory?
• What are the general principles in virtue of which one
can judge a society – and the state – to be a just one?
• Appeal to the definition of justice not enough. It will
not set out what ought to be done in a particular kind
of situation.
• We need to identify a framework or ground to
determine the structure, goals and procedures of the
institutions of state so that rights and resources are
distributed in a just fashion
…theory
• Starting point for a theory?
• Individuals are equal (and possess rights)
• But justice is not just a case of ensuring the same outcome for
everyone. Impartiality, relevance and proportionality can lead to
different outcomes for different individuals depending on what
they have done. In the case of criminal justice the guilty are justly
punished while the innocent go free.
• Does this apply in the case of distributive or social justice? We’ll
see what Marxism has to say on this later in the course.
…theory
• Outcomes are important but so is procedure.
• The way in which the distribution of goods is
determined or a decision made is important.
• In particular the procedure must be a fair one –
that is it must respect the equality and rights of
individuals and deal impartially among them.
Which theory?
•
•
•
•
Utilitarian accounts of justice
Justice as mutual advantage
Justice as fairness – Rawls and A Theory of Justice
The Entitlement Theory of Justice – Nozick
and Anarchy, State and Utopia
• Marx and justice
…theory
• What would a utilitarian theory of justice be?
• Utilitarianism explains morality in terms of an ultimate end - the
maximisation of happiness.
• At its most basic and in its act-utilitarian form, utilitarianism says
that the right action is that which maximises general happiness.
• Utilitarianism is impartial: the happiness of each person counts
for exactly the same as the happiness of any other. No other
feature carries any special weight. It assigns each person equal
ranking in the calculation of the overall sum of happiness.
• What criticisms does such an approach face?
Justice and utility
• With just arrangements defined in terms of utility and the outcome of
social arrangements it looks like it is going to be legitimate to treat
some individuals as means to promoting that end. The classic example
– hanging the innocent. Can you think of how utilitarianism might give
rise to problems in less extreme cases?
• But this conflicts with the notion of individual rights. If justice
involves the protection of such rights then utilitarianism cannot
explain justice.
• Problem persists even if we drop talk of rights. The significance of
individual integrity and the first-person perspective ought to be
respected by a theory of justice. That this life and commitments are
mine impose a limit on what can be demanded of me. That limit
defined and protected by a theory of justice.
• Question – does an appeal to rule utilitarianism help?
Justice as fairness
• The single most influential work in 20th century
political philosophy – John Rawls, A Theory of
Justice.
Fairness
• How are we to identify those principles which
will ensure the fairness of the basic institutions
of the state and the procedures through which
our lives are conducted and constrained?
• For justice simply is the fair distribution of (in
Rawls’ terms) the social primary goods.
• That is, liberty and opportunity, income and
wealth and the bases of self-respect.
Fairness and justice
• Your task –
• By what means can we identify and specify the principles
of justice.
• To put matters in a very general way. By what procedure can we
determine the rules of game so that they will be fair…
• …and regarded as fair by the participants.
• What ought the principles of justices be?
• For example, should income be distributed on the basis of need,
good looks, desert? Remember a theory of justice will explain
why such a distribution is fair – why the resulting distribution is
one of fair shares.