1- Procedural justice: - It judges the justness of an action by focusing only on the procedure. If the
procedure is just then the consequence is just. E.g if some one is suspected to be a suicide bomber
in a society then it is better to kill him to potentially save more lives. But according to
procedural justice even if total social welfare is better off if a suspected terrorist is killed
immediately but that would violate an individual's freedom to life and safety and therefore
killing the terrorist is unjust.
e.g Robert Nozick’s distribution theory. In his theory the distribution is just, if it is doesn't violate the
individuals right on themselves and therefore on their properties. Accordingly he puts three rules of
getting a legitimate entitlement oven a holdings:- Justice in acquisition, Justice in transfer and any
entitlements over holding that comes other than justice in acquisitions and transfer is unjust. Any
distribution that doesn't violate individual rights over themselves & their properties and that fulfils the
three rules over legitimate entitlement are just even if it leads to unfair consequences like starvation of
the poor. By that Robert Nozick’s theory of justice is procedural which judges the justness of the
distribution by focusing on the procedure than the consequences of the distribution.
Consequential justice: - It judges the justness of the distribution by focusing only on the result of the
distribution. It claims that if the consequence is just then the procedure is just. We can take a utilitarian
approach as an example. According to utilitarian if the distribution gives the highest total welfare for
the society then that distribution is just. For example in the above suicide example the utilitarian
claims the terrorist to be killed even if killing him violates individual's freedom to life and safety. As
far as killing him gives highest total social welfare to the society, killing the terrorist is just.
2- Rawls theory of justice is both consequential and procedural justice. It is concerned with both right
of individual and consequences at the same time.
In its liberty principle, it gives priority to the rights of individuals to evaluate justice. It gives priority
to equal right for each individual to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with equal liberty for
all. It restricts liberty of the individual only for the sake of giving liberty for the others. So in judging
the justness of the distribution it gives priority to the liberty/right of the individual unless others liberty
is limited.
For instance: in appropriating the land used in common, the liberty principle allows people to take any
share of the land unless the appropriation interferes in the liberty of the others. However, in its
difference principle Rawls concerned more on consequences. It allows the individual to appropriate
the land only if the appropriation benefits the least advantage group.
In addition Rawls theory is procedural in a sense that it aims at using the notion of procedural justice
as a base of the theory. That is, it makes the society at the original position to choose under the veil of
ignorance an unanimous principle that they will be governed whatever natural and social position they
will turn out to take. It evaluates the justness of the any society in its submission to the principles
chosen at the original position. According its theory, the justice of the institutions depends on their
conformity to the two principles that are chosen at the original position.
On the other hand, his theory is consequential in the sense that the difference principle concerned with
the consequences/ outcome on the least advantage group in judging the justness of the distribution. If
the least advantage group will get worse off from the distribution, then that distribution is unjust.
1
3- Robert Nozick’s Rules for distribution:Robert Nozick’s distribution rule is derived from his idea that people own themselves and therefore
their holdings too. And people right over their holdings is more than any right leaving no room for
other rights like rights to fair go.
Therefore, if any one has a legitimate holding then that person has an absolute right to dispose its
holding in whatever form it likes. Government interference (like tax unless it is for protection) is a
violation of people moral right. Therefore people has a legitimate right over its holding and no one
including government has no right to take it even if taxing and redistributing keeps the poor from
starving. Therefore, free market is inherently just and redistributive taxation is inherently wrong as it
violate people right by calming their holdings. People have an absolute right over their legitimate
holding and can dispose it in whatever form even if it is not the best way to ensure productivity. Thus,
for a distribution/ holding to be just, the entitlement over the holding/the property has to be attained
either through justice in acquisition, or justice in transfer; any other way of holding or distribution of
property is unjust.

Justice in acquisition:- when one get a legitimate entitlement over a holding in one of the
following ways:o Producing it
o Initially appropriating a property which is not initially possessed,:- this is getting an
absolute right over initially unowned resource
 initial appropriation, is based on the idea that people own themselves,
the world is initially unowned and if withdrawal from the general use
doesn't worsen(in material terms) any one's overall condition then any
one can acquire an absolute right over disproportionate share of
unowned resource. The appropriation can be on first-come, first
served way.
o Over the things that are attached to the properties that one has already entitlement (E.g.
the entitlement that Norway has over its Oil resource).

Justice in transfer: - is when one gets a legitimate entitlement over a holding through transfer
from the other person who has a legitimate entitlement over it. When a person who has a
legitimate entitlement over a property voluntarily transfer/give the property to any one, the
ownership right over the property transferred to the receiver.
4 - Original position:- is a purely hypothetical situation where members of a society under the veil of
ignorance meet to negotiate a contract that can unanimously be adopted; i.e to decide on what the just
distribution of goods and burdens should be in a society that they themselves would want to live in.

Original position is used to model the idea of moral equality of individuals, not to show an actual
historical state of nature or it is not a description of human behaviour.
2
Elaboration of the terms in the definition of the original position:
Veil of ignorance is to mean parties don't know certain kinds of particular facts. No One knows
his: Place in the society (class, position, race, status, gender...)
 His fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities
 Conception of the good( his particular rational plan of life)
 His preference
 Special features of his psychology(risk perception, optimism or pessimism )
 A particular circumstances of his society( culture, economic and political situation,
civilization)
 Which generation he belongs too.
But
Note that parties do know general facts, :- like general economic and social affairs, general facts about
human society, general laws of human psychology,
The parties under original position choose principles which are:-general in form, universally in
application, publicly recognized as a final court of appeal for ordering of conflicting claims of a moral
person. The principle chosen under original position is the result of fair agreement or bargaining that
all would consent as equal. Because of the assumption of the veil of ignorance at the original position,
no one can skew the benefits and burdens towards its favour due to its social and natural advantage.
Characteristics of the parties under original position:

The parties are mutually disinterested, with similar and complementary interest having
conflicting claims on the division of social advantages.
The parties under original positions are rational in choosing principles. ( rational in the sense
that each prefers more of the social primary goods than less)
Criticisms





The original position and the veil of ignorance is unrealistic
o But Rawls argues that it is not an expression of theory of the person identity but it is
an intuitive test of fairness.
It doesn't take into account the different gender of human beings (Men, female), it just
generalize all as human beings with out giving any account to specific individual
characteristics/gender.
The parties under original position are put as a several copies of a single individual. In a
society for instance, one can be poor one can be rich. But since no one knows any particular
information about itself, parties are just put as several copes of a single individual.
 Rawls argues that each party has to imagine the possibility of becoming all
kind of person. Every one puts itself in other person shoe. By doing so all
kind of person and gender can be considered.
The parties not being perfectly informed, they should necessary engage in dialog and
exchange of information and points of views with the other.
The assumption of mutual disinterested parties is to narrow view of human nature. Humans
can be envious, altruistic, or egoistic ...
3

But here Rawls argues that “mutual disinterested” parties is not to imply any
specific theory about human nature but to ensure that the social contract
chosen in original position takes into account the rational self-interest of every
single parties . Since the parties are under the veil of ignorance, asking people
to decide what is best for themselves has the same consequence as asking
them to decide what is best for everyone. In this way “mutual disinterested” to
mean that equal consideration is given to each person.
The difference principle:The difference principle states: - no one deserves advantage due to their favourable position in the
distribution of social and natural goods. Therefore, social and economic inequalities are only allowed
if it works the greatest benefit to the least advantaged group.
Under the difference principle:

Both natural and social primary goods shouldn't be made to influence the distribution.
(Because under the difference principle no one deserves the benefit from having better natural
talent or social goods unless it benefits the least disadvantage group.
The least advantaged are those with lowest social primary good. Natural primary goods are not
used in an index which determines who is the least advantaged group. Thus, compensation for
being socially disadvantaged but not natural disadvantage. Handicap person treated in the
same way with another person who is not handicap but who has the same social primary good
as the handicap person.
The following figures (taken from Hilde Bojer 2003) can give illustration of the principle
Assuming income as only social primary good to be distributed
UD – unequal distribution
FE- full equality; the benchmark
4
Figure 1
Figure 2
Income
Income
UD
UD
FE
Persons (ordered from lowest income to highest income)
FE
Persons (ordered from lowest income
to highest income)
According to the difference principle 


In Figure 1 the unequal distribution chosen than equal one (the benchmark). It provides
greatest benefit for the least advantaged group(in this case those group with lowest income)
In Figure 2, the equal distribution is chosen than unequal as a just. Because choosing unequal
distribution can make the majority to gain but at the cost of the least advantageous group (in
this case the poorest group) who sacrifices some income from the benchmark distribution i.e
full equality. Therefore, according to the difference principle the unequal distribution in figure
2 is unjust.
According to Rawls the rational principle that the society chooses under original position are
the liberty principle and the difference principle. The liberty principle has absolute priority
than the difference principle. The liberty principle is specified as “Equal right with the greatest
basic liberty (the civil and political right in liberal democracy) for all compatible with similar
liberty for all.”
Criticism:
The difference principle implies an infinite risk aversion. Because by choosing the distribution
that provides the greatest benefit to the least advantaged group the difference principle
maximizes the worst possible outcome. The society might not be an infinitely risk averse.
The benefit to majority might outweigh the minor loss to the disadvantage. The
difference principle is not a rational strategy chosen by the society the utilitarian approach of
maximizing total social welfare rather can be the approach selected
5
o

Rawls answer that :- under the veil of ignorance, where no one knows whether or not
he will be the one who will be endlessly sacrificed for the maximum total social
welfare, it is not rational for any party under original position to select utilitarian
approach.
Though Rawls wishes to subsidize life chances and not life choices, his difference principle
violates this choice- circumstance distinction in two ways.
 First since natural primary goods don’t include in the index which determine
who is the least well off. Therefore, there is no compensation for those who
are disadvantaged in natural primary good. E.g. Even if the handy-cap person
has extra medical costs than the person who has the same level of social
primary good as the handicap, he is not given any benefit because he is
handicap. Although, the extra-burden to the handicap is due to his
circumstance not his choice, he is subject to receiving undeserved burden
under the difference principle
 Those with the modest taste subsidize those with the expensive taste. If two
people have the same natural and social primary good and if one chooses
more leisure, less work and earn less. And if the other chooses less leisure,
more work and earns more.Tthe later has to subsidize the former. Because
under the difference principle inequality is allowed only if the least
advantaged group is benefited. So the one with modest preference for leisure
will be taxed until the other person who has expensive preference for leisure
gets the maximum benefit.
Social primary good: - Are goods that are:


Needed by every one in a society whatever their goal in life is in order to pursue their own
rational plans of life/ conceptions of good.
Directly distributed by the social institution.
Subject to equal distribution in the society. In a just society, social primary goods should be
distributed equally, unless an unequal distribution would be to the advantage of the
least advantaged group.

The lists are:1 - Basic liberty (Civil and political liberties)
2 – Opportunities (choice of occupation)
3 - Power (Positions of responsibility)
4 – Income and wealth
5 – The social base of self respect
Criticisms

It is difficult to include the concept of income in the primary good. Individual cash income
depends on the labour-leisure choice of the individual. In addition one can have different full
income even if it has the same cash income. (Full income = cash income + capital + transfer).
Further income considered at the household level and at the individual level is different.
6