The Paradigm of Justice

A Contemporary Debate between John Rawls and Amartya Sen

Kantilal Das

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• Print ISBN:
  9781032072296
• eBook ISBN:
  9781000436815
• Topic: Philosophy
• Subtopic: Philosophy History & Theory

This book deals with the fascinating debate over the concept of justice proposed by two contemporary thinkers, namely, John Rawls and Amartya Sen. Justice means what is just, but how do we know what is just? What would be the viable criterion to legitimize justice? Is justice objective or subjective? Is justice a matter of ontological issue or an issue of realization? What would be the paradigm of justice? These are some important issues discussed in the book.

Please note: Taylor & Francis does not sell or distribute the Hardback in India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.

Chapter: 1

General Introduction

DOI: 10.4324/9781003206002-1

1.1: A Historical Account of the Concept of Justice

Justice is the first virtue of social institutions and it may be taken as an important moral issue. Justice not only limits moral good, but it also regulates moral good. Justice is a central question of all life in society. In the editor’s foreword of The Concept of Justice of N.M.L.Nathan, W.D.Hudson said, “To arrive at a correct understanding of justice has been the aim of moral and political philosophy from Greek antiquity to our own day.”¹ What then is justice? Or what justice is all about? From a traditional perspective, the concept of justice is defined as ‘giving to each his or her due’. However, what counts as due? In this regard, Miller holds that “the just state of affairs is that in which each individual has exactly those benefits and burdens which are due to him”² and he further continues that ‘the important question about justice emerge when we try to settle what a person’s “due” actually means’³. The term ‘justice’ has been used by different authors in different senses from antiquity down to the twenty-first century. Even Adam Smith has conceived that the term ‘justice’ has ‘several different meanings’.⁴ Justice means what is just. Justice thus is a process of paying due. Justice by any means is not an incentive, nor an award, nor even mercy. Rather justice is supposed to be the basic means of fulfilling basic needs. Thus, it can be said that questions about justice are questions about what people are due. A man is just who knowingly pays due to others. In Indian philosophy, justice means Dharma. What comes in the way of engaging correctly with the world is nothing but human vanity. Therefore a man is just who knows what Dharma is. In Mahabharata, it is said, “Who has in his heart always the well-being of others, and is wholly given, in acts, thoughts, and speech, to the good of others, he alone known what dharma is.”⁵ Even in Rig Veda (c.1500 BC), it is said that Dharman (a man of justice) is one who helped to preserved the identity and continuity of his tradition and established order and harmony in his universe.

1W.D.Hudson, Editor’s Foreword of the book The Concept of Justice of N.M.L. Nathan, Macmillan, 1971.

2Miller, R. ‘Rawls and Marxism’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 3, 1974, p. 167.

3Ibid., p.168.

4Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, 6^th edition, London: T. Cadell, 1790, p.269.

5The Mahabharata Xii 262.9; An Inquiry into the Human condition, trans. Chaturvedi Badrinath, New Delhi: Orient Longman, 2006.

According to St. Augustine, ‘state without justice are but robber brands enlarged’. Even Plato in his Republic has taken it as the mark of a just society. Justice, many would claim, is nothing but the bond of society because a society can only be justified when there remains mutual trust, mutual feeling towards fellow beings. It has been echoed by Hume long back. Hume in this regard goes on to say that justice is nothing but the byproduct of the bond of the society⁶ and without it, no association of humans could persist.

6David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, ed. L.A. Selby -Bigge, Oxford, 1902, p. 206

Justice may be contextual or may not be contextual. When Rawls develops justice as “justice as fairness”, his apprehension of justice is not contextual or consequential. However, there persists a strong perception or web in which justice has been conceived contextually. Can justice be measured? Can cosmopolitan or global justice be measurable? There we notice arguments for and against it. Having said this, when we talk about due in terms of justice or when we envisage with the question of what people are due, it can be answered in terms of desert, reciprocity, quality, or need. In this sense, justice is an assemblage of elements that reveal a degree of integration and unity on account of the integrity of a neighbored. Accordingly, it can be said, of course in a specific sense, that a theory of justice is a map of that neighborhood.⁷ According to Schmidiz, a good neighborhood is functional in the sense that in a situation like this people can live well. When we argue about justice the most important thing that comes to our mind is that justice has something to do with treating like cases alike. When the concept of justice is conceived based on the criterion treating like cases alike, it is supposed to be universalizable because the phrase treating like cases alike can be obtained based on the principle of generalization. However, treating like cases alike is not all about justice. Even though the idea of treating like cases alike is relevant, but there is more to justice than this. Preferential treatment, for example, is a case in point. In the case of preferential treatment there we find reverse discrimination. The term reverse discrimination, I think, even in the case of preferential treatment, may not be a well-documented term as far as the understanding of justice is concerned. To me, reverse discrimination does not hamper the sanctity of justice by any means, rather based on the difference principle of justice of Rawls, I do believe, one can guard it.

7David Schmidtz, Elements of Justice, Cambridge University Press, 2006, p. 3

Of course, the concept of preferential treatment is a debatable issue. In normal cases any form of preference is objectionable. When society is corrupt, the concept of preferential treatment even takes a different color. Having said this, when we discuss preferential treatment within the framework of justice, we would certainly like to say that preferential treatment certainly should not be treated as reverse discrimination, rather it should be treated as a form of justice. In India, the issue of preferential treatment is highly controversial and in some cases, it is too sensitive as well. The reservation policy in India is a controversial issue among the minds of many Indians even these days. But people do not say anything in other forms of preferential treatment except in admission and job. Just based on humanitarian grounds, the Government of India utilizes funds in different ways in terms of preferential treatment.

The concept of justice is the genesis of human. It is intimately associated with humans’ rights. Where humans’ rights are in danger, justice would equally be in danger. Injustice reflects the degeneration of humans. Humans differ from non-humans simply because unlike non-humans, humans can judge what is just for them. This distinctive quality of humans makes humans as legitimate moral agents. However, in the course of historical development, the concept of justice finds immense relevance to all sects, be the politicians, be the social reformers, be the consumers. Even these days we are also talking about environmental justice by incorporating biotic as well as abiotic within the domain of the environment. Even we cannot ignore the fate of future generations from the perspective of justice. These days people are also talking about environmental justice concerning future generations. Thus, justice is an all-inclusive concept where everyone receives his due without forfeiting the basic needs or rights of others. These days everybody is voicing for justice and this leads us to assume that ethical and moral standards of humans are being degenerated in every passing moment. With the advancement of science and technology, human beings of the present century are being civilized. There is no point in denying this fact. But what concerns us the most is the value erosion. Erosion of ethical and moral values is the cause of concern before the present generation. Degradation of values is the degradation of culture, historicity, and individual dignity. Thus, where value is being eroded, the relevance of justice would remain a far cry. The ethical and moral values are being eroded in every passing hour and it has been reflected through the heinous activities of the people of the present generation. A series of heinous activities on innocent women in the recent past in all over in India suggest where we stand up even in the twenty-first century. Unfortunately, civilized people even in the twenty-first century are lagging to realize what is just for society, community. Therefore, cultivation or culturing justice in the real sense of the term should be the order of the day. The present inquiry engages in envisaging the two contrasting dimensional aspects of justice from two great contemporary thinkers, namely, John Rawls and Amartya Sen. However in the on-going sequel I do engage myself in explicating and exploring the roadmap of justice from ancient tradition.

Even though the ongoing project is predominantly concerned with the current debate between Rawls and Sen, but we must take notice and relook of the ancient history of the concept of justice because I do believe that many of the ideas and principles regarding justice have come from an earlier civilization that pioneered many of the greatest ideas and concepts of the human experience. Any philosophical inquiry must link with the great and influential civilizations of Greeks, Romans, and Hebrews. In fact, to me, Western civilization, at large, had been dominated and influenced by these civilizations.

Before delving into these traditions, let us explain the very concept of justice or the sense of the word ‘justice’. The concept of justice is generic. It is generic in the sense that it takes in every aspect of human beings and leaves nothing. How can we define it? One can try to conceive justice concerning a just person. A just person is someone disposed to perform just rather than unjust actions, and just and unjust actions can be defined in terms of changes in the justice of states of affairs. Thus, it is a necessary and sufficient condition for a state of affairs to be just that it results in equals being treated equally and unequals equally. Here Aristotle’s remark is particularly relevant. Aristotle says, “... Justice is thought to be equality; and so it is, but for equals, not for everybody. Inequality is also thought to be just; and so it is, but for unequals, not for everybody.”⁸

8See, Aristotle, Politics 1280a9, translated by Robinson.

I think that the roots of the system of modern justice find its foothold first in the history of the Hebrews and subsequently carried through the Greeks and Romans and subsequently, it has gradually been rooted in the West and other parts of the world. The Old Testament of the Bible gives examples of the early systems of Hebrew justice. Early systems of Hebrew justice directly form some laws from the hands of God⁹ and these forms of law are significant as they present the idea that wrongdoing and violation of others for fulfilling one’s benefit is not only a sin, a transgression against the creator of the human race, but it is equally unacceptable in a civilized society where individual respect and safeguard are essential to a great extent. I think that the Greeks and Romans were influenced by Hebrew justice at large. As a result, the Greeks and Romans developed an actual justice system which eventually laid out a formalized or institutional system of law, rights for accused criminals, and the idea of trial by a jury of one’s peers to ensure that ‘justice is not only a swift but fair as well’.¹⁰ Even though the concept of justice in the twenty-first century has taken a radical turn in the rapidly altering scenario, but the early principles of justice as used in the West remained as the grip of justice to protect the good of the society.

9E. Yassif, The Hebrew Narrative Anthology in the Middle Ages, Prooftexts, 17(2), 153-175. 1997.

10See E. Barker, Greek Political Theory: Plato and His Predecessors, London: Methuen, 1964.

The idea of justice in Greeks, I think, was far more political than social. It emphasized more on the idea of an organized state, on the governmental bodies to make laws and to protect the greater good. It equally emphasized the improvement of the lives of citizens. As it emphasized on political justice, it, therefore, envisaged how the Greek Senate formed the nucleus of the organization of the Greek State, along with organized military, political officers, and the like. As Greek, the idea of justice in Romans was also political. Romans civilization pursued strongly in favor of a strong sovereign state than did the ancient Romans. The Romans used military might to assert their power over others and ultimately to guard their state. The concept of a sovereign state is something that has continued even the present day. This is mainly for the fact that the concept of justice, according to ancient traditions, was the concept of the state and its governmental system. Justice, for them, was primarily political than anything else. This trend remains even today’s welfare state. Ancient political systems function with the conviction that at the heart of politics and an effective political system the will and the idea of the people had been reflected. They can use their intelligence, ideas, and talents to improve the lives of their fellow citizens. This was exercised once again even in the Old Testament when Moses, David, and others were chosen by the Hebrews to lead and protect the...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Chapter: 1: General Introduction
• Chapter: 2: The Paradigm of Global (International) Justice: A Justice without Boundaries
• Chapter: 3: The Paradigm of Rawls’ Mainstream Theory of Justice: Rawls’ Idea of Justice as Justitium
• Chapter: 4: Sen’s Prudent Consequential Approach of Justice: An Alternative Paradigm
• Chapter: 5: Concluding Remarks
• Selective Bibliography
• Index