4.1. What is Justice

All cultures and traditions have grappled with questions of justice although they may have interpreted the concept in different ways. For instance, in ancient Indian society, justice was associated with dharma and maintaining dharma or a just social order, was considered to be a primary duty of kings. In China, Confucius, the famous philosopher argued that kings should maintain justice by punishing wrong doers and rewarding the virtuous.

Throughout history, societies have interpreted justice in varying ways. In ancient India, justice was closely linked to 'dharma,' which referred to the moral order and duties in society. Kings were tasked with upholding this order. Similarly, Confucian philosophy in China emphasized that rulers should enforce justice by punishing wrongdoers and rewarding virtuous actions. These cultural interpretations highlight that justice is not a one-size-fits-all concept; rather, it evolves based on societal values and moral frameworks.

Think of justice as a recipe that varies by region. Just as Italian cuisine emphasizes pasta and tomato sauce while Indian cuisine may focus on rice and spices, concepts of justice like dharma in India and the Confucian ideals in China reflect the distinct ingredients of their cultural and moral landscapes.

In fourth century B.C. Athens (Greece), Plato discussed issues of justice in his book The Republic. Through a long dialogue between Socrates and his young friends, Glaucon and Adeimantus, Plato examined why we should be concerned about justice. The young people ask Socrates why we should be just. They observe that people who were unjust seemed to be much better off than those who were just.

Plato's 'The Republic' explores the nature of justice through dialogues featuring Socrates and his companions. The main question posed is why it is important to be just when, often, unjust people appear more successful. This inquiry prompts critical thinking about the relationship between justice and personal success, suggesting that societal well-being hinges on collective adherence to justice principles, rather than individual gain.

Imagine a game where some players cheat to win. Initially, it may look like cheating pays off, but if everyone cheats, the game's fairness collapses, and ultimately, no one enjoys the game. Similarly, Socrates argues justice is essential for societal harmony.

Socrates reminds these young people that if everyone were to be unjust, if everyone manipulated rules to suit their own interests, no one could be sure of benefiting from injustice. He clarified that justice does not only mean doing good to our friends and harm to our enemies, or pursuing our own interests. Justice involves the well-being of all people.

Socrates argues that a society laden with injustice ultimately harms everyone involved. If all individuals act solely for their benefit, the resulting chaos undermines security and stability, damaging collective interests. He elaborates that true justice entails considering the welfare of all members of society—not just fulfilling personal or selective interests.

Consider a community potluck where everyone brings food to share. If one person only brings their favorite dish without sharing others' contributions or needs, it might seem fine for that individual. However, if everyone acts selfishly, the potluck fails, and no one benefits. In justice, the communal well-being must prevail over individual benefit.

The idea that justice involves giving each person his due continues to be an important part of our present-day understanding of justice. However, our understanding of what is due to a person has changed from the time of Plato. Today, our understanding of what is just is closely linked to our understanding of what is due to each person as a human being.

Justice is often articulated as the principle of giving everyone what they rightfully deserve. This principle has evolved. While Plato focused on societal roles and moral duties, modern interpretations consider inherent human dignity, typically shaped by rights to equality and opportunities for personal development. Justice today emphasizes treating individuals with respect and recognizing their unique needs and rights.

Think of justice like a teacher allocating grades. Each student deserves grades based on their performance, not on preferential treatment or bias. By ensuring everyone receives what they are due based on merit, the teacher promotes a fair educational environment, much like society should aim to deliver.

Although there might be broad agreement in modern society about the equal importance of all people, it is not a simple matter to decide how to give each person his/her due. One of the principles is the principle of treating equals equally. It is considered that all individuals share certain characteristics as human beings. Therefore they deserve equal rights and equal treatment.

The principle of treating equals equally posits that people who are equal in certain fundamental ways, such as their humanity, should be treated the same under the law. This principle underpins modern civil rights movements, emphasizing that discrimination based on irrelevant factors (like race or gender) is unjust. It establishes a baseline for societal treatment and legal rights.

Imagine a race where all participants start at the same line. If someone were moved ahead because of their background, it would create an uneven playing field. Fairness lies in treating everyone equally from the start, just as justice demands equal rights for all regardless of personal attributes.

However, equal treatment is not the only principle of justice. There could be circumstances in which we might feel that treating everybody equally would be unjust. The principle of taking account of the special needs of people while distributing rewards or duties is considered a way of promoting social justice.

While equal treatment is fundamental, situations arise where someone’s unique needs necessitate special accommodations. This principle recognizes that not everyone starts from equal circumstances and advocates adjusting benefits or responsibilities to ensure a more equitable outcome for those at a disadvantage, thereby promoting broader social justice.

Consider a sporting event with participants who have physical disabilities. Equal treatment may involve providing all competitors with the same amount of time or resources. However, a fair approach would mean adapting to ensure every participant can perform to the best of their ability, acknowledging their unique situations.

--