WHAT IS JUSTICE? WHAT ARE THE PARAMETERS OF JUSTICE?

 These questions have long dogged intelligent minds. One of the most celebrated works on justice has been written by Professor John Rawls, who wrote a seminal text named A Theory Of Justice. (John Rawls, A theory of Justice, Oxford University Press, 1972).

In his book, Rawls mentioned two principles of justice:

      The first Principle of Justice (Principle of Liberty): Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others.

   The second Principle of Justice (Difference Principle): Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both:

a)    To the greatest benefit of the least advantaged.

b)    Attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.

The aforementioned principles of justice were formulated by Rawls through a hypothetical situation: drawing upon the “social contract theory”, he assumed that human beings, in what he termed as an “original position”, where they had ‘veil of ignorance’ about their future positions in society would agree to the above principles in mutual interest. The principles seem fairly straightforward.  They do not, however, settle the matter. Rawls himself seemed aware of the nuance of the situation.

Practically, Rawls’ theory of Justice is easier stated in words that utilised in order to solve societal problems. For instance, how does one look at the quota system for the disadvantaged in educational institutions? The quota system clearly violates the first principle of justice, the liberty principle, as a person who passes a “merit’ based examination loses her position to someone who is disadvantaged owing to the accident of birth. Would such an affirmative action programme follow Rawls; the principle of justice whereby social and economic inequalities have to be arranged so that they are to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged?

 In recent times, Professor Amartya Sen has taken a relook at the idea of justice in his latest book titled “The Idea of Justice”. Professor Sen evokes the complexity involved in understanding justice through an interesting illustration. Sen takes an example of three children Anne, Bob and Carla, who quarrelled over a flute. While Anne claims the flute on the ground that she knows how to play it, Bob claims it on the ground that he is poor, and Carla claims that she is the one who made the flute and therefore it rightly belongs to her. Anne, Bob, Carla each seem to have compelling albeit competing, arguments in their favour.

Sen’s illustration is akin to the societal problems that we face every day. In claiming a seat in medical college, for example, there are competing but sometimes equally strong claims. So how should one grapple with such claims in a society? Sen suggests that the way out is that instead of being inordinately obsessed with what ‘justice’ means, society ought to concentrate its energy upon reducing all forms ‘injustice’. Perhaps, therefore, it would be better to ensure that ‘injustice’ is reduced for both the student who seeks a seat in the medical college through an affirmative action quota as well as the student who is missing out on the said admission.