Make a comparative assessment of Greek perspective of Justice with the Rawlsian concept of Justice. (UPSC CSE Mains 2020 - Political Science and International Relations, Paper 1)
- The Greeks looked upon justice as virtue in action and therefore a virtue. The Greek conception of justice was the virtue of soul and injustice its vice. To both Plato and Aristotle justice meant goodness as well as willingness to obey laws. It connoted correspondence of rights and duties. Justice was the ideal of perfection in human relationships. And the spirit which animated men in the proper discharge of their duties. The promotion of balance and harmony in thought and action was pre-eminently social in character. Nature was the source of law and the duty of the state was ordinarily considered to be the application rather than the creation of the law. Aristotle, and Plato''s justice, in fact both are complementary to each other, the aim of both philosophers is to find of a principle of capacity through which , unity, harmony , virtue and happiness can be established in the society.
- Utilitarian theory asserts that the social order in which the largest number of people can have the highest satisfaction of their utility is just. But from its very early days, critics have found great difficulties with utilitarianism. In this backdrop, Rawls’s theory has offered, an alternative to utilitarianism.
- Rawls places men behind the ‘veil of ignorance’ in a hypothetical original position where individuals are deprived of the basic knowledge of their wants, interests, skills, abilities and of the things that generate conflicts in actual societies. But they will have what Rawls calls ‘a sense of justice’.
- Under these circumstances, Rawls argue, people will agree to accept two principles of justice in the lexical order. First, is the equality principle where each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive liberty compatible with a similar liberty to others. Here, equal liberties can be concretised as the familiar rights of liberal democratic regimes. They include the equal right to political participation, freedom of expression, religious liberty, equality before the law and so on. The second principle Justice is called the difference principle where Rawls argues that inequalities can only be justified, if it benefits the least advantaged.
- In Rawls’s theory of justice, individuals have to make a choice of social order. They would naturally prefer an egalitarian society. His theory grants equal basic liberties for all. Inequalities should be attached to offices open to all. They should benefit the disadvantaged section the most.
- John Rawls’s concept of justice has two aspects to it. Firstly, it postulates a “constitutional democracy”, that is, government of laws and one, which is restrained, responsible and accountable. Secondly, it believes in the regulation of the free economy “in a certain way”. “If law and government”, writes Rawls’s, “act effectively to keep market competitive, resources fully employed, property and wealth widely distributed over time, and to maintain the appropriate social minimum, then if there is equality of opportunity underwritten by education for all, the resulting distribution will be just”.
Next
previous
Latest News
General Studies