What is Justice?
Justice is often described as the first virtue of social institutions. But what does it mean to be “just”? At its most basic level, justice is about “giving each person their due.” However, philosophers have long debated what actually is “due” to people.
We can distinguish between different types of justice:
- Retributive Justice: Focuses on punishment for wrongdoing (the “eye for an eye” approach).
- Corrective (Restorative) Justice: Focuses on making victims whole and restoring social balance.
- Distributive Justice: Focuses on the fair distribution of benefits and burdens (wealth, rights, opportunities) within a society. This is the primary focus of modern political philosophy.
John Rawls: Justice as Fairness
As discussed previously, John Rawls’s A Theory of Justice (1971) is the most influential work on the subject in the modern era. Rawls argues that justice is what rational, self-interested people would agree to from the Original Position behind a Veil of Ignorance.
Rawls’s framework is an example of Liberal Egalitarianism. He tries to reconcile two conflicting values: individual liberty and social equality.
His Difference Principle is particularly famous: “Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are… to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged.” This suggests that wealth concentration is only “just” if it somehow helps the poor (for instance, by incentivizing innovation that lowers the cost of living).
Robert Nozick: Libertarianism and Entitlement
In direct response to Rawls, Robert Nozick published Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974). Nozick argues for a Libertarian view of justice based on the concept of Self-Ownership.
Nozick’s “Entitlement Theory” has three components:
- Justice in Acquisition: If you find something in nature that no one owns and you mix your labor with it, you own it.
- Justice in Transfer: If you own something, you can voluntarily give it to someone else (e.g., selling it, gifting it).
- Rectification of Injustice: If someone stole something, they must give it back.
Crucially, Nozick argues that any attempt to “redistribute” wealth (like taxing the rich to help the poor) is a violation of self-ownership. To Nozick, taxing someone’s labor is “on a par with forced labor.” If you acquired your wealth through fair trade and hard work, no one—not even the state—has a right to take it from you, even for a “good cause.”
Michael Walzer: Spheres of Justice
Michael Walzer, a Communitarian thinker, argues in Spheres of Justice (1983) that there is no single rule for justice that applies to everything.
He argues that different “social goods” belong to different spheres, and each sphere has its own logic of distribution:
- The sphere of Money should be governed by the market.
- The sphere of Education should be governed by talent and interest.
- The sphere of Political Power should be governed by merit and democratic choice.
- The sphere of Need (healthcare, food) should be governed by… well, need.
Walzer’s main concern is “dominance”—when someone who is successful in one sphere (like money) uses that success to dominate another sphere (like politics or healthcare). Justice, for Walzer, is “complex equality”—keeping the spheres separate so that one kind of success doesn’t translate into total social control.
Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum: The Capabilities Approach
Sen and Nussbaum argue that focusing only on “wealth” (as economists do) or “rights” (as some philosophers do) is insufficient. Justice should be measured by what people are actually able to do and be.
They focus on “Capabilities”—the real opportunities that a person has. A just society is one that ensures every citizen has a minimum threshold of key capabilities, such as:
- Life and Health (living a full lifespan).
- Bodily Integrity (being safe from violence).
- Affiliation (being able to live with others).
- Practical Reason (being able to form a conception of the good).
This shift moves the focus from “how much money do you have?” to “do you have the freedom to achieve a life you value?”
Conclusion
The debate over justice is a debate over the very definition of a “good society.” Is it a society that protects individual property at all costs (Nozick)? One that ensures the poor are not left behind (Rawls)? One that protects the integrity of different social spheres (Walzer)? Or one that empowers people to realize their human potential (Sen)? How we answer these questions shapes our laws, our taxes, and our collective future.