THEORIES OF JUSTICE

Theory of Justice

In his book on Theory of Justice, Rawls argues that the concepts of freedom and equality are
not mutually exclusive. His assessment of the justice system leads him to conclude that for
justice to be truly just, everyone must be afforded the same rights under the law.

 In the first part of the book, Rawls asks: if everyone were taken of their privileges and
social status and made entirely equal, what kind of justice system would they want to be
subject to? He includes that the only logical choice is to pick a system that treats people
equally, regardless of their race, class, gender, etc.
 In the second part, he discusses how his theory of justice would affect institutions today.
Without pointing fingers, he makes it clear that no one is living up to his standards.
 In the third part, he describes the good effects that a real justice system can have on
society.

Six Theories of Justice

Six Theories of Justice clarifies that question and offers major alternative answers. 

1. Distributive justice

It concerns the nature of a socially just allocation of goods in a society. A society in

which incidental inequalities in outcome do not arise would be considered a society
guided by the principles of distributive justice.

Distributive Justice by Robert Nozick from Anarchy, State and Utopia (1974): The
complete principle of distributive justice would say simply that a distribution is just if
everyone is entitled to the holdings they possess under the distribution. A distribution is
just if it arises from another (just) distribution by legitimate means. The legitimate means
of moving from one distribution to another are specified by the principle of justice in
transfer. The legitimate first "moves" are specified by the principle of justice in
acquisition. Whatever arises from a just situation by just steps is itself just.

The economic framework that each society has — its laws, institutions, policies, etc. —
results in different distributions of economic benefits and burdens across members of
the society. These economic frameworks are the result of human political processes
and they constantly change both across societies and within societies over time. The
structure of these frameworks is important because the economic distributions resulting
from them fundamentally affect people's lives. Arguments about which frameworks
and/or resulting distributions are morally preferable constitute the topic of distributive
justice. Principles of distributive justice are therefore best thought of as providing moral
guidance for the political processes and structures that affect the distribution of
economic benefits and burdens in societies.

Distributive principles vary in numerous dimensions. They vary in what is considered

relevant to distributive justice (income, wealth, opportunities, jobs, welfare, utility, etc.);
in the nature of the recipients of the distribution (individual persons, groups of persons,
reference classes, etc.); and on what basis the distribution should be made (equality,
maximization, according to individual characteristics, according to free transactions,
etc.).

Throughout most of history, people were born into, and largely stayed in, a fairly rigid
economic position. The distribution of economic benefits and burdens was normally
seen as fixed, either by nature or by God.

Only when there was a widespread realization that the distribution of economic benefits
and burdens could be affected by government then the distributive justice becomes a
live topic. At present this topic is unavoidable.

Governments continuously make and change laws and policies affecting the distribution
of economic benefits and burdens in their societies. Almost all changes, whether they
regard tax, industry, education, health, etc. have distributive effects. As a result, every
society has a different distribution at any point in time. The practical contribution of
distributive justice theory is to provide moral guidance for these constant changes.

So, for instance, advocates of Rawls' Difference Principle are arguing that we should
change our institutions to improve the life prospects of the least advantaged in society.
Others are arguing for changes to bring economic benefits and burdens more in
accordance with what people deserve. Libertarians are arguing that reductions in
government intervention in the economy will better respect liberty and/or self-ownership
of its citizens. Sometimes a number of the theories will recommend the same changes;
other times they will diverge.

2. Justice as Entitlement

Entitlement theory is a theory of distributive justice and private property created by

Robert Nozick in his book Anarchy, State, and Utopia.

Nozick’s entitlement theory of justice is historical. It claims that we can tell whether a
distribution of goods is just or not by looking at its history. If goods were acquired and
transferred legitimately, then the resulting distribution of goods is just. If they were not,
then we have to ask whether the injustice was rectified according to the third principle. If
so, then the resulting distribution is just and if not, then not.

3. Justice as Rights

4. Feminism and Justice

Defenders of a feminist conception of justice present a distinctive challenging critique to
defenders of other conceptions of justice. In his The Subjection of Women (1869), Mill,
one of the earliest male defenders of women's liberation, argues that the subjection of
women was never justified but was imposed upon women because they were physically
weaker than men; later this subjection was confirmed by law. Mill argues that society
must remove the legal restrictions that deny women the same opportunities enjoyed by
men.
It is not enough simply to remove unequal restrictions to make a competition fair.
Positive assistance to those who have been disadvantaged in the past may also be
required.

Positive assistance, such as affirmative action programs, may be necessary to enable

women who have been disadvantaged in the past to compete fairly with men.

In Justice, Gender, and the Family (1989), Susan Okin argues for the feminist ideal
of a gender-free society. A gender-free society is a society where basic rights and
duties are not assigned on the basis of a person's biological sex. Since a conception of
justice is usually thought to provide the ultimate grounds for the assignment of rights
and duties, we can refer to this ideal of a gender-free society as feminist justice.

Susan Okin contends that in a gender-structured society, male philosophers cannot

achieve the sympathetic imagination required to see things from the standpoint of
women. According to Okin, original position-type thinking can only really be achieved in
a gender-free society.

Even among those in our gendered society who are, generally, capable of a sense of
justice, some may not be able to do original position-type thinking with respect to the
proper relationships between men and women and may acquire the ability only after
laws and social practices shift significantly toward a more gender-free society. Others
may have the ability to think in this in this way, having effectively used the opportunities
for moral development available to them to achieve the necessary sympathetic
imagination.

5. Economic theories

6. Corrective Justice
Corrective justice is a fundamental type of justice, concerned with the reversal of
wrongs or the undoing of transactions. Corrective justice also offers powerful insights
into tort law, contract law, and unjust enrichment, among other fields. Yet, theorists
provide very different accounts of its content and justification. For example, prominent
accounts draw on moral duties, expressive meanings, and economic efficiency to justify
corrective justice. In addition, the relation between corrective justice and other types of
justice is controversial. Among other concerns, distributive justice aims may be in
tension with corrective justice. Given these concerns, corrective justice has become an
increasingly interesting and important topic in legal theory.

Corrective justice is the principle that those who are responsible for the wrongful losses
of others have a duty to repair them, and that the core of tort law embodies this
conception of corrective justice.

Corrective justice is the one of two most dominant approaches to Tort theory. The other
is the economic theory.