What is justice: traditions from dharma to Kant

Detail

1. What justice means

• Justice: the principles a society uses to run public life. It decides how social goods (benefits such as income, jobs and education) and social duties (burdens such as taxes and military service) are shared among people.
• Like love:
• We understand it by instinct, without a formal definition.

• People want it strongly and feel angry when it is denied.

• Unlike love:

• Love is a private matter between people.

• Justice concerns society as a whole: how laws, the state and institutions treat everyone.

• J.S. Mill: justice is what a person can claim from us as a moral right. So justice is a matter of rights we owe others, not charity we choose to give.

• In the Indian Constitution:
• The Preamble promises all citizens "JUSTICE, social, economic and political", along with liberty, equality and fraternity [2].
• Justice is called the "Pole Star" (guiding star) of the Constitution [2].
• The Preamble was debated in the Constituent Assembly on 17 October 1949 [2].

2. Early traditions of justice

Tradition	Core idea	Who maintains justice
Ancient India: dharma	Justice means keeping dharma, a just and moral social order	The king. Protecting dharma was his main duty (rajadharma, the king's duty to rule justly)
China: Confucius	Justice means punishing wrongdoers and rewarding the virtuous	The king, by punishing and rewarding
Athens: Plato's Republic (4th century BC)	Justice means the well-being of all, with each class doing its own work	The philosopher-rulers, by keeping the order of classes

3. Plato's Republic: the challenge to justice

• Setting: a dialogue (a written conversation) in Athens in the 4th century BC. Socrates is the main speaker.
• The challenge, from Glaucon and Adeimantus (Plato's brothers):
• Unjust people twist rules, avoid taxes and lie, and they often seem better off.

• So why should anyone be just?

• Glaucon's view of justice: an early contract theory. In this view, justice is an agreement people make out of self-interest, not something good in itself.

• People fear suffering injustice more than they gain from doing it.
• So they agree on laws and covenants (binding promises).

• Whatever the law orders, they call "just".

• Ring of Gyges: a story Glaucon uses in Book II.

• Suppose a magic ring made you invisible. Would you still act justly? [7]

• The point behind it: people act justly only because they cannot get away with injustice [7].

• Thrasymachus (a Sophist, or paid teacher of argument): justice is "the interest of the stronger".

• Justice is only obedience to the law.
• The strongest political group makes the laws for its own benefit.
• So justice serves the strong. This is often summed up as "might makes right" [6].

4. Socrates' answer and Plato's theory

• Long-term interest:
• If everyone bent the rules, no one would be safe.

• So being just serves everyone's long-term interest, even when injustice pays in the short run.

• What justice is not: it is not helping friends and harming enemies. It is not chasing one's own gain.

• What justice is: caring for the well-being of all, the way a doctor cares for patients.
• Socrates and Cephalus (Class 11 "Political Theory" chapter):
• Cephalus says justice is telling the truth and paying your debts.
• Socrates tests this with a case: should you return a weapon to a friend who has gone mad?

• The case shows that simple rules cannot fully define justice.

• Plato's theory of justice: a state is just when each class does the work it suits best and does not interfere in others' work.

Class in the state	Part of the soul it matches	Its virtue (good quality)
Guardian-rulers (philosopher-kings)	Reason	Wisdom
Auxiliaries (soldiers)	Spirit	Courage
Producers (farmers, craftsmen, traders)	Appetite (desires)	Self-control

• Justice in the person and in the state:
• A person is just when reason rules over spirit and appetite.

• A state is just when the three classes stay in harmony.

• Critique (Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies, 1945):

• Plato's scheme is hierarchical (people are ranked from top to bottom) and anti-democratic.
• Popper argued that Plato wanted to freeze all change and go back to a closed, tribal society [8].

• Popper's alternative, the open society, allows free criticism, free speech and peaceful reform of institutions [8].

• Aristotle, a useful pointer:

• Distributive justice: goods and offices are shared out according to merit or contribution.
• Corrective justice: a wrong is set right, for example through compensation or punishment, treating the parties as equals.

5. "Giving each person his due": the old formula with new content

• The idea is old, but what counts as "due" has changed over time.
• Plato: what is due depends on your class and role.

• Modern view: what is due is the same for every person.

• Kant's shift:

• Every human being has dignity (worth that cannot be bought or traded).

• So people must be treated as ends in themselves, never only as means (tools) for others' goals.

• What each person is owed after Kant:

• the chance to develop their talents; and

• the freedom to pursue the goals they choose.

• Result: justice needs equal consideration of all individuals. This sets up the three principles of justice in the next sections: equal treatment, proportionality and special needs.

6. Contemporary frames

• John Rawls, "justice as fairness" (covered in §10):

• Fair principles are those chosen behind a "veil of ignorance", where no one knows the place they will hold in society.

• Amartya Sen, The Idea of Justice (2009):

Term	Meaning	Focus
Niti	Proper institutions, rules and behaviour	Whether the rules and organisations are right
Nyaya	Justice that is actually achieved in people's lives	Outcomes. Above all, avoiding matsyanyaya, "justice in the world of fish", where the big fish eats the small fish

• Sen's point: good institutions (niti) are not enough. We must judge justice by real outcomes (nyaya).

7. From theory to the Constitution: justice that is actually delivered

• Article 38(1) (Directive Principle): the State must promote the welfare of the people. It must build a social order in which "justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all the institutions of the national life" [3].

• In the 1948 Draft Constitution, this was Draft Article 30 [3].

• Article 38(2): the State must try to reduce inequalities in income. It must also work to remove inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities, both between individuals and between groups in different areas or jobs [3]. Clause (2) was added by the 44th Amendment, 1978.

• Article 39A (equal justice and free legal aid):
• The legal system must promote justice on a basis of equal opportunity.
• The State must give free legal aid, so that no citizen is denied justice because of economic or other disabilities (such as poverty) [4].

• It was inserted by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976 [4].

• Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987:

• It came into force on 9 November 1995 [5].
• It set up a nationwide network led by the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA). The network gives free legal services to weaker sections, including those listed in Section 12 of the Act [5].

• It also organises Lok Adalats (people's courts that settle disputes by agreement) [5].

• "Justice delayed is justice denied" (NCERT cartoon):

• It links to procedural justice (fair and timely procedures, not just correct final verdicts).
• It also links to the problem of case pendency (cases waiting to be decided). See justice-delivery-tribunals.
• In Sen's terms, a court system that exists (niti) but rules years late fails nyaya.

Prelims Hooks

• "Justice is the interest of the stronger": Thrasymachus (not Glaucon, not Socrates), in Plato's Republic.
• Ring of Gyges (an invisibility ring) tests whether people would act justly if they could never be caught. Glaucon raises it in Book II of the Republic.
• Glaucon's view (laws come from an agreement made out of fear of suffering injustice) is an early form of social contract theory.
• Plato's three classes and the soul: rulers–reason, auxiliaries–spirit, producers–appetite. Justice means each class does its own work.
• Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945) attacked Plato as an enemy of the open society.
• Sen, The Idea of Justice (2009): niti = proper institutions. Nyaya = justice actually achieved. Matsyanyaya = the big fish eats the small fish.
• Preamble justice comes in three forms: social, economic, political, in that order. Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship comes next.
• Article 39A (equal justice and free legal aid) was inserted by the 42nd Amendment, 1976. The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 came into force on 9 November 1995.
• Article 38 started as Draft Article 30. Clause (2), on reducing income inequality, came with the 44th Amendment, 1978.
• Mill: justice is what a person can claim from us as a moral right. Kant: every person has dignity and must be treated as an end, not merely a means.

Mains Points

• From hierarchy to equal dignity:
• Plato's justice gives each person a fixed role by class. Dharma-based justice gives a role by place in the social order.
• Kant's idea gives everyone the same due: dignity and the chance to develop.

• The Indian Constitution follows the Kantian, liberal line: the Preamble, Articles 14–17 and Article 38. Use this to argue that caste-based ordering is incompatible with constitutional justice.

• Niti vs nyaya in Indian governance:

• India has strong institutions on paper: courts, NALSA, Lok Adalats.
• But pendency and poor access to courts turn "justice delayed" into "justice denied".

• Use Sen's frame to argue for judging reforms by outcomes, such as legal aid reaching weaker sections and faster disposal of cases, and not only by the laws passed.

• Thrasymachus vs Socrates today:

• Concerns about state capture (laws shaped by powerful interests) echo "the interest of the stronger".

• Socrates' long-term-interest argument supports the rule of law, independent courts and transparency as safeguards for all.

• Article 39A as substantive justice:

• Free legal aid moves justice from formal equality (the same law for all) to real equality of access (the poor can actually use the law).
• This connects the philosophy of justice to the welfare state of the Directive Principles.