Reviewing the views
Justice: Price v. Value
Emdadul Haque
Whether justice is action as per the requirements of law? Dry words of law refers justice as judgment or verdict involved in the determination and discovery of rights and the assignment of rewards and punishments reflecting the proper functionality or due process of law. The word justice was once 'justitia' an old French word that descended from Latin to denote 'justness or righteousness and equity'. A similar word from the same Latin root was 'justus' meaning 'upright, and just'. In social sense, justice is a concept of moral rightness based on rationality, value, equity or fairness, natural law and state law, theology, and ethics along with the punishment or correction for the breach of the said issues. Questions of justice are questions about what people are due, but what that means in practice depends on context.
The basis of justice, according to Socrates, is that you do what is socially most beneficial or what you do best. His disciple Plato identifying justice with happiness maintains that a just man is happy and an unjust man unhappy adding justice is not the right of the stronger but the effective harmony of the whole. Aristotle stands for expressing justice as 'a virtue of the soul distributing that which each person deserved.
In the words of Martin Luther King justice is opposite to injustice focusing injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Nelson Mandela regards justice as a duty to uphold dignity of all mankind and also to cry out united against discrimination and unjustness as opposed to the basis of justice. Matma Gandhi terms justice as peace which will not come out of a clash of arms but out of unity and non violence lived and done by unarmed nations in the face of odds. Justice is fairness in accordance with John Rawls relying on “just society” founded on liberty and equality. Justice is a value in line with words of Amartya Sen as he thinks that 'just society' is a vague concept as a society may be more less just' in a comparative approach. In essence, justice is not one dimensional but a multidimensional approaches varying on contexts and situations.
Justice: Price vs. Value
Theories of justice are perhaps the good sources of thought provoking discourses and sometimes of hectic debate leading to a constructive criticism, philosophical controversy, confrontation, and intellectual tussle among the philosophers and sometimes among the laymen as well. John Rawls' “A Theory of Justice” is the most dominant theory in the 20th century. This theory is familiar as “social contract” between the citizenry and the state.
Rawls in his theory begins with the statement that “justice is fairness” which the “first virtue of social institution” meaning that a “just society” is well structured coupled with his principles of justice viz. “liberty and equality”. A “just society” is produced through “perfectly just state institutions and social arrangements and the right behaviour” of the citizens. Central to his theory of “justice as fairness” is the outcome of the concepts of liberty and equality from behind what he terms a "veil of ignorance". Rawls's veil of ignorance is a component of the way people can construct society. He refers to an "original position" in which a person is attempting to determine a fair arrangement for society without any preconceived notions or prejudices.
According to him justice can be thought of as distinct from and more fundamental than benevolence, charity, mercy, generosity or compassion. He openly acknowledges that the world's poor have no place in his theory of justice. So, here justice is a product of social contract to be gained after being free and equal resembling first deserve then desire. Like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Immanuel Kant, John Rawls is an exponent of 'social contract' theory of justice reflecting status quo, capitalism, elitism and liberal egalitarianism. Rawls published this transcendental and monolithic theory of justice in 1971 and revised in 1975 and 1999. In his revised theory he answered the critiques turning into a more liberal focusing on “political liberalism” and concerns of global justice.
On the other hand, distinguished scholar Amartya Sen's “The Idea of Justice” is a recently developed “social choice theory of justice” where he brands justice as a “social value” based on diverging ideals and philosophies. Sen has also exemplified the divergent views of justice with the example of three children and a flute. Anne, Bob and Carla fight over a flute. Anne says the flute should be given to her because she is the only one who can play it; Bob says he should be handed to him as he is so poor and has no toys to play with. Carla says the flute is hers because she made it using her own labour.
Theorists of diverging schools of justice would have different views, Sen opines. The economic egalitarian who is committed to reducing social gaps might feel that Bob should get the flute because he is poor; the utilitarian hedonist will argue a bit but eventually settle for Anne because she will get the maximum pleasure as she can play the flute while the libertarian would say that Carla should get the flute because she has made it. What really enables us to settle the dispute between the three children is the value we affix to the pursuit of human fulfillment, removal of poverty, and the entitlement to enjoy the products of one's own labour. Who gets the flute depends on your philosophy of justice.
Sen who is a harsh critique of “A Theory of Justice” charges Rawls in a way that “just society” is a utopian term which is neither possible nor desirable rather a society may be “more” or “less” just. So, a comparative, result oriented, pluralistic and practical reasoning approach can be an effective alternative model of justice lessening injustice and advancing justice irrespective of social class or status forwarded by Karl Marx, John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham. Sen's gentle and polite deconstruction of Rawls is the distillation of his and his cohorts existing theories of justice. The synthesis of his theory reveals justice must be free from the domination of the will of majority and one that touches lives that people actually live and also it should not be of the few, by the few and for the few. According to him justice- a central feature of the traditional Indian perspective of “Naya” (Justice) and in contrast to “Niti”(Rules). The mainstream system of existing justice has taken us to a wrong direction. He advocates justice is not confined in a single theory and to any thumb rule rather justice depends on the clashing principles of social choice. He further points out those theories of justice that exclude, by definition, the poor or issues of global injustices only perpetuate injustice.
The concept of justice is not merely affixed to the proper functional parts of law in a just and perfect state under a social contract rather profusely attached to the diversifying social values. The longing for justice is human being's eternal longing for relief against the prevailing injustices in the entire globe searching amity, unity, harmony and truth exploring and avoiding clash and confrontation. To me, justice may not be paraphrased as the outcome of the clash of civilizations but may be rephrased as the aftermath of the alliance of civilizations. Justice is neither a destiny nor a destination rather it is a steady journey for the eternity, tranquility and bliss. Lastly, justice is the ray of hope, foundation of human rights, fabric of freedom, forgiveness and reconciliation to restore relationship between the creator and the created. Only multi dimensional approaches can put a barricade to injustice.
The writer is a Lecturer in Law at the Southeast University, Dhaka.
