Social Justice: Philosophical Foundations

2.1 What is Social Justice?

Social justice is an ancient concept — Plato asked about the just city in The Republic; Aristotle distinguished between distributive and corrective justice in the Nicomachean Ethics. In modern political philosophy, the term encompasses:

• Distributive justice: Who gets what — how resources, opportunities, rights, and burdens are allocated.
• Procedural justice: Whether the process by which distributions are made is fair.
• Corrective/restorative justice: Rectifying historical wrongs and restoring the violated to their rightful position.
• Recognitive justice (Fraser, Young): Recognising the cultural identity and dignity of marginalised groups, not just redistributing resources.

In public administration, social justice is operationalised through:

• Welfare schemes targeted at backward classes, women, tribal communities.
• Affirmative action (reservations) correcting historical discrimination.
• Progressive taxation redistributing from wealthy to poor.
• Universal basic services (healthcare, education) ensuring floor-level capabilities.

2.2 Rawls' Theory of Justice

John Rawls' A Theory of Justice (1971) is the most influential modern statement of liberal social justice.

The Original Position and Veil of Ignorance: Rawls asks us to imagine choosing principles of justice without knowing our place in society — our class, gender, caste, or talents. Behind this veil, rational people would choose principles that protect the worst-off, because they might end up there.

The Two Principles:

1. Equal Liberty Principle: Each person must have the most extensive system of equal basic liberties compatible with the same system for all (freedom of speech, conscience, political participation).
2. Difference Principle: Social and economic inequalities are justified only if they (a) are attached to positions open to all under fair equality of opportunity, and (b) benefit the least-advantaged members of society.

Administrative application: Budget allocations, scheme designs, and land acquisition compensation must be evaluated against the difference principle — do they benefit or harm the worst-off? A dam that displaces tribal communities without adequate rehabilitation fails the Rawlsian test.

2.3 Amartya Sen's Capabilities Approach

Sen argues that measuring justice by income or utility is inadequate; what matters is whether people have the capabilities — substantive freedoms — to lead lives they have reason to value.

The five capability dimensions (following Nussbaum):

1. Life — able to live to a normal length.
2. Bodily health — including adequate nutrition, shelter, reproductive health.
3. Senses, imagination, and thought — education, creative expression.
4. Emotions — able to love, grieve, and experience justified anger.
5. Political participation — effective participation in political choices governing one's life.

For a Rajasthan RAS officer, this means evaluating schemes not by expenditure incurred but by capabilities enhanced: Has the Mukhyamantri Chiranjeevi Yojana genuinely enhanced women's capability for health? Has MNREGA enhanced capability for dignified labour?

---