IDEA OF JUSTICE

BY: ADVOCATE GULSHER MARI BALOUCH.

The least advantaged be benefited not hurt or forgotten

With evolution of human, societies grow and multiply in varied dimensions on the name of progress and prosperity but the underlying idea of just and fair society remains an ideal and forgotten dream of the subjects and citizens of a society. As the very idea as well as the theory of JUSTICE first time realized by John Rawls who discussed various dimensions of this idea ad the need for just society. Primarily, he being a political philosopher idealized the idea as need for just and fair society based on greatest good for greatest numbers. So, this article as well as a piece of writing brings historical, academic, political, economic and legal aspect of this noble idea of justice before the readers and scholars through lenses of social justice. For this purpose, various examples, issues and case studies are to be brought to surface to fit the subject matter squarely for the sake of understanding and information on the subject. However, the idea remained since its inception and conceptualization subject to institutions to get implemented and brought its ideals to the end consumers like subjects as well as citizens of a society.

Let’s begin with historical and academic side of the subject matter.  Before moving the historical and academic basis of the idea justice it is pertinent to discuss the entomological aspect of the word justice. The word justice holds its roots back to Latin language word JUS meaning right or law. The Oxford Dictionary defines a just person is one who typically does what is morally right and is disposed to giving his or her due, offering word fair as synonyms.  Historically, the concept of justice was first time floated by Greek-Philosophers like Plato, Aristotle and others. Plato in his book the Republics considered as the best and most read treaties for political philosophers and for statemen to understand how to steer the governance in order to manage a just society through utility of goods to the deserving one and fulfil the needs of the needy and deprived. To make it more elaborative, Plato at one place in his prominent work the Republic stresses on JSUTICE as ‘’ justice in life and conduct of the state as possible only if it first resides in the hearts and souls of the citizens.’’ He emphasizes on the moral and ethical side of the idea that it only be implemented and put in force for its dispensation through moral and ethical forces. In other words, Plato equated the very notion of justice that based on social contract and liberty with virtue and character of each individual for the goodness of a society. Another prominent philosopher namely Aristotle defines justice as he focuses on the common good and common interest of the community. It sounds and looks from his words that he says on what grounds law be framed to provide justice.

To the extent of the Theory of Justice, John Rawls in 1971 he gave the Theory of Justice in his book the theory of justice he argues that justice can be possibly reconciled by equating the noble balancing ideas of Equality and Liberty for just and ordered society. This view works in keeping the conduct of the parties and their choice to seek justice. He further argues that the choice of the parties further be saved from veil ignorance. It is pertinent to dig out the original position of the parties who come to the court of law for seeking rights and speak their grievances. Why it is important to understand the position of the parties and how to avoid the veil ignorance? In practical legal parlance when a suit is brought to the court, a complaint is brought before police officer for the registration of FIR and appeal is made to be heard before the appellant forum for seeking justice and submitting grievances. Here another prominent writer and scholar namely Amartya Sen writes well for this stage that the main focus of law should be to remove legal defects and remove legal impurities that hamper the process of seeking justice.

In practice to understand the ideas of Sen and Rwals are seen from this example that goes like this – In fact, Sen maintains that there are many principles that can pass the test of impartiality. He illustrates this point, first, using an anecdote about the competing claims of three children over the distribution of a single flute. One child argues that they should receive the flute because they are the best flautist; the second, because they are the poorest of the lot; and the third, because they crafted the flute without help from the others. The three arguments are based, in turn, on principles of utility, economic equity, and the entitlement to the fruits of one’s unaided efforts. Each can be defended with strong, impartial arguments. And, returning to Rawls, it is similarly possible, for example, to provide substantial reasons for selecting Harsanyi’s utilitarian principle in the place of Rawls’ maximin principle as the basis for resolving distributional questions within a situation similar to the original position.