CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Justice is a complex concept yet it touches every aspects of human life. The attempt

to answer the question “what is justice?” or the attempt to understand and or define

the meaning of justice is one of the most abstract philosophical speculations. The

notion of justice has always been central to understanding of our legal, moral and

political theories and is considered as a primary virtue of any political institutions -

“Since then justice is regarded as an all-encompassing political virtue of political

institution”.1 It is a concept that involves fair and moral treatment of all individuals.

In its most general sense, it is understood as related to settlement of disputes and

giving people what they deserve.2 It is a foundational concept found in any system in

the society but Justice is given different meanings by different thinkers in different

times and their implication varies from man to man and from situation to situation. It

is, therefore, a difficult task to offer a precise definition of the term “Justice”. The

definition and meaning of justice are widely disputed among many thinkers across

time and fields. Any attempt to define has presented challenges to thinkers on

account of it multidimensionality. It is because of this nature of multidimensionality

1
(Ramaswamy, 2003)
2
(Adams, 1999)

1
that the topic of justice faces many problems owing to the attempt to define of

suggest as to what constitute the notion of justice best.

Meaning, Nature and Dimension of Justice

The idea of justice is a “dynamic affair”.3 The idea of justice has been both,

approached in abstraction and also in its practical manifestation like in law and

related judicial justice. However, justice is considered one of the most important

concepts in moral and political philosophy. Even though the concept is supposedly

wide and is often associated with various notions like welfare, right, correctness

happiness, freedom, fairness, equality and many more, it is impossible to restrict the

term “justice” within a boundary of a set of definitions.

Mostly, justice is comprehended as people's reasonableness towards or against good

and bad, just and out of line rule with respect to their very own idea. Thus, central to

the idea of justice is the notion of moral and social requirement for what is a right

and rational action. A just action manifest in a just and fair treatment to all members

in a group, society or institution.4 It gives the performers of the action what is due to

them and gives them their basic right, that is, the minimum right to which all are

entitled.5

3
(Johari, 1989)
4
(Rawls, A Theory of Justice , 1999)
5
This view belongs to the Liberal – Natural Right theories according to which justice is measured
according to the extent, the minorities and most vulnerable are protected. It uses a notion of natural
rights, the minimum rights to which all are entitled.

2
"Just" individual as one who commonly "does what is ethically right, and is arranged

to giving everybody their due", offering "reasonableness" as an equivalent word.6

However, justice and fairness refer to different concepts.7 Justice and fairness mean

different things in reality and disagrees with John Rawls and others, who adopt

fairness as a conception of justice.8 According to Cooke, “Justice is about the state

giving to people their due, whilst fairness is about people’s position in society being

determined by factors within their control”.9 In addition, David Schmidtz says that

justice is basically treating like cases alike. However, he continues to argue that

when we treat like cases alike it is not representative of the whole notion of justice.

David Schmidtz writes, “While treating like cases alike does not rule out even-

handedly punishing the innocent, giving people their due does. When we ask–what

justice is, we make a decent start when we say, whatever else we may debate, justice

is about what people are due”.10 Justice which have been in a debatable terms from

centuries and each times the definition go under a refine concept according to the

understanding of the philosophers the concept of justice in the new century but still

it holds its base of being fair and just to all.

Again, Justice is also often percieved as a quality that any rulers of any good state

government should possess. Amborgio Lorenzetti 11 depicted this undeerstanidg in

6
(Simpson & Weiner, 1884-1928)
7
(Serasinghe, 2013)
8
Ibid
9
Ibid
10
(Schmidtz, 2006)
11
Ambrogio Lorenzetti, (born c. 1285, Siena, Republic of Siena [Italy]—died c. 1348), Italian artist
who ranks in importance with the greatest of the Italian Sienese painters, Duccio and Simone
Martini.

3
his painting “Allegory of Good and Bad Government” which is fundamental to the

institution that turns a mass of individuals into a political community in the first

place.12 Justice then becomes a quality that holds individuals together into citizens

with one another to form one community, and then all of them together to a

government ruling them. In this, he was following a long-standing tradition that

viewed justice as central to the justification of political authority.13 As St. Augustine

had asked, “justice removed, then, what are kingdoms but great bands of robbers?”14

; saying that justice is of basic importance to good governance is one thing; saying

what justice really means is quite another. Justice is in this sense “the ligament”

which holds civilised beings and civilised nations together.15

“True peace is not merely the absence of tension but it is the presence of justice.”16

Justice, thus, in this sense is about the state giving to people their due. The conceptul

of justice is, it has always been a daunting task to pin down that justice as a concept

is in difinite this or that. However, the general understanding of justice meaning is

often associated with the idea of punishment, where wrongdoers are punished for

their actions. Taking this understanding into consideration, Justice, then has

something to do with punishment and reward and something to do with dues.

According to a definition as offered by a Roman Emperor by the name Justinian,

12
(Johnson, 2015)
13
(Miller, 2003)
14
The quote is taken from Online Library of Liberty, a collection of scholarly works about individual
liberty and free market where Augustine states that Kingdoms without justice are mere robbers, and
robberies are like small kingdom and this band of robbers are made up of a group of authoritative
men (prince or rulers or nobles) and the booty is divided among themselves by a law they all agreed
upon on.
15
David Webster in (Kirk, 1993)
16
(Martin Luther King, 2018)

4
“justice is the will to render to each his due”.17 At the same time, if we consider the

etymology of the word justice, it is said to come from the Latin word, “just” which

means right or law. These understanding taken by themselves suggests that justice is

a matter of each individual person being treated in the right way, giving their due

accordingly and in a fair manner with a consideration that all are equal and be treated

rightly equally depending on their actions (their due worth).

Justice is also one of those things that people talk about all the time without really

being specific about what they mean. We often hear, see and read in news where

people belonging to different backgrounds come together to organise a rally

demanding a “just” state of affairs or sometimes a “just” retributive form of

punishment for a crime heinously carried out by criminals for disturbing the peace of

not only individuals but of the society as a whole. Activists talk about economic

justice, police and lawyers talks about criminal justice and the society as a whole talk

about justice for achieving social order and harmony.

People in the society, basically, talks about justice as what is fair with the notion that

they do understand the meaning of justice or either probably do not or at the least,

they think they do and do not agree with one another. In this sense, Justice is

commonly understood more as an individual feeling relative to time and

circumstances and which varies with the cultural level of the society. What was

17
(Miller, 2003, p. 76) argues that the “constant and perpetual will” part of the definition reminds us
that a central aspect of justice is that people must be treated in a non-arbitrary way and that there
must be consistency in how people are treated over time. Also that there must be consistency
between people, so that if my friend and I have the same qualities, or have behaved in the same
way, we should receive the same benefits, or the same punishment, depending on the
circumstances or situations we are in.

5
deemed to be just in the past is no longer considered so, for example, slavery, sati

etc. Thus, justice is a changing concept changing with time and society. “Justice is

concerned equally with the rights of an individual and with the order of society as a

whole.”18 So, one may not be wrong in identifying justice first as a social value,

therefore, ceases to be an independent value in itself. It would, thus, appear that,

according to Jain, the concept of justice cannot be understood by-itself or in-itself. It

can only be understood in terms of, or by reference to other social values like liberty,

equality, or rights, or a mixture and combination of two or all of these terms.19

However, justice is more than a matter of individual feeling, it is also related to time

and circumstances and varies with the cultural level of society.20 What was deemed

to be just in the old past, is no longer considered to be so? For example, in ancient

Rome slavery was perfectly just and acceptable but it is not anymore in modern

times as it violates basic human rights and Child marriage was the norm in India till

ban was imposed by the Sarda Act passed in 1929.21 What was considered to be

perfectly normal in the past now has become immoral, and vice versa. What was

legal has now become illegal and what was once illegal has now become legal.

Justice is thus, in this sense, a changing concept which changes with time and

circumstances and with changes in the two, it also brings about changes in people

where their values also change accordingly. Justice reflects the practice and norms of

society and in this sense, justice become a criterion for judging in a society.

18
(Jain, 2005)
19
(Jain, 2005, p. 15)
20
Ibid.
21
Ibid

6
The basic concept of justice is basically a demand for social justice.22 In simple

terms, social justice is a concept of fair and just relations between individuals and

society where wealth, opportunities and social privileges are distributed among the

citizens in a fair and just manner. It is a general understanding that social justice

demands eradication of social evils where most of them find its place in economic

spheres like in exploitation of workers by capitalists or concentration of wealth and

resources in few hands, and crosses the domain of politics where contracts and

tenders are given on account of kinship or other forms of favours, thereby, bringing

into its circle the notion of both political and economic injustice which consequently

enters into social injustice. These three in particular, social, political and economic

justice are the different kinds of justice that are taken into consideration while trying

to understand the concept of justice by many thinkers before and after.

According to D. D. Raphael (2001) talks of two faces of justice; one conservative

and the other reformative.23 According to him, the conservative form of justice

stems out of the need for a social order and aims at establishing or preserving

stability in a society through a governing body. While his reformative justice works

as a suplimentary to his conservative form which aims at removing imperfection and

redistribution of rights so that the social order may be more fair in the whole system

of an existing society. He further divided his reformative justice into two. The first

looks into merits and dessert which is based on a principle that “people should be

22
(Johari, 1989)
23
(Beyene, 2004)

7
given what theyu deserve”.24 A fair example of such can be seen in criminal justice.

The second, takes a form of distributive justice which is based on a principle that “all

human beings have equal worth and equal claims”. He talks about just treatment of

people and is focussed upon equality, where he said “it is unjust to foster inequaity”.

Justice calls for equality and discrimanitaion of any sorts, favouring some and

against some is contrary to the nature of justice. So in this sense, Justice is giving

what people are due but at the same time has an element of distribution of social

responsibility and resources on the basis of equal treatmemnt . For Raphael, justice

should aim at reducing inequality and uphold justice through equal treatment of all

people involved in a society.

In a nut shell, Justice can be understood in two ways: first as a concpet of reward and

or punishment and secondly one in terms of the distribution of basic scial goods.

Under the former sense of the term, we have corrective justice and retributive justice

and are conccerned with judicisla application and are contained in the verdict of

judicial bodies that are delivered after hearing the statement of parties in dispute. It

stems out of the decision of the court in which wise decision between just and unjust

situations and interpretations of the law of the land, award of punishment to the

wrongdoers and the like are made.25 However it is important here to mention that

retributive and corrective justice is of different nature. Retributive justice holds that

the only way for justice to be satisfied is for a wrong doer to suffer in proprotion to

the way he or she has made others suffer. This is similar to the good old fashioned

24
(Raphael, 2001)
25
Johari (2012) is of the opinion that in certain cases the courts may significantly reduce the scope of
injustice by following the law of the land which constitutes the case of corrective justice.

8
biblical “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” principle. Retribution is still one

of the driving philosophical forces behind capital punishment. The idea behind this is

that there is simply no way to right the wrong of taking life of another individual

other than by taking the life of the life taker.

But Utilitarian have other theories of punishment where rather than making the

worng doer suffer for suffering sake, these thinkers vouch for what is known as

welfare maximisation which is also known as Corrective form of justice. Corrective

justice is based more on reformative principle. According to this view, there is no

good to be found in vindictively causing pain to worng doers, however, some form

of punishment is still in order. Punishment sometimes takes the form of reformation

in the form of rehabilitation which aims at helping the wrongdoers learn how to get

along with others in society and follow the rules. The focus is often on the education

and if needed, therapy.

This is sometimes critised as paternalistic because it acrries with it the assumption

that worng doers are in need of our help and that they do not know any better and

also often associate them to be cured of some social disease. Nevertheless, both aim

at accounting jsutice to the party concerned. Another form of justice is the deterrant

form of justice where punishsment are accorded to the wrong doer with the objective

to set an example to deter other people form doing the same mistake that the worong

doer has committed. In this form of justice, punishment is seen as being for the good

of society as whole. Punihsment are given to send a message to the society on

9
account of imparting knowledge about the crime or faults committed by the wrong

doer .

The second way in which justice is understood is in terms of the distribution of

basic social goods. It is concerned with the fair, just or equiatble distribution of

benefits and burdens and social goods. In other words, it deals with the distribution

of benefits and burdens according to the principles of justice.26 It spans all

dimensins of social life and assume all forms including income, wealth, political

rights, taxation, work obligations, education, shelter, helath care, services,

community involvement and religious activities. This form is called distributive

justice and enjoys a long and honoured tradition in political, economic and social

thought. Different priniciples are given by different people varying in what is

considered relevant to distributive justice.

Accoridng to David Miller in his work “Social Justice” (1976), the issue of social

justice lies in "deciding the standards to be picked to oversee the dissemination of

riches, notoriety and different advantages among the individuals from society". 27 He

recognises three standards which according to him are essential and basic to consider

first before determining the standards of distribution:

26
(Gauba, 2006)
27
Ibid.p.174

10
First, insurance and protection of recognised rights, second, dissemination as per

dessert and third, distribution as indicated by the requirement.28 According to him,

protection of acknowledged rights becomes a hindrance to social justice as long as

the state adheres to it as it implies denial of justice to the less priviledged or the

udnderpriviledge section of the society. For example, the caste system of the Hindu

advocates the principle of “protection of acknoeldged rights” where the lower caste

existence is found meaningful in the service of the higher caste in the caste system.

The second principle of distribution accprding to desert seem legitimate which

upholds the share of social goods depending on the contribution made by an

individual. Even though, it did away with privileged based on birth, it yielded huge

inconsistencies and inequalities of income and riches as it empowers the proprietor

of private property to duplicate their wealth and draw more benifts, thereby creating

a gap between the rich and the poor. Herbert Specner, the chief exponent of this

principle, sought to apply the law of “survival of the fittest” to social life and went

to the extent of suggesting to stop any assistance to the incapable, the imprudent and

the weak.29

The third principle of distribution based on need is the only one that seem to serve

the requirement of fairness in just distribution of benefits and burdens as it gives to

people what they need and not what they want. However, even this principle is not

without flaw. According to Gauba this principle is quite admirable however even this

28
Ibid.P.175
29
Ibid.

11
one is not without flaws as it promotes social solidarity. According to him

dissemination as indicated by conceivable just distribution is reasonable when there

is a plenitude of products and service.30 The question is, however, what will happen

when there is scarcity of goods and service? For Gauba, the soultion to the problem

may be found in the judicious combination of the distribution according to dessert

and need. He further said that people should learn to minimise their need and in

respond to that the state should ensure to provide their basic needs and education

only.

“Advocates of welfare-based principles (of which utilitarianism is the most famous)

do not believe the primary distributive concern should be material goods and

services. They argue that material goods and services have no intrinsic value but are

valuable only in so far as they increase welfare. Hence, they argue, distributive

principles should be designed and assessed according to how they affect welfare,

either its maximization or distribution. Advocates of libertarian principles, by

contrast to each of the principles so far mentioned, generally criticize any

distributive ideal that requires the pursuit of specific “patterns”, such as

maximization or equality of welfare or of material goods. They argue that the pursuit

of such patterns conflicts with the more important moral demands of liberty or self-

ownership.

In modern political philosophy, it has been construed in broad terms and seen as a

foundational principle for policy formation and analysis. In John Rawls” words,

30
Ibid.

12
“Justice is the first virtue of social institutions”.31 Thus, it is widely regarded as an

important concept and influential force in philosophy and social sciences.

While others consider Justice to the rule of law as distinguished from the rule of

man, Barker in Political Theory by N. Jayapalan defines justice as the reconciler and

synthesis of political values. Barker regards justice as a synthesis of different values

necessary for organised system of human relationship. He writes, “The claims of

liberty have to be adjusted with those of equality; and the claims of both have also to

be adjusted to those of cooperation. From this point of view the function of justice

may be said to be that of adjusting, joining or fitting the different political values; it

is their union I an adjusted and integrated whole”.32 Thus, it is widely regarded as an

important concept and influential force both in philosophy and social sciences.

From the above, one may ascertain the following:

a) Justice is a value (ethical) concept. It is a social value and being a social

value, these are subjected to change from one society to another, from one

culture to another. In addition, the understanding of justice is diverse in each

culture, as societies are normally subject to a common history, folklore as

well as religion, which contrasts starting with one culture then onto the next.

Each culture’s ethics create values that influence the notion of justice, which

changes from history to present, from one culture to another and so on. For

31
(Rawls, A Theory of Justice, 1999)
32
Barker, 1951. p102 “Political Theory”

13
 one culture, child marriage in itself may not be wrong, however, in another it

is considered a violation of both human rights and is often registered as

against child protection service.

b) Justice is a social concept, where justice takes the form of fair and just

relations between the individual and society in which wealth, opportunities

and social privileges are distributed among the citizens in a fair and just

manner. It also regards the fulfilment of roles by individuals in their society

(societal roles) and receives what is due to them form their society. Social

Justice takes into consideration elements like discrimination, prejudice, and

equality of opportunities as a factor of or for justice and injustice evaluations.

It is given in regard for and respecting social and cultural diversity, regarding

the dignity of all people, valuing fundamental human rights and looking for

solidarity and uniformity in equality. Social justice is generally used to refer

to a set of institutions which will enable people to lead a fulfilling life and be

active contributors to their community.33

c) Justice as a judicial concept is related to laws and rules, where it exists in the

forms of award and punishments, giving people their due according to their

actions without any discrimination. It refers to legal justice which expresses a

sense of rule of law and not of any person. It necessarily and essentially

includes two important things – that all men are equal before law and that law

33
http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/194689/9/09_chapter_2.pdf.

14
 is equally applicable to all and should not discriminate on the basis of sex,

caste, gender, wealth, office and position, and the likes.

d) Justice is a political concept where justice are expressed in rights and

freedom of expression, right to vote, right to education, and administration of

law taking into account the inalienable and inborn rights of all human beings

and citizens, the right of all people and individuals to equal protection before

the law of their civil rights, without discrimination on the basis of their caste,

race, gender, sexual orientation, colour, ethnicity, religion, physical

disposition and inclusive of other political characteristics. In simple words, it

means giving equal political rights and opportunities to all citizens to take

part in the administration of the country or state. While making laws, the will

of the rulers are not to be imposed upon the ruled. Laws should be based on

public opinion and public needs. It is a component of social justice because

social values, morality, conventions, the idea of just and unjust of a society

and its people, in general, must be always kept in view while politically

administering a state or a nation.

e) Justice as an economic concept takes the form of free-market transaction.34

The idea or notion of economic justice converges with the possibility of, in

general, inclusive economic opulence. Economic justice is a component of

social justice because an economic system is always an integral part of a

social system. Economic rights and opportunities available to individuals are

34
Nozick, Robert (1974)

15
 always a part of the entire social system. Economic justice is set of moral

standards for constructing economic organisation, a definitive objective of

which is to make or open door for every individual to make an adequate

material establishment whereupon to have an honourable, dignified, fruitful,

inventive and beneficial life.35

From the above-mentioned points, it is clear that justice is an elusive term which has

many dimensions that it becomes almost an impossible task to frame a definition

which will cover all of its aspects. However, D.D. Raphael in Jain (2005) holds that

justice is concerned equally with the rights of an individual and with the order of

society as a whole. So, one may not be wrong in identifying justice first as a social

value, therefore, ceases to be an independent value in itself. It would, thus, appear

that according to Jain (2005) the concept of justice cannot be understood by-itself or

in-itself. It can only be understood in terms of, or by reference to other social values

like liberty, equality, or rights, or a mixture and combination of two or all of these

terms.36 Barker in Jain (2005) defines justice as a reconciler and synthesis of political

values, one may not be wrong in regarding justice as a synthesis of different values

necessary for an organized system of human relationship. He writes, “the claims of

liberty have to be adjusted with those of equality; ad claims of both have also to be

adjusted to those of cooperation. From this point of view, the function of justice may

35
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/economic-justice.asp
36
(Jain, 2005, pp. 15-17)

16
be said to be that of adjusting, joining or fitting the different political values; it is

their union in an adjusted and integrated whole”.37

Classical Conception of Justice in Philosophy

Among the Greeks, justice was a moral idea, an ethical concept where justice was

looked upon as a function of duties more than a notion or function of rights of

individuals. In other words, every citizen or individual was to fulfil their function of

assigned to them accordingly to the class designated or born into the then structure of

society. Plato in particular, identifies justice with the performance of duties befitting

one’s class. Plato believed that “Principle of division of labour, that each man and

more specifically each class, should do that work for which he is fitted and no

other……..(is)……justice”.38

Plato declares in the Republic “we must infer that things are produced more

plentifully and easily and of better quality when one man does one thing which is

natural to him and leaves other things”.39 This is what is meant by Plato by “giving

every man his due” which ensures “a harmonious union of individuals, each of

whom has found life work in accordance with his natural fitness and training”. 40 So

we may not be wrong in assuming that Plato’s justice is given in performing one’s

duty according to one’s natural fitness and training with respect to the station to

37
Barker in (Jain, 2005, p. 18)
38
Lindsay in the Introduction, The Republic of Plato, p.XXXV, p18
39
As Quoted in Sabine in “A history of Political theory” by George G Harrap, 1959, P56..
40
Sabine, A History of Political Theory, p60

17
which he or she belongs to in the structure of the society41 and with everyone

performing their own assigned duty without meddling with the affairs of others, only

then can there exists social harmony. Thus, for Plato, justice is “befitting virtue of

the social order”.42 For Plato, justice is a principle of non-interference and of

division of labour where its purpose is defined in keeping other virtues in

harmonious relationship with one another other. It permeates and integrates the other

individual virtues with social aspects and keeps them within proper bounds. As such,

justice is the bond that holds the society together.43

While Plato justice seems to aim at a more radical view to seeking to change the

social order of his times, Aristotle used it in a different sense. For Aristotle justice is

given in being virtuous but virtue differs from justice because it deals with one's

moral state, while justice deals with one's relations with others. Therefore, Aristotle

talks of justice that would sustain and promote human relationship44 among them

and with the state. He argues that justice is kind of a character reflected in just acts

and injustice is the opposite of just acts reflected in unjust acts or deeds. So, he asked

in Book V of Nicomachean Ethics dealing on justice a question that what kind of

41
Plato's idea of justice depends on the submergence of the person in the general public, a general
public depicted in his optimal state (tripartite) where justice was the ideal of perfection in human
relationship. This relationship was founded on the idea of different duties for different group of
people in a society whose fulfilment would be instrumental in building up a just social order and that
justice result from each element in society doing its appropriate tasks.
42
Plato in his “The Republic” enumerated four cardinal virtues where the first three, Wisdom,
Courage and Temperance were the befitting virtue for each social classes and where justice is really
the condition for the existence of other virtues. In other words, justice exists when all its citizen
occupy their respective position and perform their duties and task, not meddling with the affairs of
others.
43
Bhandari for J.N.V. University. From an archived article (2012).
44
(Gauba, 2016)

18
action would champion justice.45 In answer to this question, he propounds two

categories of just acts, ‘lawful’ and ‘fair’.46 In other words, he propounded two forms

of justice, general justice also described as universal justice and particular justice. A

general concept of justice is the lawful and consists in being obedience to law and

that one should be virtuous in doing so. The particular concept of justice of Aristotle

refers to what is ‘fair and equal’.47 He further divides particular concept into

distributive justice and remedial or corrective justice (Rectification).48 Aristotle

linked his notion of distributive justice with the idea of proportionate equality49,

which in turn, is connected to a theory of just rewards, 50 or equal shares according to

the merit of its recipients. In other words, it means, justice is treating equals equally

and unequal unequally and in proportion to their relevant differences. On the other

hand, his corrective or rectificatory justice refers to justice of transaction which

again deals with two types- voluntary transaction (civil law) and dealing with an

involuntary transaction (criminal law). Aristotle added commercial and cumulative

justice to the above-mentioned types of justice.

The primary concept in the general argument of Aristotle is the concept of justice as

a state of personality and character, a cultivated set of disposition, attitudes, and

healthy practices in the form of good habits. It is not a system or principle that is

45
(Ostwald, 1962)
46
(Bhandari, 2014, p. 12)
47
(Ramaswamy, 2003, p. 287)
48
Ramaswamy used the word Rectificatory and commutative instead of remedial or corrective
49
(Leyden, 1985, pp. 6-7) (The idea of proportionate equality is the principle of fair and reasonable
inequality of treatment)
50
Just reward theory states that each individual or person must be awarded responsibilities as well
as financial depending on their just contribution.

19
abstract. In its specific demonstration, it is concerned with good judgment and a

sense of fairness.

Plato and Aristotle concept of justice consists of a political state where there exists a

ruler and the ruled, however, both differ in a sense where Plato attaches more

importance on duty and of non-interference, Aristotle is more closely related legal

and distributive justice with an element of fairness and equality. One may not be

wrong in saying that Aristotle justice is based on a principle where everyone should

have his own while Platonic justice is based on a principle where everyone should do

his own without interference in other duties. The aim of both is to find out a

principle of capacity through which unity, harmony, virtue, and happiness can be

established in a society. It seems, the purpose of both is to give every citizen his due

in accordance with his capacity or nature. Thus, justice in the case of both can be

regarded as social justice characterized by distributive justice. In both cases, justice

is ultimately functional and teleological and is not merely a legal but also a moral

principle.

Aristotle is also known as father of modern political philosophy where many early

modern conceptions are said to be influenced by Aristotle account of justice. on

account of which modern approaches like Utilitarianism, Libertarianism,

Egalitarianism and Social Contract will considered in particular in the next chapter.

20