At the end of the chapter, you are expected to:

• Define what justice is

• Identify distributive justice and its different forms
• Discuss the various kinds of Justice
• Integrate Rawls’ Theory Justice with the principles of taxation in the
Philippines

Often when people think of the study of justice, they think immediately of crime,
perhaps a particular crime, the arrest of a person by the police, the courts and the eventual
incarceration of an offender in jail and their possible rehabilitation. Another common
theme is to describe justice in terms of the laws and rules of society. Crime and laws are
part of the study of justice, but only part. Studying how these processes work together is
the study of the criminal justice system. However, the study of justice entails more than
just the operation of our criminal justice system and how to respond to a particular action
by passing a law to make that activity a crime.

We talk about JUSTICE all the time because it’s one of the most fundamental social,
ethical and moral principles we deal with every day. How you define justice is how you
think the society should work.

Long before John Rawls, ancient philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle had
already thought of justice as a kind of virtue. If you recall our discussion on Aristotle’s
Virtue theory, virtue refers to the “excellence of a thing, and hence to the disposition to
perform effectively its proper function”. Hence, the ancient assumption that justice means
harmony: A just society is one in w/c everyone fulfills their roles so that society runs
smoothly. Violating your place in the social order—even if it’s a place you don’t want to
hold—is considered unjust.

Justice comes in various forms, which can be gleaned from the variety of contexts
in which an injustice is said to occur. Among these contexts, four stand out as indicated
by the following common instances of injustice: first, when employees do not receive
salaries commensurate with the amount and quality of work that they do for their
companies; second, when a criminal or wrongdoer has not yet been caught and/or given
due punishment; third, when victims of human rights violations, or communities whose
natural environment was severely damaged by a company, have not been given due
compensation of some form; and fourth, when only small-time sellers of illegal drugs are
being arrested by legal authorities.

These four contexts of injustice point, respectively, to the four basic kinds of justice,
namely distributive justice, retributive justice, compensatory justice, and procedural
justice.

DSSP 2020-2021 | NOT FOR SALE/UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION

 When we talk about JUSTICE, we talk about STUFF. We talk about who has more
stuff?; Who has more access,?; and who gets to decide who gets what?

Distributive justice refers to the fair distribution or allocation of certain things, which
are generally classified as burdens, when they are regarded as undesirable, or as benefits
when they are desirable. A fair distribution, in turn, refers to a distribution in which
persons involved get what they deserve to receive.

Suppose…that a man of some wealth has several children, one of whom is blind,
another playboy with expensive tastes, a third, a prospective politician with expensive
ambitions, another a poet with humble needs, another a sculptor who works in expensive
material, and so forth.

How shall the father draw his will? How should he divide it that it will be fair to his
children in many ways? Should he do it equally, or not? If not equally, what should be his
basis?

Let us examine the basic claims of each of the theories of distributive justice:

Egalitarianism (Justice as Equality/To All, the Same)

Egalitarianism claims that a certain distribution is fair if every member of a group

receives an equal share of the distribution. On the level of state distributions, it has two
versions namely, political egalitarianism and economic egalitarianism.

Political Egalitarianism – claims that all citizens should enjoy the same basic
legal rights guaranteed by the state. Every citizen, regardless of skin color or ethnicity,
should be able to avail the rights to suffrage, education, and due process.

Economic Egalitarianism – claims that all citizens should enjoy the same basic
socioeconomic goods or resources (those necessary to live a decent life) guaranteed by
the state. Eg. Access to healthcare, shelter, clothing, and income.

BUT, is “everyone-getting-the-same- stuff really justice? Does giving rich man

Pedro and poor man Pablo the same amount of social amelioration program or “ayuda”
mean equality? Does that make Pedro and Pablo equal?

In fact, Pedro’s needs and wants are different from Pablo’s. In some instances, we
may need the same commodity, but different in amount.

DSSP 2020-2021 | NOT FOR SALE/UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION

Capitalist Justice (Contribution-based Justice)

Capitalist justice is based on the premise that benefits should be distributed

according to the degree of contribution that each person provides for the benefit of the
society as a whole. The greater one’s contributions, the greater should be his/her share
in the distribution. The lesser one’s contribution, the lesser should be his/her share in the
distribution.

Capitalist justice is what thrives in the free market system where the monetary
value of goods and human labor is determined by the market forces. Allowing people to
pursue their selfish economic interests would eventually lead to the good of society (Adam
Smith).

Socialist Justice (Needs-based Justice)

“From each according to his abilities, To each according to his needs”

- Karl Marx

Socialist Justice claims that a certain distribution is fair if every member of a group
receives his/her share in the distribution according to or in proportion to his/her needs.
The greater one’s needs, the greater should be his/her share in the distribution. The lesser
one’s needs, the lesser should be his/her share in the distribution. This is to balance the
natural inequalities.

Socialist Justice criticizes capitalism because it institutionalizes and thus worsens

natural inequalities. Competition in a free market is never fair, since some people are
initially disadvantaged due to their unfortunate initial endowments in life. According to the
socialist principle, the kind of work that people should be assigned to should be based on
their natural talents and their share of the proceeds of their work inputs should be based
on their needs.

Justice as Fairness (John Rawls)

John Rawls’ theory of justice as fairness claims that a

certain distribution among the members in a group is fair if
the principles that govern such distribution were chosen by
the members in a fair manner.

Rawls’ theory focuses: NOT on foreseeable results of

an action; NOT on right or wrong principles motivating the
action; NOT on virtues of character, but ON SOCIAL
INSTUTITONS WITHIN WHICH ACTIONS AND POLICIES ARE
DETERMINED.

Rawls’ defines justice as a virtue of social institutions, measured by fairness in

allocating benefits and burdens, defined by two basic principles: Liberty and Difference.

Liberty Principle: “Each person participating in a practice (or affected by it) has
an equal right to the most extensive liberty compatible with a like liberty for
all.”

Difference Principle: Inequalities are arbitrary unless 1) It is reasonable to expect

that they will work to the advantage of the least advantaged; and 2) The

DSSP 2020-2021 | NOT FOR SALE/UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION

 positions and offices to which they attach (or from which they may be gained)
are open to all, under conditions of fair competition.

Who are the “least advantaged”?

Those with lowest expectations for/ access to “primary goods” = “what free and
equal persons need as citizens”. Rawls enumerates the five basic goods that every person
needs as a citizen of the state:
1. Basic rights and liberties (freedom of thought, liberty of conscience)
2. Freedom of movement, free choice of occupation
3. Powers and prerogatives of offices & positions of responsibility;
4. Income and wealth
5. Social bases for self-respect – “aspects of basic institutions normally
essential if citizens are to have a lively sense of their worth as persons &
advance their ends with self-confidence”.

How does Rawls justify his claims?

Rawls considered the fact that people are naturally inclined to promote their self-
interests, in that one would naturally go for a criterion of justice that would benefit him/her
in the end. So he came up with a mechanism he called “The Original Position”.

The “original position” assumes a group of rational, self-interested individuals who

know that there will be competition for scarce resources; but do not know what natural
advantages or disadvantages they will possess, or what value beliefs or preferences will
guide them.

The people who participate in the original should imagine that they are under the
veil of ignorance – a condition where people are supposed to forget the particular
characteristics of their lives, such as their social status, gender, religious beliefs, and
others.

Libertarian Justice (Justice as Freedom)

Some argue that justice-is-fairness is actually unfair to

those who have gotten the most either via hardwork or they
happened to win life’s natural lottery. Such is the stand of
Robert Nozick who claims that “We’re each entitled to the
stuff we have provided we didn’t steal it / otherwise obtain it
unjustly.”

Libertarian Justice, also called as Entitlement theory,

claims that distributions are fair when no moral rights are
violated in acquiring and transferring ownership of the goods
to be distributed. Justice in distribution is achieved when
there is justice in the a) acquisition of properties, b) transfer
DSSP 2020-2021 | NOT FOR SALE/UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION
of ownership of these properties, and c) rectification of possible injustices in the last two
processes.

For Nozick, “things come into the world already attached to people having
entitlements over them”. Things already have owners and their owners have rights over
them. We cannot force people to give up their properties to satisfy some ideal end-result.

The concept of retributive justice has been used in a variety of ways, but it is best
understood as that form of justice committed to the following three principles:

1. that those who commit certain kinds of wrongful acts, paradigmatically serious
crimes, morally deserve to suffer a proportionate punishment;
2. that it is intrinsically morally good—good without reference to any other goods that
might arise—if some legitimate punisher gives them the punishment they deserve;
and
3. that it is morally impermissible intentionally to punish the innocent or to inflict
disproportionately large punishments on wrongdoers.

Central to retributive justice are the notions of merit and desert. We think that
people should receive what they deserve. This means that people who work hard deserve
the fruits of their labor, while those who break the rules deserve to be punished. In
addition, people deserve to be treated in the same way that they voluntarily choose to
treat others. If you behave well, you are entitled to good treatment from others.

Immanuel Kant uses a debt metaphor to discuss the notion of just desert. Citizens
in a society enjoy the benefits of a rule of law. According to the principle of fair play, the
loyal citizen must do their part in this system of reciprocal restraint. An individual who
seeks the benefits of living under the rule of law without being willing to make the
necessary sacrifices of self-restraint is a free rider. He or she has helped themself to unfair
advantages, and the state needs to prevent this to preserve the rule of law.

In cases of wrongdoing, someone who merits certain benefits has lost them, while
someone who does not deserve those benefits has gained them. Punishment "removes
the undeserved benefit by imposing a penalty that in some sense balances the harm
inflicted by the offense." It is suffered as a debt that the wrongdoer owes their fellow
citizens. Retributive justice in this way aims to restore both victim and offender to their
appropriate positions relative to each other.

Retributive justice is in this way backward-looking. Punishment is warranted as a

response to a past event of injustice or wrongdoing. It acts to reinforce rules that have
been broken and balance the scales of justice.

Retributive justice is a matter of giving those who violate human rights law and
commit crimes against humanity their "just deserts." Punishment is thought to reinforce
the rules of international law and to deny those who have violated those rules any unfair
advantages. Together with restorative justice, retribution is concerned with restoring
victims and offenders to their rightful position.

DSSP 2020-2021 | NOT FOR SALE/UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION

 Restorative justice views crime as more than breaking the law – it also causes harm
to people, relationships, and the community. So a just response must address those harms
as well as the wrongdoing. If the parties are willing, the best way to do this is to help
them meet to discuss those harms and how to about bring resolution. Other approaches
are available if they are unable or unwilling to meet. Sometimes those meetings lead to
transformational changes in their lives.

Notice three big ideas: (1) repair: crime causes harm and justice requires repairing
that harm; (2) encounter: the best way to determine how to do that is to have the
parties decide together; and (3) transformation: this can cause fundamental changes in
people, relationships and communities.

Restorative Justice is a theory of justice that emphasizes repairing the harm caused
by criminal behavior. It is best accomplished through cooperative processes that allow all
willing stakeholders to meet, although other approaches are available when that is
impossible. This can lead to transformation of people, relationships and communities.

The foundational principles of restorative justice have been summarized as

follows:
1. Crime causes harm and justice should focus on repairing that harm.
2. The people most affected by the crime should be able to participate in its
resolution.
3. The responsibility of the government is to maintain order and of the
community to build peace.

If restorative justice were a building, it would have four corner posts:

1. Inclusion of all parties
2. Encountering the other side
3. Making amends for the harm
4. Reintegration of the parties into their communities

Procedural justice is concerned with making and implementing decisions according

to fair processes. People feel affirmed if the procedures
that are adopted treat them with respect and dignity,
making it easier to accept even outcomes they do not
like.

But what makes procedures fair? First, there is an

emphasis on consistency. Fair procedures should
guarantee that like cases are treated alike. Any
distinctions "should reflect genuine aspects of personal
identity rather than extraneous features of the
differentiating mechanism itself."

Second, those carrying out the procedures must be impartial and neutral. Unbiased
decision-makers must carry out the procedures to reach a fair and accurate conclusion.
Those involved should believe that the intention of third-party authorities is impartiality—
they want to treat people fairly and take the viewpoint and needs of interested parties

DSSP 2020-2021 | NOT FOR SALE/UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION

into account. If people trust the third party, they are more likely to view the decision-
making process as fair.

Third, those directly affected by the decisions should have a voice and
representation in the process. Having representation affirms the status of group members
and inspires trust in the decision-making system. This is especially important for weaker
parties whose voices often go unheard.

Finally, the processes that are implemented should be transparent. Decisions

should be reached through open procedures, without secrecy or deception.

Many believe that procedural justice is not enough. Reaching fair outcomes is far
more important than implementing fair processes. Others maintain that insofar as fair
procedures are likely to "translate" into fair outcomes, they are of central importance.

Justice and fairness are sought by most people but the interpretation of what
is just and what is fair varies.
For egalitarians, what is just is an equal distribution of wealth.
For capitalists, people are given the right and the venue to live their lives
according to how they see fit.
For socialists, the emphasis must be according to how much one can
contribute and how much one needs.
For Rawls, justice is a virtue of social institutions, measured by fairness in
allocating benefits and burdens, defined by two basic principles: Liberty and
Difference, focused on leveling the playing field for the least advantaged.

DSSP 2020-2021 | NOT FOR SALE/UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION