Liberty

The word liberty is derived from the Latin word “liber” means free. According to Columbia
Encyclopaedia, Liberty is a word used to describe various types of individual freedoms. Liberty
also means right of every individual to make a free choice or a decision concerning his own
course of action. According to the French declaration of the rights of man liberty consists in the
power to do everything that does not injure another.
According to Laski, Liberty means the eager maintenance of that atmosphere, in which, men
have the opportunity to be their best selves. Liberty therefore is a product of rights that are
essential to the full development of our faculties conferred by the State upon its citizens.
Negative and Positive Dimensions of Liberty:
In a famous essay first published in 1958, Isaiah Berlin called these two concepts of liberty
negative and positive respectively (Berlin 1969). The reason for using these labels is that in the
first case liberty seems to be a mere absence of something (i.e. of obstacles, barriers,
constraints or interference from others), whereas in the second case it seems to require the
presence of something (i.e. of control, self-mastery, self-determination or self-realization).
In Berlin's words, we use the negative concept of liberty in attempting to answer the question
“What is the area within which the subject a person or group of persons is or should be left to do
or be what he is able to do or be, without interference by other persons?”,
whereas we use the positive concept in attempting to answer the question “What, or who, is the
source of control or interference that can determine someone to do, or be, this rather than that?”

Example
Imagine you are driving a car through town, and you come to a fork in the road. You turn left,
but no one was forcing you to go one way or the other. Next you come to a crossroads. You turn
right, but no one was preventing you from going left or straight on. There is no traffic to speak of
and there are no diversions or police roadblocks. So you seem, as a driver, to be completely
free. - Negative Liberty
But this picture of your situation might change quite dramatically if we consider that the
reason you went left and then right is that you’re addicted to cigarettes and you’re desperate to
get to the tobacconists before it closes. Rather than driving, you feel you are being driven, as
your urge to smoke leads you uncontrollably to turn the wheel first to the left and then to the
right. Moreover, you’re perfectly aware that your turning right at the crossroads means you’ll
probably miss a train that was to take you to an appointment you care about very much. You
long to be free of this irrational desire that is not only threatening your longevity but is also
stopping you right now from doing what you think you ought to be doing. Who controls you?

On the one hand, one can think of liberty as the absence of obstacles external to the agent.
You are free if no one is stopping you from doing whatever you might want to do.
On the other hand, one can think of liberty as the presence of control on the part of the agent.
To be free, you must be self-determined, which is to say that you must be able to control your
own destiny in your own interests.
One might say that while on the first view liberty is simply about how many doors are open to
the agent, on the second view it is more about going through the right doors for the right
reasons
It is useful to think of the difference between the two concepts in terms of the difference
between factors that are external and factors that are internal to the agent. While theorists of
negative freedom are primarily interested in the degree to which individuals or groups suffer
interference from external bodies, theorists of
positive freedom are more attentive to the internal factors affecting the degree to which
individuals or groups act autonomously. Is the positive concept of freedom a political concept?
Can individuals or groups achieve positive freedom through political action? Is it possible for the
state to promote the positive freedom of citizens on their behalf? And if so, is it desirable for the
state to do so?
In simple terms liberty means freedom and freedom means absence of restraint. The absence
of restraints denotes the idea of “Freedom from”. This idea of “freedom from” denotes the
negative conception of liberty. The minimum that is demanded in this negative notion of liberty
is that liberty of expression, opinion, property and religion be guaranteed against arbitrary
invasion. The idea of negative freedom is implied in the political freedom that is opposition to
political subjection and imprisonment. It is equated with civil and political liberty and can be
secured through constitutional government, political democracy and the proper administration of
the positive law of the State.
The negative liberty aims at keeping the authority away from interfering in the minimum area of
personal freedom. The exponents of negative liberty such as Mill and Jefferson, Paine believe
that it is this minimum area of personal freedom that needs to be preserved and protected if we
are not to degrade or deny our nature.
However the negative liberty should not be misunderstood as an advocacy of unlimited freedom
or liberty. Liberty can exist only in the context of an organised society and in social
relationships. Therefore there cannot be anything like unrestrained freedom. For the
meaningful social life the members of the society must follow certain accepted codes of
behaviour. This requires the imposition of reasonable restraints on individual liberty. The
question then arises what constitutes the reasonable restraints?
The answer to this question leads us to the positive aspect of liberty. Positive aspect of liberty
emphasises on “Freedom to do” than “freedom from”. Plato, Aristotle and many other thinkers
argue that liberty is too precious a thing to be understood merely in negative terms. Freedom is
the ultimate value of human life. To be free is to be able to shape the future, to be able to
translate one’s own idea into reality, to actualise one’s potentialities as a person. It is the wish
on the part of the individual to be his own master. The life and the decisions of life should be
dependent on the individual alone and not on the external forces of whatever kind. The man
must be the instrument of his own and not of other men’s acts or will. The essence of freedom
is self-realization, to seek the harmonious balance of his personality. To achieve this individual
needs to preserve and protect a minimum area of personal freedom.
Put in the simplest terms, one might say that a democratic society is a free society because it is
a self-determined society, and that a member of that society is free to the extent that he or she
participates in its democratic process. But there are also individualist applications of the concept
of positive freedom. For example, it is sometimes said that a government should aim actively to
create the conditions necessary for individuals to be self-sufficient or to achieve self-realization.
Many also argue that people are truly free when their bodies are free from want and their minds
from external domination.
Characteristics of Liberty
● Liberty does not mean absence of restraints, It means acceptance of reasonable
restrictions,
● Liberty is opposed to political subjection. It advocates independence for every
nationality.
● Activities of the state and individual liberty are not opposed to each other. In fact they
are complementary. The law of the state protects freedom of the weak. It is the
responsibility of the state to create required conditions for the enjoyment of liberty.
● Liberty incorporates the idea of individual and social welfare. There must be a balance
between the two.v
● It is an essential condition for all-round development of human personality. It is a
dynamic concept. It‟s meaning changes with changing times, places and conditions
Kinds of Liberty:
Natural liberty: Natural liberty existed in the state of nature. It is the unrestrained, absolute
freedom. It is the freedom to do what one desires irrespective of any considerations. This
concept of liberty advocated unrestrained freedom which is neither possible nor desirable.
Civil Liberty: this kind of liberty can exist only in civil society. It means freedom with legal
restraints. It protects an individual from arbitrary restraint and assures a body of rights that are
generally found in catalogues of rights such as Bill of Rights guaranteed by constitutions, or in
judicial decisions. It manifests itself in personal freedoms such as right to life, property, freedom
of thought and expression and freedom of movement. The essence of civil liberty is to protect
individuals from arbitrary political and social control.
Political liberty: it stands for freedom from political subjection, imprisonment or slavery.
Struggle against slavery, freedom struggle are the struggle for political liberty. But apart
from this Political freedom in the true sense of the term embraces the wider concept of political
participation. An individual in the capacity of a citizen must enjoy freedoms that facilitate his
participation in the political process of the country. Right to vote, right to contest election or to
hold public office, the right to hold public meetings and to participate in processions and
discussions constitute political liberty of individuals. Political liberty is the foundation of
democratic polity.
Economic liberty: the economic notion of liberty came with socialist movement and the
widespread economic problems that emerged after WWI. Economic notion of liberty implies
security and the opportunity to find reasonable significance in the earning of one’s daily bread.
One must be free from the constant fear of unemployment and insufficiency. There has to be
freedom from want. It also implies the creation of a society where there is sufficiency for all
before there is luxury for any. To secure economic liberty, the economic rights of citizens such
as right to work, the right to minimum wages, the right to form and join a trade union, the right to
participate in the industrial management and the right to leisure must be guaranteed by the
state. Workers should have a right to participate in the management of industries to protect and
promote their interests.
National liberty: it is synonymous with national independence. It means the right of every nation
to be free from control of other nation.
Safeguards of liberty:
1. Individual’s burning love for liberty
2. A truly democratic government
3. Guarantee of fundamental rights in the constitution
 4. Constitutional separation of powers.
5. Rule of Law
6. Freedom of press and healthy public opinion
7. Eternal vigilance
Law is a precondition of liberty:
1. To prevent harmful crime and to punish the wrongdoer and to protect the lives and
property of people.
2. Society gives birth to different types of civil disputes. Settlement of these disputes
needs arbitration. State acts as the biggest arbiter in such disputes.
3. If liberty should not mean a privilege of few then state intervention in economic activity is
a must. Any state action in the field of economics restricts the liberty of a few people. It is
necessary to ensure justice. Law interferes in the economic activities to achieve common
good.
4. The state provides a wide range of social benefits to help the people to secure their
basic needs which include health, education, employment and even recreation. To give
effect to these welfare schemes some restrictions of individual liberty is inevitable.
Equality:
In philosophy, the ideals of liberty, equality and justice are the ideals, in politics they stand
for the conditions-ideals to be translated into reality. Equality is one of the most complex
and among the most elusive of political ideals. Modern theorists believe that equality does
not represent just one issue but a whole complex of issues. There exists a general
agreement that a concern for equality arises out of imperfections in social order. Society
consists of imperfections of different types and therefore it needs to be reformed.
Understood in this sense equality is a protest ideal. It protests against unjust social order
which arises out of arbitrary discrimination. But the proper understanding of the concept is
possible by finding out what equality is and what it is not.
What equality is not?
● It does not mean sameness. It does not mean treating equals and unequal alike. Men
are equal in relevant respects but they are not identical. To treat all men equally is not
always the same as to treat all cases equally. Principle of equality applies to cases and
categories of men rather than men individually.
● Equality does not mean justice. It is an essential ingredient of justice but is not the
adequate condition of justice. Equal treatment does not necessarily mean just
treatment.
 ● Equality does not mean complete abolition of hierarchy. What it demands is that within a
hierarchy there should be no scope for unjust distribution of place and power. Hierarchy
should not be the result of birth or wealth but through merit and equality of opportunity.
● Equality is not the ultimate value and therefore not overriding value. It is not the only
ultimate value and all decisions in human life cannot be made only with reference to
equality.
To understand the true nature of equality it is necessary to understand the negative and
positive aspects of equality.
Negatively equality protests against unjust discrimination, and undeserved and unjustified
inequalities. The fact of natural inequality has been extensively used by people to establish
their superiority such as racists over the lower races, whites over the blacks, men over
women and upper castes over the lower castes. But such natural inequalities can lead to
inequalities in education, status, wealth, housing, health facilities, power and so on. Hence
equality is
● It is a protest ideal against all types of inequalities, natural, derived, cumulative and self
reinforced.
● It means an absence of special privileges.
● It demands the abolition of the artificial grounds of discrimination such as race, religion,
caste and sex.
This is however not to say that there will be no discrimination whatsoever on any ground.
Positively equality stands for the right of every human being to be treated as a person and not
as a commodity.
● Equality implies fundamentally a levelling process. Each individual or group of
individuals should be given same resources or opportunities.
● All the essential things without which life is not worth living must be provided to all before
luxuries and other comforts are accessible to any.
● Individual must be treated as a human being, must seek his self development, be
rational, free and relatively autonomous human being.
● This implies assurance of decent standard of life and adequate opportunities to seek self
development.
● The notions like all men are equal or men by nature are free and equal imply that in all
public matters all persons should be treated identically except in those contexts where
sufficient reasons exists, for treating particular individuals or groups differently.
● The grounds of race, religion, sex or caste can be used to classify people and to treat
them differently from the rest in order to protect their special interests. Rights of
minorities, special concessions to the SC and ST and Women are the examples.
Types of equality:
Traditional political theory classifies equality as natural equality, legal equality, political
equality, economic equality and social equality.
Natural equality: it is essentially a moral principle that implies all men are created equal.
The idea of natural equality was deduced from the concept of natural law by Greeks and
then Romans. The Christian Church furthered this idea through the notion of “brotherhood
of man under the fatherhood of God”. The emphasis was on the moral equality of men. In
the 17th and 18th century the thinkers like Locke and Rousseau advocated natural equality
which inspired the demand for equality during the French Revolution.
Legal equality: it implies equality before law and equal protection of law. It also means that
legal justice will be done according to the established procedure of the law of the land
irrespective of social and economic status of an individual. Legal equality is the basic
condition and to ensure legal equality is to take a first step towards the establishment of an
egalitarian society. The notion of Rule of Law is bound up with the notion of legal equality.
Political equality: Political equality is the first step towards establishment of democratic
polity. Adult universal suffrage and the principle of one man one vote establish political
equality. Political equality makes political power accessible to every citizen through right to
vote and to hold public office. It also implies the availability of opportunities for participation
in the exercisable power.
Economic equality: a concern for economic equality flows from the socialist ideology. It
demands the prevention of concentration of national wealth in the hands of few and control
over the distribution of sources of wealth. It implies a guarantee of a specific minimum
standard of life, socialisation of major industries, regulation of private sector and provision
for safeguarding the interests of the weaker sections of the society. The fundamental belief
is that the concentration of economic power in the hands of a few leads to the concentration
of political power in the same hands. The ideal of economic equality forced several liberal
democracies of the west to adopt a wide variety of social welfare measures and to bring
some of the crucial industries and services under the public sector.
Social equality: social equality implies absence of distinction in respect of social status of
different people on account of differences in caste, colour, creed, religion, birth, language
 etc. None is superior or inferior to another. All enjoy an equal status in society. Equal
social status is thus the basis of social equality.
Relationship between Liberty and Equality
The relationship between liberty and equality is complex as some view these principles as
antagonistic to each other. When the government passes the law in order to bring about
equality, it naturally restricts the liberty of some people. Liberty symbolised the appreciation
of diversity in society while equality stood for levelling of men in society and thus involved
subjugation and repression. The two were found incompatible. There is also disagreement
as to whether liberty precedes equality or equality comes first.
In terms of History liberty comes first than equality. The political philosophers were more
concerned with the problem of liberty. For the society entrenched with the problem of
slavery liberty was naturally a prime concern. The principle of Liberty said to have greatest
influence on human personality. The real challenge pose by equality came only in the 19 th
century. There emerged a growing support for equality. The liberal political philosophy
underwent a significant change. Many noted liberals not only supported the value of
equality wholeheartedly but clearly stated the indispensability of equality to the proper
understanding and realization of liberty. The Marxist doctrine clearly denied the possibility
of liberty in the absence of the conditions of economic equality.
Struggles for equality in modern history have been mass struggles led by a small minority,
struggles of the downtrodden and the exploited against the establishment and its value of
liberty which was a custodian of the privileged few. Equality emerged as a protest ideal (NB
movement, dalit movement, Naxalite movement). Thus equality becomes an instrument of
increasing the freedom of the exploited and therefore adhered by the exponents of liberty.
Liberty and equality – meaningless without each other:
Liberty has to be viewed in the social context and therefore does not mean unrestrained
freedom. It implies reasonable restraints and responsibility for the welfare of all. Equality on
the other hand demands equal opportunities for all-round development of his personality.
To provide equal opportunities deliberate social restraints will have to be imposed on
individual liberty. However equality also does not imply identity of treatment. All men are
not equal which creates every possibility of strong imposing restraint over the weak. Liberty
implies that none should be placed at the mercy of others. Hence unless people enjoy
liberty in its true sense, they cannot have equality. Absence of social, political, civil and
economic equality would make liberty meaningless as the socio-economic, and political
power will get concentrated in the hands of few, who alone will enjoy the fruits of liberty at
the cost of many. At the same time it is also true that in the absence of national liberty the
nation cannot reach the goal of equality. Liberty is an indispensable condition for an all
round development of personality and its various capacities.
Thus liberty and equality are complementary to each other. They move together. Both have
a common goal, that is, an all-round development of human personality and capacities.
Without liberty, equality is unthinkable and without equality liberty is meaningless.
The Value of Justice:
Justice is a fundamental social value which harmonises human relations and creates a
stake for all, in the orderly existence of society. It is a multi dimensional and a normative
concept concerned with the general ordering of society by adjusting, joining or fitting
different social and political values. It is essentially a reconciler of conflicting values like
liberty and equality. Justice synthesises values and interests, individual freedom and social
good in order to promote social cohesion.
Plato’s idea of justice: Justice is simply the will to fulfil the duties of one’s station and not to
meddle with the duties of another station. It simply means giving every man his due.
Justice belongs to the sphere of social morality. The idea of justice is related to an ethical
code and not merely to a legal code. Aristotle developed the concept of distributive justice
which meant that the burdens and benefits of social life should be distributed among
individuals proportionately according to merit and on the strength of other prior claims.
Aristotle held that injustice arises when equals are treated unequally and unequals equally.
The idea of natural justice was first floated by the Stoics. To the Stoics ‘nature’ meant
‘reason’. Justice implies that men have to act ‘reasonably’ that is in accordance with the
norms set by reason. The Romans integrated this idea of natural justice with the positive
law of the state giving rise to the notion of legal justice. Justice is nothing but the
enforcement of the law of the State. Under the influence of Christianity the ‘nature’ or
‘reason’ became God and the natural justice became the ‘divine justice’.
In the broader conception, justice is essentially concerned with the problem of coordinating
the rights and duties of people living in a particular society. It means and implies
righteousness or virtue, which is used as the basis for judging good and bad rules, values
and conduct of man as well as institutions.
There are five dimensions of justice:
a. Moral Justice: As a moral or ethical concept, the term justice means and implies the
quality of being or doing what may be called just or right or fair or reasonable in law and
 equity. As these are essentially moral or ethical attributes, Justice is basically a moral or
ethical conception in moral philosophy.
b. Legal Justice: It is directly associated with the law making process and the judicial
system of the society. Justice according to law means and implies that each and every
person should be able to secure impartial justice from the judicial system. It means an
equal protection of law. It requires that the judicial process should be simple and within the
reach of the poorest of the poor. The decisions should not be made arbitrarily but strictly in
accordance with general rules. These rules should be correctly and impartially applied to all
the cases defined by some fixed criteria. The Judicial system should be competent,
independent and impartial. Laws should be rational, reasonable and universal. Law should
be equal for equals and unequal for unequals.
c. Political Justice: The political justice is essentially concerned with the relationship
between the state or government and the citizens. Political justice means that political
power should be exercised by the representatives of the people and these representatives
should be made directly responsible to the people. The ultimate source of political power is
the people themselves. Political justice demands that the will of the people should be made
the ultimate basis or sanction of the political power and therefore the rulers must give due
regard to the public opinion. Accordingly, a democratic form of government is the only type
of government which can assure political justice. Another demand of political justice is the
establishment and maintenance of the independence of judiciary and establishment of rule
of law. It also implies a full guarantee of certain essential freedoms and political rights such
as – right to freedom of thought, speech and expression, Right to equality, right to form
associations, right to vote and right to criticise the government.
d. Economic Justice: The liberal view of economic justice demands that the satisfaction of
the economic needs of the people in society by making a provision for certain welfare
schemes and services by the state and reduction of disparities of incomes through
progressive taxation by the state. Liberal political thinkers believe that once political and
legal justice is guaranteed in democracy, socio-economic justice will naturally follow. Liberal
thinkers also maintain that abolition of private property is not essential for realization and
promotion of economic justice. The right to private property rather is recognised in
accordance with the demands and requirements of economic justice.
Marxist concept of economic justice on the other hand centres round the need of abolition of
private property and reordering of economic relations between employer and the employee,
between trader and consumer, between landlord and tenant, between money-lender and
borrower and between exploiter and the exploited in order to eliminate ruthless exploitation in
every form and every manner.
Types of justice

Distributive justice – वितरणात्मक न्याय

It is concerned with giving all members of society a "fair share" of the benefits and
resources available. However, while everyone might agree that wealth should be
distributed fairly, there is much disagreement about what counts as a "fair share." Some
possible criteria of distribution are equity, equality, and need. (Equity means that one's
rewards should be equal to one's contributions to a society, while "equality" means that
everyone gets the same amount, regardless of their input. Distribution on the basis of
need means that people who need more will get more, while people who need less will
get less.) Fair allocation of resources, or distributive justice, is crucial to the stability of a
society and the well-being of its members. When issues of distributive justice are
inadequately addressed and the item to be distributed is highly valued, intractable
conflicts frequently result.

Procedural justice – प्रक्रियात्मक न्याय

It is concerned with making and implementing decisions according to fair processes that
ensure "fair treatment." Rules must be impartially followed and consistently applied in
order to generate an unbiased decision. Those carrying out the procedures should be
neutral, and those directly affected by the decisions should have some voice or
representation in the decision-making process. If people believe procedures to be fair,
they will be more likely to accept outcomes, even ones that they do not like.
Implementing fair procedures is central to many dispute resolution procedures, including
negotiation, mediation, arbitration, and adjudication

Retributive justice प्रतिवादी न्याय

The idea that people deserve to be treated in the same way they treat others. It is a
retroactive approach that justifies punishment as a response to past injustice or
wrongdoing. The central idea is that the offender has gained unfair advantages through
his or her behaviour, and that punishment will set this imbalance straight. In other
words, those who do not play by the rules should be brought to justice and deserve to
suffer penalties for their transgressions. The notion of deterrence also plays in here: the
hope is that the punishment for committing a crime is large enough that people will not
engage in illegal activities because the risk of punishment is too high. In addition to
local, state, and national justice systems, retributive justice also plays a central role in
international legal proceedings, responding to violations of international law, human rights,
and war crimes.

Restorative justice – पुनर्वसन न्याय

While retributive justice focuses on punishing the transgressor of the norm, restorative
justice focuses on ensuring the welfare of the victim. It focuses on restoring well-being
and tranquillity to a punctual individual rather than to a nation. Restorative justice is
concerned with healing the "wounds" of the victims, as well as for making lawbreakers
have to adhere to compliance. Essentially seeks to repair the damage done to
interpersonal relationships and community. In this type of justice, the victims play a
fundamental role in the direction of justice, indicating what should be the responsibilities
and obligations of those who transgressed the law. On the other hand, transgressors
are encouraged to understand the harm they have done to their victims and the reasons
why they should be held responsible for such harm. Restorative justice seeks to
balance relationships within a community and prevent certain harmful situations from
happening in the future.

e. Social Justice: Social justice is a very broad political ideal. The concept of social justice
involves the promotion of socio-economic security and welfare of the masses. The
regulatory and welfare functions of the state are intended to promote social justice.
Implications of social justice:
Social justice means and implies material well-being for all which can be achieved only by
redistribution of wealth and establishment of equality of men in regard to possession of material
goods. Another demand of social justice is the availability of equal social opportunities for the
development of personality to all the people in the society, without any discrimination on the
basis of caste, colour, creed, race, sex and place of birth. No one should be deprived of those
social conditions, which are regarded as essential for social development of an individual. The
ideal of social justice is closely linked with social equality and social rights which in turn are
dependent upon economic equality and economic rights. The ideal of social justice can be
attained and promoted in a social system where exploitation of man by man is absent and
privileges of the few are not raised upon the miseries of the many. Social justice implies social
equality, which means absence of distinctions in the social status of the people. Irrespective of
the differences, every individual is given an opportunity to develop his personality fully.
The liberal equate social justice with welfare activities which are undertaken by a welfare state.
They view the state as a welfare agency, which provides social and economic justice that could
be attained and promoted by
Satisfaction of the basic, minimum needs of the people
Reduction of the disparities in income and wealth
Restriction on the capitalist class
Guarantee of equal opportunities for full development of personality
According to Marxist conception, the exploitation can come to an end after the proletariat
revolution and by the establishment of a classless communist society.
Justice is concerned with the general ordering of the society but is confronted with a problem of
distinguishing between unjust administration of law and unjust law, conservative justice and
reformative justice and rights of individual and claims of the society.
Rawls Theory of Justice
His most famous work is A Theory of Justice first published in 1970. Rawls says that the
conception of justice is an inherent nature of our social as well as practical life. Justice is related
to the social institutions which guide and mould the actions and ideas of social beings.The
social institutions are very important in the sense that they take the responsibility of distributing
the fundamental rights and duties efficiently.It is also the important task of the social institutions
to allocate judiciously the privileges and advantages for the people of society.Thus justice may
conveniently be regarded as a social principle which determines the ways and procedure of
distributing the rights and duties for the members of society. He further calls justice a social
scheme on the basis of which rights, duties, opportunities and condition are allotted. Thus
justice is both a principle and a scheme.So justice may duly be regarded as a “proper balance
between competing claims. The main theme of Rawls’ theory of justice is it is interpreted as
fairness: In Rawls’ conception that arrangement can be called just or appropriate which does
not create any scope of partiality or inappropriate. The principles for the distribution of rights,
duties and advantages will be applied in such manner as will give no controversy. One of the
very strong pillars of Rawls’ theory of justice is veil of ignorance which is an imaginary or
hypothetical situation. The people are ignorant about everything like a little child- just born.
People were not well acquainted with their own position such as to what class they belonged?
What was their exact status in society? What position people occupied in society.They were also
ignorant of the rights, duties, privileges, opportunities etc. Naturally they could not determine the
principles and modus operandi of their distribution.They had not formed any idea about good or
bad, just and unjust; rationality and irrationality; abilities and inabilities; strength and weakness
Because of this ignorant people were not in a position to form an opinion in favour of any one.
They had not the ability to disapprove anything. In fact, all of them started their life (which may
be called civil life) with a clean slate. This was a very important factor for attaining justice. At
least Rawls thinks so.People at the initial situations did not develop any idea about economics,
political condition or institution about civilisation or cultural condition.The first principle is:
“each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties
compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others.”
The second principles is that
“Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both
(a) Reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage and
(b) Attached to positions are offices open to all.”In a society there shall exist an extensive list of
equal basic liberties. All the persons shall have equal right to all these liberties. No one can claim
more than what others have got. Several things are very important here. (1) A society must
publicly announce all the liberties to which its members shall be entitled. In other words, the
members shall have equal right to all these liberties. These may alternatively be called social
values.

The social values include economic, cultural, political, religious freedom. In distributing these
rights the authority of the state will not make any discrimination on the basis of race, sex, caste,
language etc.Rawls reminds us that mere announcement of liberties is not of prime importance.
The authority must take care that none (because of manipulation or partiality adopted by
authority) gets more than the other. The simple implication is that unequal distribution of
liberties is not only intriguing but also the main cause of injustice. Inequalities or unequal
distribution of rights, liberties duties and privileges will be allowed on the condition that it will
be to everybody’s advantage or in other words, one will not be in disadvantageous position and
the other will be in advantageous position.every one shall have adequate freedom to reach the
door of privileges.Rawls’ theory of justice was based on liberty, equality and inequality.

Nozicks views on justice

Robert Nozick (1938-2002) was an American academic and a renowned political
philosopher.Nozick developed his theory in response to Rawls’ theory and he based his theory of
justice on rights.
Though liberal thinkers justify minimal state,still they accept that state is the most powerful
vehicle for arriving at distributive justice. It is the duty of a political system to see that none is
deprived of justice and for that goal the state will have to take action.Robert Nozick bases his
theory of justice on rights. The rights come from the concept of entitlement. In other words rights
mean entitlement. One has right or claim to anything means that one is entitled to it. If justice
means the distribution of right, duties, privileges etc. then the idea of justice can appropriately be
interpreted as entitlement theory of justice.“The general outlines of a theory of justice in
holdings are that the holdings of a person are just if he is entitled to them by the principles of
justice in acquisition and transfer, or, by the principle of rectification of injustice. If each
person’s holdings are just then the total set of holdings is just”.
To find out if there is injustice done the historical principle and the end result principle can be
used.
What is to be found out is whether there are any historical record -reference about the
distribution of rights. If the present distribution isin confirmity with the historical records then it
can be considered as just. However still there is a problem as to historically injustice is being
made in the distribution of rights. So comes the second principle-the end result. This concept
demonstrates that how things, rights, duties and privileges are distributed and as a result of
distribution who has got what is to be decided. Here the concern is about the consequences of
distribution.If the end result is satisfactory then it can be held that justice will be the result of
distribution