The Marginalisation of Justice in Public Discourse

The Hindu     26th August 2020     Save    
QEP Pocket Notes

Context: Distributive justice demands that development must be shared equally by all; however, the pursuit of narrow self-interest and national glory leads to inequalities in society and unequal division of social benefits.

Understanding the idea of distributive justice:

  • Prerequisites of distributive justice:
    • A social condition marked by an absence of love: Justice presupposes we should have a sense of sharing and not grabbing things; instead, we share with those we don’t know or love.
    • Existence of Moderate Scarcity: In times of abundance, the need for justice remains redundant.
      • For E.g. Each of us will have as much of everything we want, reducing the need for sharing
      • Equally, in a society with massive scarcity, justice is impossible.
    • A balance between public-interest and self-interest: Justice also presupposes that people are neither totally alone nor organically united with others. For E.g.
      • If one was Robinson Crusoe, there would be no one with who to share. 
      • And, if one was totally fused with others, then again, sharing will be unnecessary.
  • The basic idea of distributive justice: Each person gets what is properly due to him or her. 
  • Distinctions between a type Person’s Due
    • Hierarchical notions: what is due to a person is established by her or his place within a hierarchical system.
      • For, E.g. Certain groups are born privileged (in caste system), hence, are entitled to a disproportionately large share of benefits, and a disproportionately small share of burdens.
      • Historically, this notion has been temporarily opposed by Buddha’s teachings, the Bhakti Movement, etc. 
      • Today, these notions are opposed through constitutional egalitarian norms.
    • Egalitarian notions: Each person, regardless of caste, class, colour, creed or gender, is equal and hence, all social benefits and burdens should be distributed equally (mentioned in our Preamble)
  • Defining the Person’s Due: Two main parameters exist for interpreting what is due to persons of equal moral worth.
  • Need-based justice: what is due to a person is what are his/her basic and specific needs.
    • Since our basic needs are identical, justice requires their ful?lment in every single person.
    • Beyond this basic threshold, our needs usually vary, and therefore justice further requires the ful?lment of different needs like the specific needs of the scholar.
  • Desert-based justice: what is due to a person is what he or she deserves as per his/her talent or effort
    • For, E.g. those who are talented or work hard should be re­ warded with more bene?ts and be less burdened.
    • Conversely, those contributing unequally to the creation of wealth or cultural as­ sets, don’t deserve the same bene?ts.
  • Most reasonable egalitarian notion: find a balance between need and desert
    • Ensure distribution of benefits as per needs.
    • Rewards are permissible to those who by virtue of natural gift, social learning and personal e?orts deserve more.

Conclusion: Our society is afflicted by deep inequalities. Putting justice back into public discourse should be our priority. Or else, the dreams of our nation will never turn into reality.

QEP Pocket Notes