Social Justice

  • Question 1
    CBSEENPO11021092

    What does it mean to give each person his/her due ? How has the meaning of “giving each his due” changed over times?

    Solution

    It refers to justice. Justice involves the well of all people. Although there might be broad agreement in modern society about the equal importance of all people it is not simple matter to decide how to give each person his/ her due. The great philosopher explains its meaning giving a very simple example. He said, “Just a doctor is concerned with the well-being of his/her patients, similarity the just rules or just government must be concerned with the well-being of the people. Ensuring the well-being of the people includes giving each person his/her due.

    The meaning of “giving each his due” have changed over times:

    (i)The idea that justice involves giving each person his due continues to be an important part of our present day understanding of justice. However, our understanding of what is due to a person has changed from time of Plato.

    (ii)Today, our understanding of what is just-is closely linked to our understanding of what is due to each person as a human being.

    (iii) According to German philosopher Immanual Kant, human beings possess dignity. If all persons are granted dignity then what is due to each of them is that they have the opportunity to develop their talents and pursue their chosen goals.

     

    Question 2
    CBSEENPO11021093

    Briefly discuss the three principles of justice outlined in the chapter. Explain each with examples.

    Solution

    The three principles of justice outlined in the chapter are discussed below:

    (i)First, one of the principle in the principle of treating equals equally. It is considered that all individuals share certain characteristics as human beings. Therefore they deserve equal rights and equal treatment. Some of the important rights which are granted to most liberal democracies today include civil rights such as the rights of life, liberty and property, political rights like the right to vote, which enable people to participate in political processes and certain social rights which would include the right to enjoy equal opportunities with other members of the society.

    (ii)Second, apart from the equal rights, the principle of treating equals equally would require that people should not be discriminated against on grounds of class, caste, race or gender. They should be judged on the basis of their work and actions and not on the basis of group to which they belong.

    Therefore, if two persons from different castes participate in the same type of work, whether it be breaking stores or delivering pizzas they should receive the same type of reward.

    If a person gets one hundred rupees for some work and another receives only seventy five rupees for same work because they belong to different castes, then it would be unfair or unjust.

    Similarly if a male teacher in a school gets a higher salary than a female teacher, then this difference would also be unjustifiable and wrong.

    (iii)Third, Equal treatment is not the only principle of justice. There could be circumstances in which we might feel that treating everybody equally would be unjust. How, for example, would you react if it was decided in your school that all those who did an exam should get equal marks because they are all students of the same school and did the same exam? Here you might think it would be more fair if students are awarded makes according to the quality of their answer papers and also possibly, the degree of effort they had put in. In other words, provides everybody starts from the same base line of equal rights/ Justice in such cases would mean rewarding people in proportion to the scale of and equality of their effort.

    Danger of working conditions should also be considered when a labourer or work is being rewarded for his work or job.

    Question 3
    CBSEENPO11021094

    Does the principle of considering the special needs of people conflict with the principle of equal treatment for all?

    Solution

    The principle of considering the special needs of people conflict with the principle of equal treatment for all or not are explained below:

    (i) In order to promote social justice some thinkers advocate to recognise the principle of special needs of the people also. In terms of their basis status and rights as members of the society justice may require that people be treated equally. But even non-discrimination between people and rewarding them proportionately to their efforts might not be enough to ensure that people enjoy equally in other aspects of their lives in society nor that the society as a whole is.

    (ii)The principle of taking account of the special needs of people does not necessarily contradict the principle of equal treatment so much as extend it because the principle of treating equals equally could imply that people who are not equal in certain important respects could be treated differently.

    (iii) People with special needs or disabilities could be considered unequal in some particular respect and deserving of special assistance. But it is not always easily to get agreement regarding which inequalities of people should be recognised for providing that special help.

    Physical disabilities, age or lack of access to good education or health care are some of the factors which are considered grounds for special treatment in several nations. It is believed that if people who enjoy very different standard of living and opportunities are treated equally in all respects with those who have been deprived of even the basic minimum need to live a healthy and productive access, the result is likely to be unequal society not an egalitarion and just one.

    The Indian Constitution allowed for reservation of government jobs and quotas for admissions to equationed institution for people belonging to the SC/ST or OBCs etc. In India, lack of life to good education or health care and other such amenities is generally found combined with social discrimination on ground of caste.

     

     

    Question 4
    CBSEENPO11021095

    How does Rawls use the idea of a veil of ignorance to argue that fair and just distribution can be defended on rational grounds.

    Solution

    The defence:

    (i)John Rawals argues that the only way we can arrive at a fair and just rule is if we imagine ourselves to be a situation in which we have to make decisions about how society should be organised although we do not know which position we would ourselves occupy in that society. That is we do not know what type of family we would be born in, whether we would be born into an upper caste or lower caste family, rich or poor, priviledged or disadvantaged.

    (ii)Rawals argue that if we don’t know in this sense, who we will be and what options would be available to us in the future society, we will lately to support a decision about the rules and organisation of that future society which would be fair for all members.

    (iii)Rawals describes that as thinking under a veil of ignorance. He expects that in such a situation of complete ignorance about our possible position and status in society each person would decide on the way the generally do, that is in terms of their own interests.

    (iv)But since no one knows who would be and what is going to benefit him each will envisage the future society from the point of view of the worst off, it will be clear to a person who can reason and think for himself that those who are born priviledged will enjoy certain special opportunities.

    (v)On the other hand if some people have the misfortune of being born in a disadvantaged section of society where few opportunities would be available to them? Hence, it would make sense for each person acting in his or her own interest, to try to think of rulers of organisation that will ensure reasonable opportunities to the weaker sections. The attempt will be to see that important resources, like education, health, shelter, etc. are available to all persons even if there are not part of the upper caste.

    (vi)It is of course not easy to erase our identities and to imagine oneself about veil of ignorance. But then it is equally difficult for most people to be self-sacrificing and share their good fortune with strangers. That is why we habitually associate self-sacrifice with heroism. Given these human failings and limitations it is better for us to think of a framework that does not need extraordinary actions.

     

    Sponsor Area

    Mock Test Series

    Sponsor Area

    NCERT Book Store

    NCERT Sample Papers

    Entrance Exams Preparation