Justice

The problem it answers

What is owed? To persons, to actions, to claims, to the parts of a soul, to the members of a community — each generates the question of what would be the right allocation, ordering, or response. Justice is the term Western philosophy has used, with continuous attention, to name what answers that question. The treatment differs sharply across periods and traditions; the question persists.

The specific topics organized under the heading have varied: the right distribution of goods, the right response to wrongdoing, the right ordering of the parts of a soul or city, the legitimacy of political authority, the equality or inequality of persons, the entitlements of rights-bearers, the standards of legal procedure. What unifies the topics is the underlying question: what is rightly due?

The core claim

There is no single core claim about justice; the field is organized by the disagreement. The most influential positions across the tradition:

Justice as harmony or right ordering. Plato in the Republic: justice is the right ordering of the parts of a soul, with reason ruling, spirit supporting reason, and appetite kept within its proper role. In the city by analogy, justice is the right ordering of the three classes (rulers, guardians, producers), each performing its proper function.

Justice as giving each what is due. The Roman formulation, derived from Stoic and Aristotelian sources: suum cuique tribuere, to render to each what is theirs. Justice is the disposition of giving each person, claim, or party what they are owed.

Justice as fairness. John Rawls's twentieth-century revision: justice is what would be agreed to by rational persons choosing principles of social cooperation from behind a veil of ignorance that conceals their particular position in the resulting society. The Theory of Justice (1971) reframed contemporary political philosophy around this formulation.

Justice as utility. The utilitarian tradition (Bentham, Mill): justice is whatever set of arrangements maximizes aggregate welfare. The position is structurally distinct from the others because it makes justice derivative from a more fundamental notion (well-being or happiness).

Justice as entitlement. Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974): justice is a matter of just acquisition and just transfer; whatever pattern of holdings results from just initial acquisition and just exchange is itself just, regardless of the resulting distribution.

History in one paragraph

The term has a continuous Western history from Hesiod and Homer through contemporary political theory. Socrates in Plato's Republic Book I refutes the conventional accounts (justice as telling the truth and paying debts; justice as helping friends and harming enemies; justice as the advantage of the stronger) and develops the soul-city analogy as the foundation of his alternative. Aristotle in Nicomachean Ethics V distinguishes distributive justice (the right allocation of goods, in proportion to merit), corrective justice (the restoration of equality when one party has wronged another), and reciprocal justice (the just exchange between parties). Cicero and the Roman lawyers transmitted Stoic and Aristotelian categories into Roman law; Ulpian's definition (justice is the constant and perpetual will to render to each his due) became the foundational formula of European jurisprudence. Augustine treated justice as the proper love of God and neighbor; Aquinas systematized natural law theory in Summa Theologiae II-II. Early modern thinkers (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau) developed social contract theories that grounded political justice in hypothetical agreement. Kant distinguished moral right (Recht) from ethics in the Metaphysics of Morals; Hegel developed an account of justice as realized through the institutions of ethical life in the Philosophy of Right. The mid-twentieth century saw the utilitarian dominance broken by Rawls's Theory of Justice (1971), which reorganized contemporary political philosophy. Subsequent contributions by Robert Nozick (libertarian), Michael Sandel and Alasdair MacIntyre (communitarian), Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum (capability), and the global justice tradition (Pogge, Beitz) have extended the conversation.

Distributive, corrective, and procedural justice

Aristotle's three-part division remains the standard taxonomy:

Distributive justice concerns the allocation of goods, burdens, offices, and honors among the members of a community. The central question: by what principle? Aristotle's answer was geometric proportion — each receives in proportion to their merit, where merit is defined by the relevant standard for the good in question. The contemporary distributive justice tradition (Rawls, Dworkin, Nozick, G.A. Cohen) has spent extensive effort working out alternative principles: equality of resources, equality of welfare, sufficiency, priority, desert.

Corrective justice concerns the restoration of equality when one party has wronged another. The central concept is restoration: the wrongdoer's gain and the victim's loss are equalized through the legal system. The contemporary literature (Ernest Weinrib, Jules Coleman) treats corrective justice as the foundational principle of private law, especially tort.

Procedural justice concerns the fairness of the procedures by which decisions are made, independent of the outcomes those procedures produce. The Anglo-American legal tradition organizes much of its understanding of justice around procedural standards (due process, the rights of the accused, equal treatment under law). The contemporary literature on procedural justice (especially the work of Tom Tyler) shows that procedural fairness is one of the strongest predictors of perceived legitimacy of institutional outcomes.

Justice and the Forms

In Plato, justice is itself a Form — one of the central Forms, alongside Beauty and the Good. The just particular acts and the just particular cities are just by participating in the Form of Justice. The philosopher's grasp of justice is therefore not merely an opinion but knowledge in the strongest sense, accessible only through dialectic and reason rather than through the senses or social convention.

This metaphysical grounding has been one of the most contested aspects of the Platonic treatment. Critics from Aristotle onward have argued that justice is properly understood through the analysis of human practice rather than through the contemplation of an eternal pattern. The Aristotelian alternative is to treat justice as a virtue of character, developed through habituation and practical wisdom, rather than as knowledge of a Form.

The Rawlsian revolution

Rawls's A Theory of Justice (1971) reorganized twentieth-century political philosophy. The book's central thought experiment, the original position, asks: what principles of justice would rational persons agree to as the basis for social cooperation, if they were choosing from behind a veil of ignorance that concealed their particular position in the resulting society (their wealth, intelligence, race, sex, religion)? Rawls argued that they would converge on two principles: an equal scheme of basic liberties for all, and an arrangement of social and economic inequalities that benefits the worst-off (the difference principle).

The book recovered substantive normative political philosophy after decades in which utilitarianism and legal positivism had dominated. The subsequent literature (Nozick's libertarian critique, Sandel and MacIntyre's communitarian critique, Sen and Nussbaum's capability approach, the global justice tradition) developed largely in conversation with Rawls.

Common confusions

Justice is not the same as morality. Morality is the broader category of right and wrong action; justice is the narrower question of what is owed. Some moral demands are demands of justice (the prohibition against theft); others are demands of beneficence, honesty, or other virtues without being demands of justice as such.

Justice is not equality. Equality is one principle of distribution; justice is the question of what the right principle is. Aristotle's analysis of distributive justice as geometric proportion explicitly rejects strict equality in favor of distribution according to merit; even egalitarian theories distinguish equality of what (welfare, resources, capability, opportunity).

Justice is not legality. What the law requires is not always what justice requires, and vice versa. The distinction is foundational to the natural law tradition (which holds that an unjust positive law is not properly law at all) and to most major theories of civil disobedience.

Live debates

Distributive justice between states. Do principles of justice apply globally, or only within state borders? The cosmopolitan tradition (Pogge, Beitz, Tan) argues for global application; the statist tradition (Nagel, Blake) argues for the priority of the state framework. The debate organizes contemporary global justice theory.

Reparative justice for historical wrongs. What is owed for slavery, colonialism, genocide, expropriation? The literature on reparations (Boxill, Coates, Brooks) is contested in both philosophy and politics.

Justice across generations. What is owed to future people, especially in the context of climate change, debt, and irreversible resource depletion? The intergenerational justice literature (Parfit's Reasons and Persons; Gardiner's A Perfect Moral Storm) is among the most active subfields.

Justice and capability. Sen and Nussbaum's capability approach grounds justice in the capabilities individuals have to do and be what they have reason to value, rather than in the distribution of goods or welfare. The approach has been particularly influential in development economics and disability theory.

Contemporary engagement

Justice is the most heavily theorized concept in contemporary normative political philosophy. The standard reference works include the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entries on justice, distributive justice, and global justice; the Routledge Companion to Political Philosophy; and the multi-volume Cambridge Companion to Rawls. Major recent monographs include G.A. Cohen's Rescuing Justice and Equality (2008), Amartya Sen's The Idea of Justice (2009), Michael Sandel's Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (2009), and the post-Rawlsian literature in the journals Philosophy and Public Affairs, Ethics, and the Journal of Political Philosophy.

Further reading

• Plato — the Republic's foundational treatment
• Aristotle — Nicomachean Ethics V on the three forms of justice
• Republic — the central text
• Aquinas — the natural law treatment
• Virtue — the Aristotelian framework of justice as character
• Form — the Platonic metaphysical grounding

This is a Pillar concept. Satellite concepts should link here as their parent.