Site icon Legal Vidhiya

THEORIES OF JUSTICE: RAWLS, FULLER, NOZICK

Admin
Advertisements
Spread the love

This article is written by Anjali Bajaj of 2nd Year of Gopaldas Jhamatmal Advani Law College, Bandra, Mumbai University, an intern at Legal Vidhiya.

ABSTRACT

This research paper delves into the enduring theories of justice put forth by John Rawls, Lon Fuller, and Robert Nozick, elucidating their distinct philosophical underpinnings and implications for societal organization. Rawls’ theory emphasizes justice as fairness, utilizing the original position and the veil of ignorance to establish egalitarian principles. Fuller’s natural law theory centers on the inherent morality of law, emphasizing clarity, consistency, and the essential functions of legal systems. Nozick’s entitlement theory champions individual rights and just acquisition, rejecting distributive justice based on patterns. Through a comparative lens, this paper analyzes the nuances of these theories, highlighting their common impact on contemporary ethical dilemmas, legal interpretations, and social policies. By comprehending the intricacies of Rawls, Fuller, and Nozick’s perspectives, scholars and policymakers can navigate the evolving landscape of justice, ensuring fairness and equity in diverse societal contexts.

KEYWORDS:

Justice As Fairness, Original Position, Veil of Ignorance, Inherent Morality, Entitlement, Individual Rights, Distributive Justice, Egalitarian, Equality Before Law, Rule of Law, Personal Autonomy.

INTRODUCTION

Justice, a cornerstone of human civilization, embodies the fundamental principle of fairness that underpins societal harmony. This seemingly simple concept hides the complexity of philosophy, ethics, and sociopolitical discourse as rightly said that justice is simple, but the world is complicated. Theories of justice serve as intellectual beacons guiding societies through the moral labyrinth, offering diverse perspectives on what constitutes a just and equitable social order. In the rich tapestry of these theories, three prominent threads stand out: the egalitarian vision of John Rawls, the legal integrity emphasized by Lon Fuller, and the emphasis on individual rights in Robert Nozick’s work. As we embark on this exploration, we will delve into the profound philosophical landscapes painted by these theorists, unravelling their distinct perspectives and shedding light on the complexities that define the very essence of justice.

Rawls’ theory of justice as fairness introduces the concept of the original position, where individuals design principles of justice without knowledge of their social status. It leads to the creation of rules that safeguard the least advantaged members of society, emphasizing the equitable distribution of resources and fundamental liberties. This theory aligns with the constitutional provisions of Equality Before Law as stated in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Fuller’s theory of the inner morality of law focuses on the intrinsic qualities that render legal systems just, such as clarity, consistency, and the capacity to guide human conduct. He contends that a transparent, dependable, and in line with human conscience judicial system is essential to a just society. Both theories influence political and legal thought, driving legislation to lessen social injustice and defend the rule of law.

Robert Nozick’s “Anarchy, State, and Utopia” advocates for individual rights and limited government, in contrast to Rawls’ egalitarian stance. Nozick’s entitlement theory asserts that justice is achieved through voluntary property acquisition, transfer, and exchange. He emphasizes the importance of individual holdings and challenges conventional notions of distributive justice, promoting personal liberty and property rights. Nozick’s work has abundantly influenced political ideologies, particularly libertarianism, and shaped debates on the role of government in ensuring justice and individual freedom.

THEORIES OF JUSTICE

Many philosophers have provided different notions of justice. Indian Constitution cannot be said to be based on one theory, rather, it is a resultant phenomenon of all the jurisprudential theories, which calls for realistic efforts for social, individual, legal, economic, and overall development. The following are the principal theories of justice.

  1. RAWLS THEORY OF JUSTICE

Published in 1971, ‘A Theory of Justice’ is a seminal work on ethical values and political philosophy authored by the esteemed philosopher John Rawls. In this influential treatise, Rawls seeks to offer an alternative moral theory to utilitarianism and addresses the intricate issues and dilemmas surrounding distributive justice. Rawls underscores that his theory of justice is specifically concerned with political justice, distinguishing it from other types of justice and disciplines.

According to John Rawls, a fair society should be based on specific ethical standards. People who are “free and rational” and work to further their interests from an “Original Position” of equality should adhere to these values. Their affiliation and future agreements are founded on this idea of equality, which Rawls refers to as “justice as fairness.” These agreements allude to the laws that will be passed later and work on this basis of fairness.

In order to answer significant questions about how society should be organized, how fundamental rights and obligations should be assigned to individuals, and how social and economic advantages should be distributed among the general public, Rawls argues that these principles of justice should be arranged logically. He focuses primarily on outlining the moral standards that a just society would uphold. He does not consider how justice could be restored in an unjust society.

CONCEPTS UNDER RAWLS THEORY OF JUSTICE

Justice is rooted in principles established in an ideal society, derived from a hypothetical contract made in the ‘original position,’ a state of equality behind a ‘veil of ignorance.’ In this hypothetical scenario, individuals lack awareness of their social status, class, assets, or abilities. Rawls posits that these individuals, acting rationally and without biases, would establish just principles, ensuring fairness and equal opportunities for all. This ‘original position’ concept emphasizes the necessity of creating a society where decisions are made without the influence of personal advantages or disadvantages, ensuring a purely impartial and just social contract.

The concept of “justice as fairness,” introduced by philosopher John Rawls, proposes that a just society is one where principles of justice are chosen behind a “veil of ignorance.” This veil prevents individuals from knowing their characteristics or advantages, ensuring impartiality. Behind this veil, people would select fair and just principles without being influenced by their circumstances. Rawls’ theory emphasizes equal liberties for all and allows social and economic inequalities only if they benefit the least advantaged members of society. Justice as fairness underlines the importance of fairness, equality, and impartiality in creating a just society and promoting policies and systems that benefit everyone, especially the most vulnerable.

LANDMARK JUDGMENTS BASED ON RAWLS’ THEORY

INDRA SAWHNEY V. UNION OF INDIA [1]

This prominent case, commonly known as the Mandal Commission case, dealt with the reservation of jobs in public services in India. In the context of Rawls’ theory of justice as fairness, this case exemplifies the application of principles aimed at ensuring equal opportunities for all, especially the marginalized and disadvantaged sections of society.

In the Rawlsian framework, justice as fairness emphasizes the need to uplift the least advantaged members of society. Similarly, in the Indra Sawhney case, the Supreme Court of India upheld the government’s implementation of reservations, particularly for Other Backward Classes (OBCs), in public employment. This decision resonates with Rawls’ principle of ensuring the well-being of the least privileged.

JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY (RETD.) VS UNION OF INDIA [2]

The Supreme Court of India, in a landmark case, upheld the right to privacy as a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. This ruling emphasized the importance of personal autonomy and freedom, which aligns with Rawls’s theory of justice as fairness and fundamental freedoms. The decision ensures that every person, regardless of their social or economic status, has the right to privacy and protection from unwarranted interference. This verdict highlights the crucial role of safeguarding individual liberties, which is a fundamental principle of Rawls’s philosophy, in creating a fair and just society.

NOTEABLE EXAMPLE OF RAWLS THEORY

In India, the concept of justice as fairness has been incorporated in various ways. One such example is the Right to Education (RTE) Act [3], which aims to provide free and compulsory education to all children in the age group of 6 to 14 years. This legislation is in line with Rawls’ principle of justice that prioritizes the well-being of the least advantaged members of society.

CRITICS OF RAWLS’ THEORY

Critics argue that Rawls’ focus on the redistribution of wealth and resources may undermine individual incentives and overlook personal responsibility and effort.

Rawls’ theory has been criticized for its limited consideration of cultural diversity and differing conceptions of justice in multicultural societies, which might not align with his principles.

Some critics assert that Rawls’ principles, while theoretically sound, are challenging to implement in practical policy-making, especially in complex, pluralistic societies.

Lon Luvois Fuller was a highly esteemed American legal philosopher born on June 15, 1902, and passed away on April 8, 1978. He released his renowned publication titled Morality of Law in 1964. Natural law is the law that transformed old law into a cosmopolitan system. Fuller stated that there is no connection between law and morality. He debated with prominent British legal philosopher H.L.A. Hart that there is no complete separation but a close connection between morality and law. He further argued that there are two kinds of morality.

Fuller argued that for a legal system to be considered fair, it must adhere strictly to moral principles. He then outlined eight criteria that together constitute the fundamental moral foundation of law:

Laws should apply generally and not single out specific individuals or groups.

          Laws must be publicly known and accessible to everyone to understand and follow.

Laws should be announced in advance, giving people the opportunity to conform their conduct accordingly.

Laws should not be applied retroactively; no one should be punished for actions that were not illegal when committed.

         Laws should be clear and understandable, avoiding ambiguity and confusion.

         Laws should not contradict each other; they should be coherent and harmonious.

Laws should not demand the impossible; they should be within practical compliance of the average person.

         Laws should align with the existing ethical values and social norms of the community.

In Fuller’s perspective, the significance of a fair legal system that not only punishes wrongdoers but also offers clear, intelligible, and accessible laws is emphasized. In this sense, justice, in Fuller’s view, involves more than just punishing the wicked and ensuring that the legal system functions justly and fairly. The idea he put forward has had a considerable impact on the area of legal philosophy and the complex interplay between justice, morality, and the law.

LANDMARK JUDGMENTS BASED ON FULLER THEORY

MANEKA GANDHI V. UNION OF INDIA [4]

In this landmark case, the Supreme Court of India significantly expanded the scope of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court emphasized that procedures established by law for depriving a person of their liberty must be just, fair, and reasonable. The judgment aligns with Fuller’s principles by emphasizing the importance of just procedures and ensuring the laws are consistent and provide equal rights to all citizens.

VISHAKA V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [5]

The Vishaka case addressed sexual harassment at workplaces and issued guidelines to protect women at work. The Supreme Court emphasized that employers must provide a safe working environment and prevent harassment. This judgment aligns with Fuller’s principles of generality and clarity, ensuring that rules apply universally and are clearly defined to minimize ambiguity.

HUSSAINARA KHATOON V. STATE OF BIHAR [6]

In this prominent case, the principles of Fuller’s procedural justice theory were profoundly expressed.

Fuller placed great importance on the moral foundation of law. The Supreme Court of India has examined the prolonged detention of undertrial prisoners, highlighting fundamental flaws in the legal framework. By recognizing the inherent right to a speedy trial as provided in Article 21 of the Constitution, the Court sought to remedy the shortcomings of the judicial system. By Fuller’s beliefs, this judgment underlines the crucial relevance of a fair and prompt judicial procedure and the necessity of procedural fairness in creating a just society.

CRITICS OF FULLER’S THEORY

Fuller’s emphasis on legal traditions and the internal morality of law has been criticized for potentially conserving unjust social norms and principles, hindering social progress.

Critics argue that Fuller’s focus on inner morality within legal systems can be subjective, leading to potential bias in legal judgments and interpretations.

Fuller’s theory is criticized for not sufficiently addressing systemic injustices and power imbalances within legal frameworks, especially in contexts of social inequality.

Robert Nozick (1938 – 2002) was a framed American philosopher who first came to be widely celebrated through his 1974 book Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974). It is also known as the entitlement theory. Unlike John Rawls, who focused on distributive justice and creating a just society through redistribution, Nozick argued for a minimal state and emphasized individual rights and entitlements.

According to Nozick, individuals are entitled to the property they acquire through legitimate means. A person who obtains an unowned resource and transforms it through their labour is entitled to the resulting property. Nozick’s theory supports the idea of original acquisition, where just acquisition can occur from previously unowned resources.

Nozick argues that a just transfer of property can occur through voluntary exchange or gifting as long as both parties agree willingly and without coercion. In such transactions, if the transfer is consensual, it is inherently just, regardless of the resulting distribution of wealth. Nozick emphasizes the importance of individual autonomy and free choice in transfers.

Nozick introduces the principle of rectification to address past injustices. If a property has been acquired or transferred unjustly, rectification is necessary. However, Nozick’s principle here is minimal; he asserts that rectification should only occur if it results in not violating the rights of others. This principle deals with correcting historical injustices without resorting to extensive wealth redistribution.

Nozick espouses the notion of a minimal state that prioritizes safeguarding property rights, upholding contracts, and thwarting acts of violence and deceit. The state’s role should not involve extensive wealth redistribution or social engineering. This stance aligns with Nozick’s emphasis on individual freedom and limited government intervention.

THE RELEVANT JUDICIAL DECISIONS, POLICIES AND EXAMPLES THAT FURTHER CLARIFY THE NOZICK’S THEORY

UNION OF INDIA V. AZADI BACHAO ANDOLAN [7]

In this prominent case, the manifestation of Nozick’s entitlement theory becomes evident as the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Tax Concessions and Schemes for Export Promotion (TCSEP) under the Income Tax Act. The court concludes that the government’s practice of bestowing tax incentives upon export-oriented enterprises is a legitimate means of promoting economic advancement and development without infringing upon the rights of other taxpayers.

Illustration

  1. Mr. A and Mr. B are farmers in a vast forest, considered public land in a developing country. They lack resources, and opportunities to cultivate part of this land to support their families. Farmers by transforming the untouched forest into cultivated farmland, have acquired the land through fair means. They mixed their labour with the previously unused natural resources, thus gaining rightful ownership through their effort and original acquisition. (Principle of Justice in Acquisition)

If these farmers voluntarily decide to exchange portions of their cultivated land among themselves. Such transfers acknowledge the individual autonomy of the farmers, aligning with Nozick’s principle of justice in transfer. (Principle of Justice in Transfer)

If, in the past, some of these farmers were unjustly deprived of their land due to historical injustices or unequal policies, rectification might be necessary. However, rectification should occur without violating the rights of those who currently possess the land through fair means. This principle ensures that historical injustices are addressed without causing further injustices. (Principle of Rectification)

In the present illustration, Nozick’s entitlement theory upholds the farmers’ entitlement to the land they have procured through their labour, simultaneously acknowledging their autonomy in determining its utilization and redressing past injustices without jeopardizing the present holdings. This scenario exemplifies Nozick’s emphasis on individual rights, voluntary transfers, and limited state intervention, thereby demonstrating the pragmatic implementation of his entitlement theory in a tangible setting.

In India, as in many countries, there are progressive tax systems. These systems mean that as a person’s income increases, they are taxed at a higher rate. The additional tax revenue generated from higher-income individuals is often used for social programs, infrastructure, and other public services to address social inequalities. While these policies aim to create a more equitable society, Nozick’s theory questions the morality of such practices, especially when they involve significant wealth redistribution.

CRITICS OF NOZICK’S THEORY

Critics have pointed out that Nozick’s theory falls short of fruitful solutions for rectifying past injustices when property rights are obtained through historical methods.

Critics argue that Nozick’s emphasis on minimal state intervention may result in inadequate social safety nets, leaving vulnerable populations without essential resources and support.

Critics argue that Nozick’s theory does not consider the unequal starting points individuals have due to factors they cannot control, like their socio-economic background. These disparities can significantly impact their ability to acquire property in a fair and just manner.

COMPARATIVE NUANCES

Rawls prioritizes equality and addresses societal disparities, emphasizing a safety net for the least advantaged. In contrast, Nozick champions individual liberty and property rights, minimizing state interference.

Fuller’s focus on the legal process ensures that laws themselves are just, irrespective of their societal outcomes. Rawls and Nozick, on the other hand, delve into societal distributions, with Rawls emphasizing fairness in distribution and Nozick emphasizing individual entitlements.

Rawls sees an active role for the state in rectifying inequalities, whereas Nozick advocates for a minimal state, emphasizing individual autonomy and voluntary exchanges.

COMMON IMPACT

All three theories contribute to discussions on human rights, shaping international agreements and policies related to civil liberties, social equality, and fair treatment under the law.

Rawls’ emphasis on fairness informs policies combating discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status. Fuller’s clarity principle impacts legal interpretations in cases involving discrimination, ensuring precise definitions and fair judgments.

Nozick’s principles of property rights influence debates on environmental policies, especially regarding land use, resource allocation, and conservation efforts, contributing to the discourse on environmental justice.

CONCLUSION

In the intricate landscape of justice, Rawls, Fuller, and Nozick emerge as distinct architects, each crafting a unique perspective. Rawls, the advocate of egalitarian ideals, focuses on equal opportunities and fairness to uplift the marginalized. Fuller illuminates the path to a just legal system through the inner morality of law, emphasizing clarity and consistency. Nozick, in his minimalist approach, champions individual rights and voluntary exchanges, emphasizing personal liberty.

Despite their disparities, these theories converge around the central theme of human rights, influencing discussions on civil liberties, social equality, and fair legal treatment. Rawls addresses discrimination, Fuller ensures precision in legal interpretations, particularly in cases involving discrimination, and Nozick’s principles shape environmental policies. While not exhaustive, these theories enhance our comprehension of justice, guiding ethical dilemmas and societal policies. Together, they establish the groundwork for a just and equitable society, underscoring that the pursuit of justice is both a collective endeavor and an individual responsibility, resonating amidst the intricacies of the human experience.

REFERENCES

[1] Indra Sawhney V. Union of India Air 1993 SC 477 and 1992 Supp 2 SCR 454

[2] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) V. Union of India (2017)

[3] Right to Education (2009)

[4] Maneka Gandhi V. Union of India (1978)

[5] Vishaka V. State of Rajasthan (1997)

[6] Hussainara Khatoon V. State of Bihar (1980)

[7] Union of India V. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003)            

 

PDF 📄
Exit mobile version