Social & Political Ideals PDF

www.darshanias.com Social & Political Ideals Equality, Justice, Liberty  www.darshanias.com Equality Introduction The problem of equality and inequality figured in political philosophy since earliest times. Aristotle, for instance, discovered that 'i...

www.darshanias.com Social & Political Ideals Equality, Justice, Liberty  www.darshanias.com Equality Introduction The problem of equality and inequality figured in political philosophy since earliest times. Aristotle, for instance, discovered that 'inequality' was the cause of rebellion in many a state. He defined justice as treating equals equally and unequals unequally. This was a typical statement in that it insisted on recognition and maintenance of existing inequalities in society—between master and slave, between rich and poor, between morally superior and morally inferior, and so on. The modern idea of equality, on the contrary, seeks the correction of such inequalities that are not based on rational grounds. Meaning of Equality We can see the meaning of Equality in two points of views:  www.darshanias.com 1. Foundational Equality: This aspect of equality deals with the grounds on which the demand of equality should be founded. All men are created equal by God. In this sense, the idea of equality was originally expressed in the sphere of religion. But now we tend to advance other reasons also. For instance, we argue that the physical, emotional and intellectual needs of all men are similar; hence all are entitled to equal rights. We do not say that all men are equal in their physical or mental capacities, beauty and talents, etc. Sometimes we dwell on physical attributes to press our claim, such as, when we argue that men may differ in the colour of their skin, but they are similar in their color of their blood. So they should be treated equally. Nature has not made different persons with different elements. So we should also have no right to discriminate them. 2. Distributive Equality: It advocates the equal distribution of the things among all the members of society. It does not warrant complete equality at the level of distribution of benefits of social life, but only suggests the correction of unjust inequalities in society. Large inequalities of wealth,  www.darshanias.com prestige and power have always remained a prominent and almost universal feature of social structure throughout human history. So this equality should also be there. On the basis of above discussion we can infer the scope of equality through the following chart: www.darshanias.com  www.darshanias.com So Equality doesn't mean uniformity. Equality in its essence means absence of unfair and unreasonable discrimination between the individuals on the basis of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth etc. Therefore equality means absence of inequality. Like liberty, equality can also be understood in its positive and negative aspects. In the positive sense it meant 'the availability of opportunity' so that everybody could have equal chance to develop his personality. It implies creation of adequate opportunities for the self-development of all. In the negative sense, it implies absence of privileges for anyone. Each person must be recognized-as equal- to- every other and so nobody should be denied adequate opportunities for his self-development. It must, however, be clarified that equal treatment does not mean similar treatment. Differences in treatment can be permitted within the concept of equality but the differences must be based on the differing needs of the individuals.  www.darshanias.com Explaining the meaning of equality in this context, Laski writes that equality means: i) Absence of special privileges. It means that the will of one is equal to the will of any other. It implies equality of rights. ii) Secondly, equality means provision for adequate opportunities to all. Opportunity should be given to everyone to realize the implications of his personality. It implies that any distinctions should be secured for common welfare.  www.darshanias.com iii) All must have access to social benefits and no one should be restricted on any ground. The things without which life is meaningless must be accessible to all. "The urgent claims of all must be met before we can meet the particular claims of some." The inequalities by birth or because of parent and hereditary causes are unreasonable. iv) Absence of economic and social exploitation. All these meanings suggest that equality is a positive thing, it can be understood in relation with e society and it needs certain leveling processes in the society. Equality does not mean perfect or absolute equality; it neither means equality of treatment. But it definitely means equality of rights and duties, equality before law and equal protection of law. Absence of exploitation, social and economic and absence of economic inequality, abolition of private property, are preconditions for any kind of equality in a society. The Indian constitution can be referred as the embodiment of the modern concept of equality, the characteristics of which are as follows:  www.darshanias.com (a) The state cannot deny to its citizen 'equality before law' and 'equal protection of law'. (b) State has also been prohibited from discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. (c) Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment and no discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them. (d) Abolition of untouchability and prohibition of its practice in any form. (e) Abolition of titles, except those of military and academic distinctions.  www.darshanias.com At the same time reasonable restrictions have been placed, which provide for special provisions for women, children and scheduled caste and tribes, and backward classes. The Constitution also provides directive principles of state policy in which state has been directed to work in such a way so as the citizens of India really become equal and the objective of socio-economic justice is attained. The Constitution of India treats all alike, but it treats some specially. These some are unlike the rest, backward socially, politically,' economically, intellectually. The Constitution regards them the weaker sections of society and declares legal and constitutional discrimination in their favor, so to help them rise so high that they become equal to all the rest. Kinds of Equality I. Legal Equality IV. Social Equality II. Political Equality V. Proportional Equality III. Socio-Economic Equality VI. Economic Equality  www.darshanias.com 1. Legal Equality: The principle of equality was first put forward as the demand for legal equality, that is, grant of equal legal status to all individuals in society irrespective of their birth, physical and mental capacities, or other differences. J.J. Rousseau, in his Social Contract (1762), held that extension of legal equality to all citizens was the primary characteristic of civil society. Legal equality is popularly explained an equality before law and equal protection before law means that amongst equals the law should be equal and should be equally administered and that 'like should be treated alike'. In other words, the law is not to make any distinction between rich and poor, feudal lord or peasant, capitalist or worker. In the eyes of law, all are equal. Equality before laws means all the laws will be implemented equally to all the citizens. But it also provides that law in certain special circumstances can make rational discriminations.  www.darshanias.com 2. Political Equality: Political equality denotes the equality of political rights of citizens. It implies the right to be represented in decision-making bodies on an equal footing, i.e. on 'one man, one vote' basis. It also postulates that nobody will be barred from holding political office on grounds of gender, race, caste, creed, region etc. It means opportunity for everyone to participate in making and shaping public policy. It involves- (a) Right to vote (b) Right to contest elections (c) Right to hold public office (d) Right to criticize the government.  www.darshanias.com 3. Socio-Economic Equality: The term socio-economic equality embraces both social equality and economic equality. In fact, these two aspects of equality are so closely related that they should properly be considered together. It is significant that while legal and political equality may be given a formal interpretation as the 'absence of discrimination' with little impact on the socio-economic structure of society, social and economic equality demands a substantive interpretation, as the force behind social change. The concept of socio-economic equality was articulated as the goal of socialism. Socio-economic equality signified the further development of the concept of equality. 4. Social Equality: It means abolition of all kinds of discriminations based upon caste, creed, religion, language, race, sex, education etc. Social equalitarians attack wide inequalities of income and property, demand abolition of social relations based on exploitation of one class or caste by another, denounce traditional, privileges and disapprove of values, institutions which establish the superiority of one group over the others.  www.darshanias.com 5. Proportional Equality: Aristotle, the exponent of this view links equality to the idea of distributive justice. In elaborating this view he points out that Inequality arises when equals are treated unequally and unequals are treated equally, this is because he believes individuals differ in their capacities, interests and achievements. The varied dimensions of human life — social, economic and cultural — differ in importance. It is necessary to distinguish the deserving from the undeserving. According to Aristotle, there are two kinds of equality, numerical and proportional. A form of treatment of others or as a result of it a distribution is equal numerically when it treats all persons as indistinguishable, thus treating them identically or granting them the same quantity of a good per capita. That is not always just. In contrast, a form of treatment of others or distribution is proportional or relatively equal when it treats all relevant persons in relation to their due. Just numerical equality is a special case of proportional equality. Numerical equality is only just under special circumstances, viz. when persons are equal in the relevant respects so that the relevant proportions are equal.  www.darshanias.com 6. Economic Equality Early liberals meant by economic equality as equality of choosing one's trade or profession irrespective of his caste, creed or economic status. It was also understood as freedom of contract. Today it has a wider meaning. It means – (i) Economic resources should not be concentrated in a few hands, which allow them to exploit the others. (ii) There should not be wide differences in wages and rewards. Equal work should ensure equal pay. (iii) The right to work and the right against unemployment' as well' as the right to arbitrate one's conditions of employment should be available to all. (iv) The state should ensure adequate public welfare measures. Economic and social legislation to prevent people becoming prey to dominant economic interests should be made.  www.darshanias.com Marxist view of Equality Marxism maintains that inequalities emerged with the emergence of private property and equality can be there only when private property is abolished. Marxism scientifically analyses the issue of equality and property and associates it with the abolition of classes and establishment of a classless society. Only in a classless society the egalitarian principle "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" can be translated into practice. Lenin said -"We want to abolish classes and in this sense we are for equality:" Marxism maintains that economic equality is the most fundamental and all the other equalities are based on this. It does not agree that the State can create equality in a class-divided society through welfare measures and economic policies. It enlarges freedom in the sense that it safeguards people from poverty and satisfies basic needs, enabling them to achieve fulfillment; it is the only meaningful form of equality in that all other equalities rest upon it. Genuine legal and political equality require that people have access to equal social resources.  www.darshanias.com Relationship between Liberty and Equality In the Western liberal political thought two contradictory positions could be easily seen with respect to the relation between equality and liberty. 1). Liberty and Equality are complementary principles 2). Liberty and Equality are antithetical or incompatible 1). Liberty and Equality are complementary principles The principle of liberty stipulates 'equal' liberty or freedom for everyone. If freedom of one becomes unfreedom of another, it would be against the spirit of freedom itself. If freedom of the strong destroys  www.darshanias.com freedom of the weak, if freedom of the clever undermines the freedom of the simple and if freedom of the rich turns out to be a constraint on the poor, it would amount to negation of freedom as a universal principle. In this sense, liberty and equality are complementary principles. In this view (Hume, Rousseau, Barker, Laski etc.) believe that both equality and liberty complementary and one is not complete without the other. (i) Both have a common end: the promotion of individual personality and to create a better social order. The essential conditions for both liberty and equality,"are peace, order and security. In this context both liberty and equality are complement and supplement to each other. Without liberty, there can be no equality and without equality there can be no liberty. Both have to be reconciled. (ii) It is believed that democracy is the best system to protect the liberty of the people but on the other hand the basic philosophical idea on which democracy rests is equality which can be seen in practice in the form of one person one vote. Without equality there will be special privileges in society and liberty is impossible  www.darshanias.com in such a society. Laski writes, "A State divided into a small number of rich and a large number of poor will always develop a government manipulated by the rich to protect the amenities represented by their property. Political equality, therefore, is never real unless it is accompanied by virtual economic equality; political power. The State must dominate property, or property will dominate the State." Democracy is based on the principle of political equality and political equality is based on economic and social equality. So without socio-economic equality, democracy cannot be achieved and without democracy liberty cannot be made available to a vast majority. “Political liberty without economic equality is a myth”-G.D.H. Cole. “Political Liberty without economic equality is meaningless”-Laski 2). Liberty and Equality are antithetical or incompatible  www.darshanias.com Some thinkers have envisaged certain situations where the provision of equality obstructs the enjoyment of liberty. French philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-59) in his celebrated work Democracy in America (1835-40) observed that the 'principle of equality', whereby all distinctions of social status are gradually eroded, was the ruling principle of modern history. According to this position, human beings differ in their skills and abilities. Therefore, even if the same opportunities are provided some will be more successful than others. The trend towards inequality can be countered only by suppression of talents and aspirations or by a comprehensive and continuous state intervention to equalize artificially, the gifted and the ordinary; both the measures are inimical to liberty. Some of their important arguments are: (1) Liberty and inequality are natural. Therefore by nature liberty and equality are contradictory to each other.  www.darshanias.com (2) Liberty means negative liberty or absence of any restraint or coercion, whereas equality needs some restraints of some leveling, which is against the principles of liberty. According to this view the economic condition of man is dependent, on his personal ability rather than on society. The liberty of private property is natural and it cannot be restricted to the interest of equality. Thus they maintain that equality leads to negation of the liberty to private property. (3) In order to create equality in society the powers of the State are to be increased and increase in the powers of the State will threaten liberty. Here liberty and authority are seen as opposed to each other. The argument gets support-from political-practice-too. In the name of economic equality various States have unnecessarily increased their powers and attacked the rights and liberties of citizens. Thus, liberty is opposed to equality on the ground that equality needs a positive State whereas liberty needs a negative or minimal State.  www.darshanias.com Conclusion Thus, two opposite views regarding the relationship of liberty and equality have been analyzed. The first view that liberty and equality are not opposite to each other is more appropriate, as without a society of equals, there cannot be equal liberty for all. If liberty is viewed as a positive thing then naturally equality socio-economic, political and legal, is the first condition required for the realization of liberty.  www.darshanias.com Justice The term 'justice' implies the quality of being `just', right' or 'reasonable'. It is opposed to what is 'unjust', 'wrong' or 'unreasonable'. It embodies an ideal, which is akin to the 'absolute truth' yet it is a dynamic idea because our realization of that ideal and our comprehension of that absolute truth is a continuous process.  www.darshanias.com Our progress in this direction depends upon the development of our social consciousness, so that what was regarded as just some centuries ago is not so regarded today. Slavery and serfdom were wide `justified' in ancient and medieval Europe; untouchability was 'justified' in India a few decades ago; the inferior status of women was taken for granted the world over not so long ago; racial discrimination was 'justified' till recently in some parts of the world. But these conditions are now widely regarded as unjust. Our changing outlook about these problems and changing public opinion in favor of human liberty and equality are ample proof of the dynamic character of the idea of justice. Justice is one of the most important social-political ideals. One of the earliest treatises on politics, Plato's Republic, was an attempt to construct a just state. Justice was its central concept. In modern era justice was the motivating force behind all revolutions.  www.darshanias.com Meaning As we saw that the meaning given to the word justice has been different in different times. For sophist philosophers of ancient Greece justice meant "the interest of the stronger". As against this Plato emphasized on the moral and ethical element in justice by saying that it means performing one's duties with all abilities and capacities towards the social whole. According to John Rawls Justice is Fairness. He describes justice as the first virtue of social institutions. This means individuals accept social regulation or cooperation unless the conditions on which society functions are reasonably just. To define justice, one has to refer to the root idea of the word just meaning joining or fitting or to synthesis. Therefore, As a political ideals justice synthesizes other social-political ideals. In this way its synthesizes- Individual and State Individual and Society Cementing and joining up human beings together  www.darshanias.com Like the human soul, the justice will be achieved in a state when each class fulfills their respective functions. Justice is a general virtue. It means that all parts are fulfilling their special functions. Justice, in its broadest context, includes both the attainment of that which is just and the philosophical discussion of that which is just. The concept of justice is based on numerous fields, and many differing viewpoints and perspectives including the concepts of moral correctness based on ethics, rationality, law, religion, equity and fairness. Often, the general discussion of justice is divided into the realm of social justice as found in philosophy, theology and religion, and, procedural justice as found in the study and application of the law. The concept of justice differs in every culture. Early theories of justice were set out by the Ancient Greek philosophers Plato in his work The Republic, and Aristotle in his Nicomachean Ethics. Throughout history various theories have been established. Advocates of divine command theory argue that justice issues from  www.darshanias.com God. In the 1600s, theorists like John Locke argued for the justice as the theory of natural law. Thinkers in the social contract tradition argued that justice is derived from the mutual agreement of everyone concerned. In the 1800s, utilitarian thinkers including John Stuart Mill argued that justice is what has the best consequences. Theories of distributive justice concern what is distributed, between whom they are to be distributed, and what is the proper distribution. Egalitarians argued that justice can only exist within the coordinates of equality. John Rawls used a social contract argument to show that justice, and especially distributive justice, is a form of fairness. Property rights theorists (like Robert Nozick) also take a consequentialist view of distributive justice and argue that property rights-based justice maximizes the overall wealth of an economic system. Theories of retributive justice are concerned with punishment for wrongdoing. Restorative justice (also sometimes called "reparative justice") is an approach to justice that focuses on the needs of victims and offenders. We see the problem of justice in the contemporary world is concerned with determining logical criteria for the allocation of goods, services, opportunities, benefits, power and honors as well as obligations in society,  www.darshanias.com particularly in a scarcity situation. In other words, justice is concerned with the allocation of benefits as well as burdens. Kinds of Justice Distributive justice Distributive justice concerns the socially just allocation of goods. Distributive justice concentrates on outcomes. This subject has been given considerable attention in philosophy and the social sciences. In social psychology, distributive justice is defined as perceived fairness of how rewards and costs are shared by (distributed across) group members. For example, when some workers work more hours but receive the same pay, group members may feel that distributive justice has not occurred.  www.darshanias.com Environmental justice Environmental justice emerged as a concept in the United States in the early 1980s. The term has two distinct uses with the more common usage describing a social movement that focuses on the fair distribution of environmental benefits and burdens. Environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. EPA has this goal for all communities and persons across this Nation. It will be achieved when everyone enjoys the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards and equal access to the decision-making process to have a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work.  www.darshanias.com Social Justice Social justice is a concept of fair and just relations between the individual and society. In Western as well as in older Asian cultures, the concept of social justice has often referred to the process of ensuring that individuals fulfill their societal roles and receive what was their due from society. In the current global grassroots movements for social justice, the emphasis has been on the breaking of barriers for social mobility, the creation of safety nets and economic justice. Legal Justice The term 'legal justice' is broadly applied in two contexts: (a) 'justice according to law' - here we do not question the validity of law but focus on the principles of administration of justice according to the prevalent law; and (b) 'law according to justice' - here we examine the substance of the law itself to ensure that it conforms to the requirements of justice.  www.darshanias.com Political Justice A more specific usage of the term 'political justice', however, refers to the transformation of political institutions, political process and political rights according to current conceptions of justice. This means, in the first place, the establishment of democratic institutions in the political life of the community so that these institutions represent and take care of the interests of the people, not of any privileged class. In the second place, political justice implies a full guarantee of the liberty of thought and expression, especially the right to criticize the government and its policies. Finally, there should be complete freedom for forming associations and interest groups to enable the citizens to articulate their interests. Economic Justice Economic justice is a component of social justice. It is a set of moral principles for building economic institutions, the ultimate goal of which is to create an opportunity for each person to create a sufficient material foundation upon which to have a dignified, productive, and creative life.  www.darshanias.com The concept of economic justice intersects with the idea of overall economic prosperity. There is a belief that creating more opportunities for all members of society to earn viable wages will contribute to sustained economic growth. When more citizens are able to provide for themselves and maintain stable income, they are more likely to spend their earnings on goods, which in turn drive demand in the economy. Plato’s Theory of Justice Discovering the principles of justice is the central problem of Plato's Republic. It is even subtitled as concerning justice. It follows the style of dialogue between Socrates and his pupils who represent various streams of thought. Socrates asks them searching questions, and demolishes their views one by one and ultimately offers his own answer, which embodies Plato's theory of justice. The style of dialogue represents the dialectical method, which was introduced by Socrates himself.  www.darshanias.com Justice, in Plato's sense, is the power of individual concentration on duty. If a soldier is just in this sense, he is of course, a brave man; if a man in subordinate position is just, he of course accepts and maintains authority, or is 'self-controlled'. Justice therefore, is really the condition of the existence of all the virtues; each of them is a particular manifestation of the spirit of justice, which takes different forms according to a man's function in the community. In modern phrase it is equivalent to sense of duty. Plato prescribes different duties for different groups of citizens whose fulfillment would be instrumental in building up a just social order. Justice results from each element in society doing its appropriate task, doing it well and doing it only. In order to achieve perfect harmony, which symbolizes justice, it is imperative that reason must rule within the man as well as within the state. So, in a just or ideal state, the reins of government shall remain in the hands of a class of philosopher-kings who are supposed to be the living embodiments of reason, whereas material production and military defense shall be entrusted to the producer and warrior classes, respectively. Thus, in Plato's perfect state: the industrial forces would produce but they would not rule; the military forces would protect but they would not rule; the forces of knowledge and science and philosophy would be nourished and protected and they would rule.  www.darshanias.com Plato discusses justice in two ways (1) Justice for individual (2) Justice for state (1) Justice for individual: According to Plato in human souls three qualities are found. First is wisdom, second is courage and third is appetite. When these three qualities are found in human soul in right proposition then justice is secured for individual. Therefore Justice is right state of human mind. Here right proportion means dominance of that quality in the soul of the individual which is the quality of his class-to which the individual belongs. For example — Dominance of wisdom in the members of ruling class, dominance of courage in the members of soldier class and dominance of appetite in the members of producer class.  www.darshanias.com (2) Justice for State: According to Plato three qualities of human souls are represented in the State in the form of three classes. Wisdom in the form of philosopher kings, courage in the form of soldiers and appetite in the form of producers. Therefore, Plato opines, "State is individual writ large" (State is larger form of individual). When these three classes perform their respective function and do not interfere in the affairs of other classes then justice is secured in the state or in other word state is a just state. www.darshanias.com  www.darshanias.com Therefore, in Plato's views we can understand that justice becomes synonymous with the notion of 'Swadharma' explained in Indian text Gita. On this analysis we may point out three principles in Plato's theory of justice (i) Principle of functional specialization (ii) Principle of non-interference (iii) Principle of harmony Criticism (1) According to critics Plato's theory of Justices suffers from jurisprudential inconsistency. According to Barker, Plato has ignored the legal aspect of justice.  www.darshanias.com (2) Plato's theory of Justice is elitist in nature because it aims at maintaining equilibrium in the society. The principle of functional specialization and principle of non-interference restricts all forms of class-mobility. (3) According to critics Plato has legitimized inequality through his theory of justice. Plato divides the state into three classes and advocates different sets of rights for these three classes. Here, Plato's class-division can be compared with Indian Varna system. (4) According to Karl popper Platonic theory of justice will lead to the emergence of totalitarianism. Popper believes that in Plato's scheme of justice philosopher kings are the wisest persons. Therefore they do not need any constitution or guiding law, Therefore he supports discretionary rule. Plato is against the-concept of rule of law. Significance 1. Plato was the first philosopher to formulate a systematic theory of justice.  www.darshanias.com 2. Plato established justice as one of the most important ideals of political philosophy. Platonic inferences can be seen on contemporary philosophers like John Rawls also who considers justice as the most important ideals. 3. Plato's theory is important because Plato discussed the idea of justice both for individual and state. Aristotle’s theory of Justice While Plato's theory of justice represents the radical view in that it sought to change the existing social order of his times, Aristotle's theory of justice embodies the conservative view as he was in favour of maintaining the existing order. In Aristotle's view, justice was concerned with the regulation of human relations. He held that the identical notion of justice in the minds of people was the reason behind the existence of the state. Aristotle identified three types of justice:  www.darshanias.com (a) Universal Justice; (b) Particular Justice Universal justice means that our behavior should be based on the principles of morality. Particular justice means the implementation of universal justice in practical world. It is of three types 1. Distributive Justice 2. Retributive Justice 3. Commutative Justice The legislator should be concerned with distributive justice whereas the judge should be concerned with retributive and commutative justice. Distributive justice deals with the allocation of honors and wealth. Its  www.darshanias.com basic principle is 'treating equals equally and unequals unequally'. Aristotle preferred to rely on the prevailing custom and customary law for deciding as to who were equals or unequals. Retributive justice deals with imposition of punishment and payment of damages. It requires full restoration of any loss involuntarily sustained in the course of transactions between individual members of the community. Finally, commutative justice seeks to determine the amount of one sort of goods or services to be rendered in return for another sort in voluntary transaction of buying and selling, or letting and hiring. Its guiding principle should be full equivalence. www.darshanias.com  www.darshanias.com Evaluation Criticism: 1. As far as the concept of retributive justice is concerned. Perfect retribution is not possible in many cases. 2. His theory of distributive justice serves the interest of particular class. (upper class) Significance: 1. Aristotle is the first philosopher who analyzed the idea of justice at empirical level. 2. Certain formulations of Aristotle are still relevant and they have become part of modern jurisprudence. For e.g.: Voluntary relation may be compared with civil issues. Non-voluntary may be compared with criminal issues and whole scheme of retributive justice can be seen from today's point of view as legal justice.  www.darshanias.com 3. The idea of Distributive justice based on proportional equality is also relevant today but in amended form. Procedural and Substantive Justice The contemporary debate on the nature of justice focuses on the distinction between procedural justice and substantive justice (also called social justice or distributive justice). Champions of procedural justice hold that it is necessary to determine a just procedure for the allocation of social advantages, viz. goods and services, opportunities and benefits, power and honors; then its outcome will automatically be accepted as just. In ether words, the allocation resulting from a just procedure must be treated as just. On the contrary, champions of substantive justice argue that the allocation or distribution of social advantages among various sections of society itself should be just that is the primary issue; the procedure for making such allocation is a secondary issue, which can be adjusted suitably to meet the requirements of just distribution.  www.darshanias.com The notion of procedural justice is closely related to the tradition of liberalism. According to this viewpoint, the-function of justice is to regulate the mutual relations between individuals and groups. Hence, the quest for justice should aim at evolving reasonable rules, which should be applied impartially to all categories. Freedom of contract is the mainstay of procedural justice. Procedural justice treats the rules of market economy as the model rules of human behavior. The exponents of procedural justice include Herbert Spencer, F.A. Hayek, Milton Friedman and Robert Nozick. Besides, John Rawisill (1921-2002) has sought to accommodate the requirements of substantive justice or social justice in his well-drawn scheme of procedural justice, In contrast, the idea of substantive justice corresponds to the philosophy of socialism. It holds that test of justice in society consists in ascertaining whether the poor and the underprivileged have adequate opportunity to improve their lot. It demands that the opportunities of self-development should be progressively extended to the underprivileged and disadvantaged sections of society.  www.darshanias.com PROCEDURAL SUBSTANTIVE 1. Emphases on Procedures or rule 1. Emphasis is on outcome 2. Equality of opportunity 2. Equality of outcome 3. Emphasis on merit 3. Emphasis on need 4. Liberals 4. Socialist 5. It supports market economy 5. State control  www.darshanias.com Liberal Perspective on Justice Liberal perspective on justice treats liberty as the central problem of justice. It is particularly concerned with substantive liberty for which it seeks to accommodate the principles of equality and fraternity in the broader framework of liberty. This perspective is chiefly represented by Rawls's Theory of Justice. John Rawls's Theory Of Justice John Rawls formulated his theory of justice in the book "A Theory of Justice". The book has been compared in various ways with the Works of Plato, J.S. Mill and Kant. Rawls's theory of justice is liberal, procedural and distributive. Rawls begins by describing justice as the first virtue of social institutions and sets out to discover what principles of justice are most defensible. The primary domain over which justice operates is the distribution of goods. In Rawls's theory, these things are called 'Primary goods'. They are of two types:  www.darshanias.com I. Social goods: goods that are directly distributed by social institutions such as income and wealth, opportunities and power, rights and liberties. II. Natural goods: goods like health, intelligence, vigor, imagination, natural talents which are affected by social institutions but are not directly distributed by them. Original Position: This is a hypothetical situation where those, individuals who are formulating the theory of justice are under the "veil of ignorance". In this situation contractors are guided by maximum rule. In other words, everyone will choose a kind of society which minimizes his Possible losses and make sure that even the worst of persons is not too destitute in case he turns out to be such a person. Taking maximum advantage and the distribution of primary goods, Rawls says that the people would choose two principles of justice:  www.darshanias.com (i) Each person has an equal right to the most extensive basic liberties compatible with similar liberties of others. (ii) Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that both are (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, and (b) attached to positions and offices are open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. After deciding about the principles, according to Rawls, the next step is the choice of a constitution, which satisfies the principles of justice and is best designed to lead to just and effective legislation. For this, the constitution will have to protect 'liberty of conscience and freedom of thought, liberty of the person and equal political rights'. After the establishment of constitution, people have to decide about the proposed bills and policies. Legislation is largely concerned with the achievement of long term social and economic goals as well as to fulfill the principle that requires that 'social and economic policies be aimed at maximizing the long-term expectations of the least advantaged under conditions of fair equality and opportunity'.  www.darshanias.com Criticisms: Marxists contend that Rawls has tried to determine the principles of justice in a hypothetical condition where people are deliberately kept behind a 'veil of ignorance'. All deliberations without the knowledge of prevailing social and economic conditions are meaningless. Libertarians argue that Rawls has sacrificed liberty for the sake of equality. Why should we force the meritorious and industrious to work for the benefit of the most disadvantaged sections? Communitarians point out that Rawls's political philosophy does not grade any conception of good life as superior or inferior to others. This ethical neutrality evades the opportunity of the pursuit of the common good.  www.darshanias.com Amartya Sen's Extension Of John Rawls' Theory Of Justice The Rawlsian paradigm of justice assigns a central role to the achievement of liberty. Amartya Sen has certain reservations about this freedom-oriented evaluation of justice. In his opinion, the Rawlsian framework concentrates only on the means to freedom rather than on the extent of the freedom that a person actually has. Sen would like to describe his approach to justice as a capability-based one, wherein it is not just the access to primary goods but the extent of capabilities that each individual has to convert these primary goods into lives that they value living and that would determine freedom and ultimately uphold justice. To explain this further, assume that there are two individuals both with access to the same set of primary goods. Does this ensure that both therefore enjoy the same amount of liberty? Sen's answer would be no.  www.darshanias.com There could be various reasons like. for example, physical limitations and challenges that impose restrictions on capabilities. So, despite similar access to primary goods there would be difference in the extent of capabilities to convert these into freedom. Sen clarifies that capability means a person's freedom to choose between alternative lives and there need be no unanimity about what would be considered a valued way of life. Capability thus represents freedom, whereas the Rawlsian primary goods are just means to this freedom. Sen argues that equality of freedom to pursue our ends cannot be guaranteed by equal distribution of what Rawls describes as primary goods. Sen would want of examination of interpersonal variations-in-people's capabilities to pursue ends and objectives. People not only value different things as good but they also have varying capabilities to achieve freely the ends that they value. Rawls is sensitive to the first mentioned diversity. Sen would, however, like him to add to this a concern for variations in people's ability. To convert resources into actual freedoms. Variations could be related to age, sex or genetic endowments. These variations influence people's abilities differently to build freedom in their lives, despite having the same primary resources.  www.darshanias.com Liberty The theme of rights is integrally connected with the theme of liberty. It is the provision of rights with their due enforcement by the state that ensures freedom to a citizen and thereby enables him to seek the best possible development of his personality. The purpose of the state is not confined to the maintenance of law and order, or the protection of the weak against the strong; it is also concerned with the creation and  www.darshanias.com preservation of that atmosphere in which an individual has the opportunity to sharpen his constructive initiative. 'Liberty' and 'Freedom' are terms, which are generally used interchangeably: The idea of freedom presupposes absence of restraints. Freedom of choice and will implies a kind of freedom. It is the freedom to select one possibility among others. Generally, we talk of freedom of will in the moral realm. When we use the term freedom in the social or political context, it means the freedom to carry out what one has chosen to do. Real Meaning and Nature: The meaning of liberty is generally taken in a wrong way as it is identified with the absence of restraints and limitations. It is taken synonymously with man's right to 'do what he likes'. Hobbes calls it 'license' or 'a condition to do what you like' that prevails in the hypothetical state of nature. In a correct sense, liberty means man's right to do what is worth doing. Social life is regulated by a set of principles or norms that make  www.darshanias.com man's life civilized. These restraints lay down the line of distinction between good and bad, right and wrong, moral and immoral, legal and illegal. Thus viewed, liberty means man's right to do what he wants to do for the sake of making the best possible development of his personality by following a course that is good, or right, or moral, or lawful. In short, the real meaning of liberty should be understood with this point in view that the liberty of an individual is relative to that of others. Two aspects of liberty 1. Negative liberty: Negative sense, it implies the absence of restraints as far as possible. Here the point of stress is that restraint is bad, because it effects curtailment or diminution of individual freedom. But as liberty lives within restraints, these should be as few as possible. Here the burden of argument is to accept the fact of restraints  www.darshanias.com with a sense of compulsion. A classic defender of this argument like John Stuart Mill says that "all restraints qua restraints is an evil... leaving people to themselves is always better than controlling them."" In order to make his meaning more clear, he divides man's actions into two parts—self-regarding and others-regarding. The state has no right to interfere with the liberty of man if his actions affect himself alone. Professing any religion, worshipping the deity, and reading a book may he cite as examples of man's strictly self-regarding actions. However, the state may intervene in the liberty of a man if he harms the liberty of his fellow-beings. The negative view of liberty is not appreciated in present times. Liberty is sought to be reconciled with the growing authority of the state. Restraints are essential if the state desires to achieve the goal of public welfare. It is said that human actions cannot be divided into watertight forms as was done by Mill more than a hundred fifty years back. Since man lives in society, his actions have an effect on the liberty of others. There can be nothing like a strictly private or self-regarding sphere. Man cannot be allowed to commit suicide or produce obscene literature. The acceptable view is that there Is no side of man's life which is unimportant to society, for whatever he is, does, or thinks may affect his own well-being, which is and ought to be a  www.darshanias.com matter of common concern, and may also directly or indirectly affect the thought, action and character of those with whom he comes into contact." 2. Positive liberty: The meaning of liberty in its positive aspect is a contribution of T.H. Green. He defines it as a positive power of doing or enjoying something that is worth doing or worth enjoying in common with others. Since man is a social creature, his life should be regulated by certain social bonds. It is positive—a freedom to do something, not a freedom from having something done to one. It is determinate—a freedom to do something of a definite character, something which possesses the quality of being worth doing, and not any and everything.  www.darshanias.com The difficulty with this argument is that it implies that someone else (e.g. the Government) knows better what is good for you. Therefore he (or it) should have the right to impose it on you in your own interest! This, it is argued can very easily lead to dictatorship and Fascism. The Main Points of Positive Liberty 1. Liberty is not the absence of restraints, rather it is the presence of those political conditions without which liberty cannot be realized. 2. The object of liberty is the development of man as a social being. 3. Without proper opportunities and social conditions liberty cannot be realized. 4. Rights are necessary for liberty and are related to justice, Morality and equality. 5. The liberties of an individual must correspond with social welfare.  www.darshanias.com 6. The duty of the State is to create positive conditions for the realization of liberty and for this the State can limit the liberties of some individuals. However, the government must be a responsible government. 'The State is not viewed as an enemy of personal liberty. 7. Liberty is a social requirement of social man and is not given to a social or anti-social beings. Negative And Positive Liberty Compared Both these views have been supported 'by liberal writers and are fundamentally associated with the problem of the relationship between liberty and authority. The negative, view of liberty was presented when the liberal thinkers were suspicious of the authority of the 'absolutist State and the positive view was supported, firstly when the State gained the confidence of liberal thinkers or when the State power firmly came into the hands of the bourgeois class, in the, later half of the 19th century. Differences between the two are as follows:  www.darshanias.com 1. Negative liberty gives more weight to the personal aspect of man and regards liberty as inherent in the personality of an individual. The positive view of liberty looks at it in the social context and maintains that it is based on the socio-economie, and political conditions of society. 2. The negative view regards liberty as the absence of restraints, whereas positive liberty emphasizes the positive conditions for the realization of liberty. 3. The negative view assumes that the State is an enemy of personal liberty, while the positive view assigns the responsibility, of creating the positive conditions for the realization of liberty to the State. 4. The negative liberty emphasizes the personal- and political aspects of liberty, whereas the positive view emphasizes the social and economic aspects of liberty. 5. The view of negative liberty does not associate it with rights, equality, morality and justice; the positive view regards liberty, equality and justice as mutually related.  www.darshanias.com 6. The view of negative liberty supports the negative State with minimum functions, and the positive view supports the positive-State with welfare functions. 7. The negative view is based on the market concept of society that it is composed of atomized individuals having natural liberty. The positive view emphasizes the social aspect of man. Kinds of Liberty: Simply stated, liberty implies a condition "especially opposed to political subjection, imprisonment, or slavery." However, in a wider sense, it is a multiple concept having these important varieties: 1. Natural Liberty:  www.darshanias.com It implies complete freedom for a man to do what he wills. It is another name for the liberty of the woods, called 'licence' by Hobbes. It means no restraint of any kind whatsoever on the doings of a man. Just as all creatures live according to their will in the world of nature, so should be the pattern of a man's life. Let a man do what he wills. We have already made it clear that liberty lives within restraints. The idea of natural liberty is, therefore, an arrant nonsense; it cannot prevail in a society of human beings. As a social creature, man should lead a life regulated by social restraints. Thus, we find that Rousseau who begins with the assumption that 'man is born free, he is everywhere in chains' ultimately stresses the point that "what man loses by the social contract is his natural liberty and an unlimited right to everything he tries to get and succeeds in getting; what he gains is civil liberty and the proprietorship of all he possesses." 2. Social Liberty: What we really mean by liberty lies in its civil or social variety. It has its wider ramifications in personal, political, religious, economic, national and international spheres. It is related to man's freedom in his life as a member of the social organization. As such, it refers to a man's right to do what he wills in compliance with  www.darshanias.com the restraints imposed on him in the general interest. In other words, this kind of liberty consists in the rights and privileges that the society recognizes and the state protects in the spheres of private and public life of an individual. Its sub-varieties may be put as under: (a) Personal Liberty: Private liberty "is that aspect of which the substance is mainly personal to a man's self. It is the opportunity to be fully himself in the private relations of life."' According to Blackstone, this kind of liberty consists in three directions—(i) personal security not only of health and life but also of reputation, (ii) personal freedom especially of movement, and (iii) personal property or the free use and enjoyment and disposal of all acquisitions. (b) Domestic Liberty: Prof. Hob house talks of domestic liberty which means a responsible and respectable position of the wife and children in the family, freedom for the members of the family to have marriage of their choice, and responsibility of the parents to seek moral and mental development of the members of their family.  www.darshanias.com 3. Political Liberty: It refers to the power of the people to be active in the affairs of the state. Thus, it is integrally connected with the life of man as a citizen. It consists in the provisions for universal adult franchise, free and fair elections, and freedom for the avenues that make a healthy public opinion. The existence of this kind of liberty shows that the people may curb, control and change their government. 4. Economic Liberty: It pertains to the individual in his capacity as a producer or a worker, whether manual or mental, engaged in some gainful occupation or service. It means security and opportunity to find reasonable significance in the earning of one's daily bread. The individual should be free from the constant fear of unemployment and insufficiency, which perhaps, more than any other inadequacies, saps the whole strength of personality. In a wider sense, it stands for the establishment of industrial democracy enabling the workers to participate in the management of industry. The case of economic freedom is, however, a matter of controversy. While the  www.darshanias.com liberals desire a free and competitive economic system, the socialists advocate the system of state controls, even nationalization of private property in the public interest. The communists go to the last extent of abolishing private economy and defining economic freedom as man's emancipation from evils like unemployment and exploitation. Absence of unemployment and provisions for social security are taken as the bold marks of economic freedom in the country. 5. National Liberty: It is another name for national independence. It rejects the case of colonial or imperial subjection of one nation by another. Thus, freedom struggles are regarded as national movements. For instance, the Americans gained national liberty in 1776 and the Indians in 1947. Historical evidence shows that love for one's country is so deep-seated in human hearts as a result of which millions of people lay down their lives for the sake of protecting the honor and security of their motherland.  www.darshanias.com 6. International Liberty: The ideal of liberty covers the world as a whole. Thus, in the international sphere, it implies renunciation of war, limitation on the production of armaments, abandonment of the use of force and stress on pacific settlement of international disputes. The ideal is based on this pious assumption that in proportion as the world becomes free, the use of force becomes irrelevant and that there is no sense in aggression if it is not an issue of national subjection in one form or another. 7. Moral Liberty: This type of freedom is contained in the idealistic interpretations of thinkers from Plato and Aristotle in the ancient to Rousseau, Kant, Hegel and Green in modern times. In this context, it is suggested that though a person may have all kinds of freedom, as described above, he lacks the essential quality of a human being in case he does not have moral freedom. This kind of freedom lies in man's capacity to act as per his rational self. Every individual has a personality of his own and unless he seeks best possible development of his personality and, at the same time, he desires the same thing for others and, more than this, he pays sincere  www.darshanias.com respect for the real worth and dignity of his fellow beings, he is not free in the moral sense. Kant calls it the 'fulfillment of the will to categorical self-imposed imperative of duty' and the 'autonomy of the rational will.' To Hegel such freedom has its objective realisation in the state and has its place in the observance of complete loyalty to the state. In other words, it is necessarily connected with man's self-realization that has a meaning only in the context of the common good. Liberty and Authority Whether liberty of the individual and authority of the state are exclusive of, inimical to, or complementary with each other is a very delicate question. It has engaged the attention of many social and political thinkers and theorists. Different views are available in this regard: 1. John Stuart Mill’s View  www.darshanias.com The classical individualists like John Stuart Mill, Adam Smith and Herbert Spencer take liberty of the individual incompatible with the authority of the state. The two are antithetical. But as the state is a 'necessary evil,' there should be as little interference of the state as possible so that the individuals may have the maximum possible amount of liberty. They appreciate the system of laissez faire implying minimum possible area of state interference. 2. The anarchists’s View The anarchists go a step ahead in denouncing the state as an unnecessary evil that should go root and branch. Authority of any kind is bad, because it restricts liberty of the individual. As advocated by great anarchists like Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin, there should be no authority—whether economic, political or religious—so as to emancipate man from the yoke of the capitalists, the state and the religion respectively. 3. Marxists’s View:  www.darshanias.com The Marxists treat the state as an instrument of exploitation and oppression by one class over another. The state deprives the class of the have-nots to enjoy liberty in the midst of numerous restraints imposed by it to protect and promote the interest of the class of the 'haves'. 4. The Fascists’s View The Fascists go to the extent of adulating the system of restraints to any extent whatsoever. In their view, liberty of the individual lies in rendering complete obedience to the authority of the state. This view takes inspiration from the idealistic interpretation of Rousseau and Hegel that the state can do no wrong. Hence, Mussolini of Italy and Hitler of Germany justified their totalitarian system as the best safeguards for individual liberty. 5. The view of the democratic socialists  www.darshanias.com The view of the democratic socialists is different from all the views given above. To them the state is a welfare agency that may restrict liberty of the individuals in the name of public welfare. Liberty lives within restraints. The state, therefore, makes laws for the protection of individual liberty. The violators of laws are punished. The liberals support the view that law protects liberty of the individuals. To Hobbes and Locke, the distinction between the state of nature and civil society is that in the latter there is a system of restraints imposed by the sovereign authority in the form of laws. But positive liberals like Hob house and Laski take the point to the extent of appreciating more and more reasonable restraints in the public interest. 6. The Views of Macpherson — Developmental Liberty In recent years, Macpherson has presented a forceful case for positive liberty. He calls this 'developmental liberty'. He says, "The division will be better marked if we change the name of positive liberty to developmental liberty." Defining the concept he says, "positive liberty is liberty to act as a full human being. A man's positive liberty is virtually the same as what I have called a man's power in the developmental  www.darshanias.com sense." MacPherson maintains that liberty means availability of means of life and labor to each member of society. For this he suggests that the capitalist mode of production, based on private property, should be replaced by some other system. Liberty is not negative liberty because in such a case the liberty of one individual can destroy the liberty of another individual. He says, "...since each individual's liberty must diminish or destroy another's the only sensible- way to measure individual liberty is to measure the aggregate net liberty of all the individuals in a given society." So the measurement of liberty is the total liberty available to all the members of society. Macpherson gives importance to the social dimension of liberty. However, Macpherson does not accept the division between negative and positive liberty and maintains that negative liberty is the absence of any extractive power. Evaluation Positive liberty is widely accepted in the present day world. It is undoubtedly true that liberty cannot be merely the absence of restraints, but fundamental questions arise as to what are those social conditions  www.darshanias.com which are required for the fulfillment of liberty and how these conditions can be created? The views of the supporters of positive liberty are quite weak in this regard. They assign the responsibility of creating these conditions to the State or to a responsible government. It has been found in general practice that the State misuses this responsibility and turns this duty into a right to oppress the people in the name of national interest, social welfare, unity and discipline. This view regards the State as an agency of social welfare. But the fact is that the State ultimately serves the interest of one particular class rather than the whole society and in order to defend the liberties of this class, it manipulates the liberties of other individuals in the name of positive freedom. In capitalist societies the State crushes the fundamental liberties of the working class like that of a association or strikes, in the name of industrial peace, increase in production, security, law, order and progress. Modem States, with their vast instruments of brainwash have a potentiality to crush individual liberty on one count or the other. Thus, to give the responsibility of creating the conditions for the realisation of liberties to the State is to invite tyranny.  www.darshanias.com Marxian criticism of this view is that in a class-divided society, the conditions for the realisation of liberty cannot be established without abolishing private property —which is the fountainhead of exploitation, inequality and injustice. The supporters of positive liberty want to maintain positive liberty, without the abolition of private property in a class- divided society. This is impossible, because in a society based on private property there will be exploitation of vast majority by a tiny minority and liberty will mean nothing but the liberty of the propertied to exploit the property less, to ensure their own enrichment. Thus the issue of positive liberty is closely associated with the economic structure of society and only an exploitation-free economic system can grant it. Gerassi writes: "Freedom is not the right to say or do anything you want that does not infringe on the freedom of others. Freedom means having the material and psychological power to say or do that thing. Freedom is the real possibility of being relevant, of being meaningful, of being total. No man who is poor, when the other is rich, is free. No man who does not exert control, equal to all other men, over his courts, police, government or army, is free. No country, which is financially or geopolitically dependent on another is free. To talk about freedom of the Press when only the  www.darshanias.com rich control the media, to herald free enterprise when health (hospitals, doctors, medicine, etc.) cost money, to cherish free courts when lawyers, bail, appeal, etc., require wealth — in general to hail a society as free when money is the means by which one buys one's free choice — is a travesty." The concept of positive liberty has been misused by idealist thinkers and they have left liberty at the mercy of the State, in Rousseau's view it has been called the 'paradox of freedom' (forced to be free). Commenting on this, Macpherson says; "This is the idealist road (or slippery slope) which ends in coercion: the individual is forced to be free.... There is no doubt that the concept of positive liberty has been taken to these conclusions and, so perverted, has been used to deny the very freedom for human self-development that it began by invoking. Thus idealists misused the concept to take away liberty itself. However, in spite of all these limitations, misuses and confusions, the contribution of this concept lies in main in its recognition of socio-economic and political dimensions of liberty.  www.darshanias.com Previous Year Questions 1. Discuss the nature of relationship between liberty and equality. (2010 - 15 marks). 2. According to some liberal political thinkers, social and economic inequalities can be justified only if they work to the advantage of the least advantaged members of the society. Is this view consistent with the liberalism’s cardinal advocacy of individual freedom? Discuss. (2007 – 60 marks). 3. Critically examine – “Freedom from” and “Freedom to” are mutually exclusive. (2003 – 20 marks). 4. Critically examine – “Freedom as liberation from samsara.” (2003 – 20 marks). 5. Some thinkers distinguish between two mutually irreducible senses of freedom, namely negative  www.darshanias.com freedom and positive freedom. Explain and critically consider the distinction. (2001 – 60 marks). www.darshanias.com www.darshanias.com www.darshanias.com  www.darshanias.com www.darshanias.com