IB Philosophy 7.2.1 Social Justice Notes

The Nature and Scope of Social Justice

1. Having examined the state (7.1.1), forms of government (7.1.2), and civil society (7.1.3), Unit 7 now turns to one of the most contested concepts in political philosophy: justice. The overarching question of this unit asks whether justice can be an ideal as well as a process.
   1. This topic explores the concept of social justice, its philosophical foundations, and the major debates surrounding it.
2. Plato’s Republic is organised around the question ‘What is justice?’ Plato argued that justice in the state mirrors justice in the soul: just as the soul has three parts (reason, spirit, and appetite), the state has three classes (philosopher-rulers, guardians, and producers).
   1. Justice exists when each part performs its proper function without overstepping. A just city is one where philosophers govern, soldiers protect, and workers produce, each contributing according to their nature.
   2. Plato's view has been criticised for its anti-democratic implications, it assumes some people are born to rule and others are not. But it establishes a powerful idea: justice is not just a matter of personal opinion. It is an objective feature of how a society is organised.
3. The question of whether justice is an idea, an ideal, or a process captures three different philosophical approaches. Justice as an idea refers to an abstract concept that can be analysed and defined.
   1. Justice as an ideal suggests a standard of perfection that societies should strive toward. Justice as a process emphasises the procedures and institutions through which justice is pursued, rather than any fixed outcome.
4. The distinction between substantive justice and procedural justice is central to this debate. Substantive justice focuses on outcomes: a society is just if its distribution of goods, opportunities, and burdens meets certain standards of fairness.
   1. Procedural justice focuses on the fairness of the processes through which distributions occur: a society is just if its procedures are fair, regardless of the specific outcomes they produce.

Moral Realism, Anti-Realism, and Constructivism

1. Whether there is an objective standard for justice is one of the deepest questions in political philosophy. Moral realists argue that justice has an objective basis, grounded in human nature, rational principles, or moral facts.
   1. Moral relativists and constructivists argue that standards of justice are products of particular cultures or agreements, and that no single standard can claim universal validity.
2. Moral realists argue that justice has an objective basis independent of human opinion. Plato’s Theory of Forms holds that there is a Form of Justice, an eternal, perfect standard against which all human arrangements can be measured.
3. Moral anti-realists deny this. J.L. Mackie's error theory claims that when we say something is unjust, we are pretending there is an objective moral fact backing us up. Mackie argues there are no such facts, so all moral statements are technically false, even if they feel true to us.
   1. If Mackie is right, 'social justice' expresses a preference or aspiration, not a truth about how things ought to be. The constructivist position, represented by Rawls himself, takes a middle path: justice is not discovered in nature, nor is it purely invented. Instead, it is worked out through a fair process of reasoning that rational people could all agree to.
4. The distinction between distributive justice and retributive justice, first drawn by Aristotle, marks two fundamentally different domains.
   1. Distributive justice concerns how society allocates goods, honours, and opportunities among its members. Retributive justice concerns how wrongdoing is punished.
   2. A scholarship committee selecting candidates on the basis of merit exemplifies distributive justice. A court awarding damages to a victim of fraud exemplifies corrective justice (Aristotle's related concept, covering the restoration of balance after a wrong).
5. Aristotle argued that each form of justice requires its own principle: distribution should follow merit or desert, while correction should restore the equality that existed before the wrong was committed.

1. Social justice as a political concept emerged in the nineteenth century, associated with movements for workers’ rights, universal suffrage, and the abolition of slavery. It carries the claim that structural inequalities in wealth, power, and opportunity are not merely unfortunate but unjust, and that the state has a responsibility to address them.
2. The connection between social justice and the distribution of wealth was examined in 4.3.3. This topic builds on that discussion by exploring the philosophical foundations and criticisms of the concept itself, asking whether social justice is a coherent and achievable goal or, as some critics argue, a dangerously vague aspiration.

Rawls and Justice as Fairness