Social Justice: Principles, Rawls and Just Distribution, Class 11 Political Theory

What Social Justice is about

Weightage: Political Theory carries 40 of the 80 theory marks in the school annual exam, shared among its chapters; project work carries the other 20 marks.Source: CBSE Political Science (028) syllabus 2026-27, Class XI course structure

Key concepts

Justice in different traditions

NCERT section 4.1 What is Justice?

• All cultures have grappled with justice, interpreting it differently.
• Ancient India: justice linked to dharma; maintaining dharma, a just social order, was a primary duty of kings.
• China: Confucius said kings should maintain justice by punishing wrongdoers and rewarding the virtuous.
• Athens, 4th century BC: Plato, in The Republic, through a dialogue between Socrates and young Glaucon and Adeimantus, asked why we should be just.

The young men's challenge: the unjust (who twist rules, evade taxes, lie) often seem better off than the just; if one can avoid being caught, injustice seems better. (Glaucon describes laws as an agreement people make to avoid suffering injustice.)

Socrates' reply:
1. If everyone were unjust, no one could be sure of benefiting; nobody would be secure, harming all; so being just is in our long-term interest.
2. Justice is not doing good to friends and harm to enemies, nor pursuing self-interest; it involves the well-being of all. Like a doctor caring for patients, a just ruler cares for the people's well-being.
3. Well-being includes giving each person his due: an idea still central today.

Modern meaning of 'due': Immanuel Kant held that humans possess dignity; so what is due to each is the opportunity to develop talents and pursue chosen goals. Justice requires due and equal consideration of all individuals.

Worked example

A coach says that 'giving each player her due' simply means giving the best player the best treatment. Using the chapter's account of how the meaning of 'due' has developed, explain why this view is too narrow. (4 marks)

Try it first, then show the solutionSolution

1. In Plato's Republic, Socrates links justice to the well-being of all, not of a favoured few, and well-being includes giving each person his due.
2. Kant added that every human being possesses dignity, so what is due to each person is the opportunity to develop her talents and pursue her chosen goals; justice requires due and equal consideration of all.
3. Today this is spelt out in three principles: equal treatment for equals, reward in proportion to effort and skill, and recognition of special needs.
4. So the best player may deserve reward for effort and skill, but every player is due equal respect, a fair chance to develop, and help where she has special needs.

Answer: Because 'due' now means equal consideration and opportunity for all, proportionate reward and attention to special needs, not privileges for the best alone.

Principle 1: Equal treatment for equals

NCERT section Equal Treatment for Equals

• All individuals share certain human characteristics, so they deserve equal rights and equal treatment.
• Rights in most liberal democracies:
• Civil rights: life, liberty, property.
• Political rights: the right to vote and participate.
• Social rights: equal opportunities with other members of society.
• No discrimination on grounds of class, caste, race or gender; people should be judged by their work and actions, not by their group.
• Examples: two people of different castes doing the same work (breaking stones, delivering pizzas) should get the same reward; a male teacher paid more than a female teacher for the same job is unjustifiable.

Worked example

Explain the principle of equal treatment for equals with two examples. (2 marks)

Try it first, then show the solutionSolution

1. All humans share common characteristics, so they deserve equal civil, political and social rights and should be judged by their work, not by caste, class, race or gender.
2. Examples: workers of different castes doing the same job should be paid the same; a woman teacher should not be paid less than a man for the same work.

Answer: Equal rights and equal reward for equal work, without discrimination by group.

Principle 2: Proportionate justice

NCERT section Proportionate Justice

• Equal treatment is not the only principle; sometimes treating everyone equally is unjust.
• Exam example: giving every student the same marks because they are in the same school and took the same exam would feel unfair; marks should reflect the quality of answers and perhaps effort.
• Provided everyone starts from the same baseline of equal rights, justice means rewarding people in proportion to the scale and quality of their effort.
• Different kinds of work may fairly receive different rewards considering effort, skill required and danger involved.
• By these criteria, some workers are underpaid: miners, skilled craftsmen, policemen in dangerous but socially useful jobs may not get a just reward compared with others.
• Equal treatment must be balanced with proportionality.

Worked example

Why might giving all students in a class the same marks be unjust? Which principle applies? (2 marks)

Try it first, then show the solutionSolution

1. Students differ in the quality of their answers and the effort they put in, so identical marks would ignore these differences.
2. Proportionate justice applies: once everyone has equal rights, rewards should be in proportion to effort and quality.

Answer: Because it ignores effort and quality; proportionate justice requires reward to match them.

Principle 3: Recognition of special needs

NCERT section Recognition of Special Needs

• Society should take account of special needs when distributing rewards or duties: a way of promoting social justice.
• Equal treatment and proportionate reward may not be enough for people to enjoy equal life chances.
• Grounds for special treatment in many countries: physical disability, age, lack of access to good education or health care. Agreement on which inequalities count is not always easy.
• Treating the deprived equally in all respects with the privileged would produce an unequal society, not a just one.
• In India, lack of access to education and health care often combines with caste discrimination; so the Constitution allowed reservation of government jobs and quotas in educational institutions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
• This principle extends rather than contradicts equal treatment: those who are not equal in certain respects may be treated differently.

Harmonising the three principles: equal treatment alone may not reward merit; stressing merit alone may disadvantage marginalised groups who lacked nourishment and education. Different groups favour different principles; governments must harmonise them.

Worked example

A sports academy gives free coaching and kit to children from poor urban settlements and charges full fees to everyone else. A parent complains that this breaks the rule of equal treatment. How would you respond? (4 marks)

Try it first, then show the solutionSolution

1. Equal treatment for equals requires that people in the same situation be treated alike, without discrimination by class, caste, race or gender.
2. But children from poor settlements are not equally placed: lack of money, nourishment or facilities means they cannot compete on equal terms, so treating them identically would keep society unequal.
3. Recognising special needs, such as lack of access to resources, is itself a principle of justice; it extends rather than contradicts equal treatment, because those unequal in relevant respects may be treated differently.
4. The help should be tied to real need and should aim at equal life chances; all children are then judged on their performance once they have had a fair start.

Answer: There is no real conflict: special support for those disadvantaged by circumstance extends equal treatment by giving everyone an equal chance to compete.

Just distribution

NCERT section 4.2 Just Distribution

• Social justice is more than fair laws; it also concerns the just distribution of goods and services, between nations and among groups and individuals.
• Where serious economic or social inequalities exist, it may be necessary to redistribute important resources to create a level playing field.
• Within a country, social justice needs equal treatment under law and some basic equality of life conditions and opportunities, so each person can pursue goals and express himself or herself.

Indian measures:

• The Constitution abolished untouchability so 'lower' castes gain access to temples, jobs and water.
• Several State governments carried out land reforms to redistribute land more fairly.

Passions: debates over distributing resources and access to education and jobs arouse fierce passions and even violence (e.g. reactions to reservation proposals), since people feel their families' futures are at stake. Students of political theory should examine them calmly in terms of principles of justice.

Worked example

Why might social justice require redistribution and not just fair laws? (2 marks)

Try it first, then show the solutionSolution

1. Fair laws treat people equally, but serious economic and social inequalities mean people start from very different positions.
2. Redistributing key resources (e.g. land reforms) and removing social barriers (abolition of untouchability) create a level playing field so that equal laws produce fair outcomes.

Answer: Because deep inequalities of resources make formal equality insufficient; redistribution levels the field.

John Rawls: the veil of ignorance

NCERT section 4.3 John Rawls' Theory of Justice

The problem: asked to choose a society, people would favour rules that give themselves a privileged position, often thinking of their children's future. Such perspectives cannot ground a theory of justice.

Rawls's solution: imagine deciding how society should be organised without knowing what position you will occupy: which family, 'upper' or 'lower' caste, rich or poor, privileged or disadvantaged. This is thinking under a 'veil of ignorance'.

The reasoning:
1. Each person still decides in terms of their own interest; no special morality is required.
2. Since no one knows who they will be, each will view the future society from the position of the worst-off: they might be born disadvantaged.
3. So rational people will choose rules ensuring reasonable opportunities for the weaker sections, with education, health and shelter available to all.
4. They will also ensure policies do not weaken the better-off, since they might be born privileged; so rules should benefit society as a whole.

Why it is compelling:

• It is hard to erase identities, and we cannot expect people to be self-sacrificing (we treat self-sacrifice as heroism). The veil needs only ordinary rational self-interest.
• Rational thinking, not morality, leads to fair and impartial distribution of benefits and burdens; no moral goals are imposed in advance, and people remain free to decide what is best for themselves.

Worked example

A city must decide how to share a limited water supply among rich colonies, middle-class areas and poor settlements. Show how Rawls's veil of ignorance would guide the decision, and why Rawls believes the result rests on reason rather than charity. (6 marks)

Try it first, then show the solutionSolution

1. Without the veil, each group would favour rules that give itself the most water, so its choice could not ground a fair rule.
2. Behind the veil of ignorance, the decision-makers do not know whether they will live in a rich colony, a middle-class area or a poor settlement.
3. Thinking in their own interest, they would view the arrangement from the position of the worst-off, since they might end up there, and so ensure that every household gets enough safe water for basic needs.
4. Because they might also be among the better-off, they would avoid rules that harm those areas needlessly, and choose a distribution that benefits the city as a whole.
5. No one is asked to be self-sacrificing or charitable: ordinary rational self-interest under uncertainty produces the fair rule.
6. So the arrangement can be defended by reason: impartial thinking leads to a distribution that protects the weakest while benefiting all.

Answer: Not knowing their future position, rational people would guarantee basic water to the worst-off while benefiting all; fairness follows from self-interest under the veil, not from charity.

Pursuing social justice: basic minimum needs

NCERT section 4.4 Pursuing Social Justice

• A society lacks social justice if there are deep and persistent divisions between those with wealth, property and power and those who are excluded and deprived.
• Justice does not require absolute equality or sameness of living. But a society is unjust if rich and poor live in different worlds and the deprived have no chance to improve however hard they work.
• A just society provides:

1. Basic minimum conditions for healthy, secure lives and developing talents.
2. Equal opportunities to pursue chosen goals.

• Measuring basic needs: governments and international bodies such as the World Health Organisation have devised methods; generally agreed components: nourishment, housing, clean drinking water, education and a minimum wage.
• Providing basic needs is a responsibility of democratic government, but a heavy burden in countries like India with many poor people.
• A quotation in the chapter describes a just society as one where the ascending sense of reverence and descending sense of contempt (as in a graded hierarchy) give way to a compassionate society.

Worked example

A government supplies free food grains to poor families but does nothing about housing, clean drinking water or schooling. Is it meeting its responsibility for a basic minimum? Explain. (4 marks)

Try it first, then show the solutionSolution

1. A just society provides basic minimum conditions for healthy, secure lives and the development of talents, together with equal opportunities.
2. The basic minimum generally includes nourishment, housing, clean drinking water, education and a minimum wage; food alone covers only one part.
3. Without water, shelter and schooling, the poor cannot lead healthy lives or improve their position however hard they work, which the chapter calls unjust.
4. Providing these basic needs is a responsibility of democratic government, though a heavy burden in a country with many poor people, so the government should extend provision beyond food.

Answer: Only partly: nourishment is one element, but the basic minimum also needs housing, clean water, education and a minimum wage, which the government must work to ensure.

Free markets versus state intervention

NCERT section Free Markets versus State Intervention

Even if all agree the disadvantaged should be helped, they disagree on methods: open competition through free markets, or state responsibility for a basic minimum, if necessary by redistribution. Different political groups in India support different approaches.

Case for free markets (as the chapter presents it):

• Individuals should be free to own property, make contracts on prices, wages and profits, and compete; the sum of market transactions yields a just distribution: merit and talent rewarded, the incompetent less so.
• Many supporters now accept some limits: the state may ensure a basic minimum so all can compete, help the old and sick, and maintain laws keeping competition free of coercion. But services like health and education might be most efficiently provided by private agencies, with the state empowering people to buy them.
• The market is neutral: it does not care about caste, religion or gender, only talent and skill.
• It offers more choices to consumers; private services are often seen as better quality.

Case for state intervention (as the chapter presents it):

• Choice matters only if people can pay; for basic goods, what matters is affordable, good-quality availability.
• Private agencies avoid unprofitable areas or offer cheap, substandard services: hence few good private schools in remote rural areas; similarly for health and housing.
• Better private services may be out of reach of the poor; business goes where profit is highest, so free markets tend to favour the strong, wealthy and powerful, denying opportunities to the weak.
• Hence many argue the state should ensure basic facilities for all.

Conclusion: in a democracy, disagreements about distribution are inevitable and healthy; politics negotiates them through debate, and principles of justice help us reach agreement.

Worked example

Present the arguments for free markets and for state intervention in providing basic services. (6 marks)

Try it first, then show the solutionSolution

1. For markets: free competition rewards merit and talent, and the sum of free transactions is held to produce a just distribution.
2. For markets: markets are neutral about caste, religion and gender, and give consumers more choice; private services are often of higher quality.
3. Modern market supporters accept a state role in a basic minimum, help for the old and sick, and laws against coercion, but prefer private provision with the state empowering people to buy.
4. For the state: choice is meaningless without means to pay; private firms avoid unprofitable remote areas or provide substandard services.
5. For the state: markets tend to favour the already strong and wealthy, so the weak may lose opportunities.
6. Conclusion: the chapter notes that markets often favour the privileged, which is why many argue for state provision of basics; such disagreement is healthy and settled through democratic debate.

Answer: Markets promise efficiency, neutrality and choice; critics say they neglect the poor and remote, so the state should secure basic facilities.

Social Justice in real life

Each concept, met in an everyday situation. Read the situation, answer the question in your own words, then compare with the model answer. The one-line hook is what to remember.

Topics in this chapter

• Just Distribution, Rawls' Veil of Ignorance, Basic Minimum Needs and Free Markets versus State Intervention
• Justice in Different Traditions and the Three Principles: Equal Treatment, Proportionate Justice and Special Needs

Social Justice: key facts

Traditions of justice

India	dharma (king's duty)
China	Confucius (punish wrong, reward virtue)
Plato's Republic	well-being of all, each his due
Kant	dignity → opportunity

Socrates: universal injustice makes everyone insecure.

Three principles of justice

Equal treatment for equals + Proportionate justice (effort, skill, danger) + Recognition of special needs

Government must harmonise them.

Just distribution

Fair laws + redistribution of key resources (land reforms; abolition of untouchability) = level playing field

Examine debates calmly by principles.

Rawls's veil of ignorance

1. 1.Unknown future position + rational self-interest
2. 2.think as worst-off
3. 3.rules ensuring opportunities for weakest and benefit to all

Rationality, not morality or self-sacrifice.

Basic minimum

Nourishment + housing + clean water + education + minimum wage

Responsibility of democratic government; heavy burden in poor countries.

Markets vs state

Markets: merit, neutrality, choice, efficiency | State: affordability, reach to remote and poor, markets favour the strong

Disagreement is healthy in a democracy.

How the school exam asks Social Justice

The question patterns to expect, and the method that works for each.

Tricks to remember Social Justice

Short memory aids. Say each one aloud once, then use it on a question the same day.

• Three principles: E-P-S

  Equal (same work, same pay), Proportionate (more effort, more reward), Special (more need, more help).

  Use it when: Principles of justice.

• Thinkers in one line

  'Dharma for kings, Confucius rewards virtue, Plato gives each his due, Kant gives dignity, Rawls draws a veil.'

  Use it when: Matching thinkers to ideas.

• Veil logic: U-S-W-A

  Unknown position, Self-interest, Worst-off view, All benefit.

  Use it when: Rawls's argument.

• Basic minimum: N-H-W-E-W

  Nourishment, Housing, Water, Education, Wage.

  Use it when: Basic needs list.

• Market vs state

  Market: Merit, Neutral, Choice; State: Reach, Afford, Protect the weak.

  Use it when: Debate questions.

Social Justice: exam-level solved questions

Ordered from exam level to HOTS. Cover the solution, write your own, then compare step by step.

Case-study practice (Section E style)

Read the situation, then answer every part. In a school exam set on the board pattern this is a 4-mark question split into 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 marks.

Where the marks are

How a typical answer is split into step marks. Show every step: a right final answer alone rarely earns full marks.

Where students lose marks in Social Justice

The slips examiners see most often, and what to write instead.

• ✗Mistake: Saying justice means everyone gets exactly the same

  Justice is confused with absolute equality.

  Wrong working

  A just society is one where everyone has the same income and lifestyle.

  Right working

  Justice needs equal rights, proportionate reward and attention to special needs, plus a basic minimum and equal opportunity, not sameness.

  ✓Do this: Three principles, not one.

  Usually costs: 1-2 marks.

• ✗Mistake: Describing the veil of ignorance as requiring unselfishness

  Fair outcomes are associated with generosity.

  Wrong working

  Rawls asks people to sacrifice their interests for the poor.

  Right working

  Rawls relies on ordinary rational self-interest under uncertainty about one's position.

  ✓Do this: Self-interest + ignorance = fairness.

  Usually costs: 2 marks in a 6-mark answer.

• ✗Mistake: Leaving out the 'benefit to all' part of Rawls

  Students stress only the worst-off.

  Wrong working

  Rawls wants rules that help only the poorest.

  Right working

  People also protect the better-off, since they might be privileged, so rules must benefit society as a whole.

  ✓Do this: Worst-off and the whole.

  Usually costs: 1 mark.

• ✗Mistake: Treating special needs as a contradiction of equality

  Different treatment looks unequal.

  Wrong working

  Extra time for a disabled student is unequal and unjust.

  Right working

  It extends equal treatment by treating relevantly unequal people differently.

  ✓Do this: Extension, not contradiction.

  Usually costs: 1-2 marks.

• ✗Mistake: Writing a one-sided market-versus-state answer

  Students take a side without the chapter's arguments.

  Wrong working

  The state should run everything; markets are always unjust.

  Right working

  Give market arguments (merit, neutrality, choice) and state arguments (reach, affordability, markets favour the strong), then judge.

  ✓Do this: Both sides, then a view.

  Usually costs: Up to 3 marks.

• ✗Mistake: Mixing up thinkers

  Several ancient and modern names.

  Wrong working

  Confucius wrote The Republic; Kant proposed the veil of ignorance.

  Right working

  Plato: Republic; Confucius: punish wrong, reward virtue; Kant: dignity; Rawls: veil.

  ✓Do this: One idea per thinker.

  Usually costs: 1 mark.

NCERT exercise guide: Social Justice

What each exercise in the NCERT chapter tests, how to approach it, and a question of the same kind solved step by step. Questions here are written in our own words.

Practice questions on Social Justice

Write each answer on paper first. Open the hint only if you are stuck, and the answer only when you have finished.

1. Q1 · 1 mark · MCQExam level

   In ancient India, justice was associated with:
   (a) dharma
   (b) karma only
   (c) the market
   (d) the veil of ignorance

   Hint

   The king's duty to maintain a just order.

   Answer

   (a) dharma.

2. Q2 · 1 mark · MCQExam level

   Which philosopher held that human beings possess dignity, so each should have the opportunity to develop talents?
   (a) Confucius
   (b) Immanuel Kant
   (c) Glaucon
   (d) Rawls

   Hint

   German philosopher.

   Answer

   (b) Kant.

3. Q3 · 1 mark · MCQHarder exam level

   Consider the statements:
   1. Justice requires absolute equality in the way people live.
   2. A society is unjust if the deprived cannot improve their condition however hard they work.
   3. Providing basic needs is a responsibility of democratic government.
   Which are correct?
   (a) 1 and 2
   (b) 2 and 3
   (c) 1 and 3
   (d) 1, 2 and 3

   Hint

   Justice does not demand sameness.

   Answer

   (b) 2 and 3.

4. Q4 · 1 mark · MCQHarder exam level

   Match:
   A. Equal treatment for equals 1. Extra exam time for a visually impaired student
   B. Proportionate justice 2. Same pay for workers of different castes doing the same job
   C. Special needs 3. Higher reward for dangerous, skilled work
   D. Just distribution 4. Land reforms
   (a) A-2, B-3, C-1, D-4
   (b) A-3, B-2, C-1, D-4
   (c) A-2, B-1, C-3, D-4
   (d) A-1, B-3, C-2, D-4

   Hint

   Same work, risk, need, redistribution.

   Answer

   (a).

5. Q5 · 1 mark · Assertion-reasonHarder exam level

   Assertion (A): Free markets always provide good-quality schools in remote rural areas.
   Reason (R): Private agencies go where business is most profitable.
   Choose the correct option as in the standard A-R format.

   Hint

   R undermines A.

   Answer

   (d) A is false but R is true.

6. Q6 · 1 mark · MCQHarder exam level

   Under the veil of ignorance, people would NOT know:
   (a) how to reason
   (b) their own interests in general
   (c) which caste, class or family they will be born into
   (d) that some people are disadvantaged

   Hint

   Ignorance is about one's own position.

   Answer

   (c).

7. Q7 · 2 marks · Short answerExam level

   Why did the Constitution provide reservations for SCs and STs, in terms of the principles of justice? (2 marks)

   Hint

   Special needs plus caste discrimination.

   Answer

   In India, lack of access to good education and health care has often combined with caste discrimination. Under the principle of recognising special needs, reservations in government jobs and quotas in education help these groups achieve real equality of opportunity.

8. Q8 · 2 marks · Short answerExam level

   Why is justice compared with love at the start of the chapter, and how do they differ? (2 marks)

   Hint

   Intuition; private versus public.

   Answer

   Both are understood intuitively though hard to define, and both evoke passion; no one hates either. But love concerns a few close relationships, whereas justice concerns public life and how social goods and duties are distributed, which makes it central to politics.

9. Q9 · 4 marks · Short answerHarder exam level

   Why must governments harmonise the three principles of justice? Give an example of conflict between them. (4 marks)

   Hint

   Equality vs merit vs need.

   Answer

   Each principle alone can produce injustice. Pure equal treatment may fail to reward merit; stressing merit alone disadvantages marginalised groups who lacked nourishment or education; special needs without limits could ignore effort. For example, admissions purely on entrance scores reward merit but may exclude deprived students, while ignoring scores entirely would be unfair to hard work. Different groups favour different principles, so governments must balance them to promote a just society.

10. Q10 · 4 marks · Short answerHOTS / competency

    Suppose you must design the hostel rules for a new boarding school without knowing whether you will be a senior, a junior, a scholarship student or a fee-paying student. What rules would you choose and why? (4 marks)

    Hint

    Apply Rawls.

    Answer

    Not knowing my position, I would think from the worst-off position: perhaps a new junior on scholarship. I would ensure equal basic facilities (food, beds, study time), protection from ragging, and support for those who cannot afford extras, while avoiding rules that unfairly burden seniors, since I might be one. The rules should benefit the whole hostel. This is Rawls's veil of ignorance: rational self-interest under uncertainty produces fair rules.

11. Q11 · 6 marks · Long answerHOTS / competency

    'Free markets are neutral; they do not care about caste or gender.' Evaluate this claim. (6 marks)

    Hint

    Neutral rules, unequal starting points.

    Answer

    Supporters say markets reward talent and skill regardless of caste, religion or gender, and give people more choice, so they are neutral and fair. Partly true: buyers and sellers in principle deal with anyone who can pay. But neutrality of rules does not mean neutrality of outcomes: people enter the market with unequal resources, education and nourishment shaped by caste and gender. Markets offer choice only to those who can pay, avoid unprofitable remote areas, and tend to favour the already wealthy and powerful. Thus a formally neutral market can reproduce existing inequalities. Conclusion: markets can be efficient, but social justice requires state action to ensure basic minimum conditions and real equality of opportunity.

Test your recall

Answer in your head or on paper first, then open the card. Pulling an answer out of memory makes it stick far better than re-reading.

1. 1.With whom does Socrates discuss justice in the part of The Republic described in this chapter?Show answer

   Glaucon and Adeimantus.

2. 2.To whom does Socrates compare a just ruler?Show answer

   A doctor concerned with patients' well-being.

3. 3.Name three kinds of rights granted in most liberal democracies.Show answer

   Civil (life, liberty, property), political (vote) and social (equal opportunities).

4. 4.Give two factors that justify different rewards for different work.Show answer

   Any two: effort, skill required, danger involved.

5. 5.Name two grounds for special treatment recognised in many countries.Show answer

   Any two: physical disability, age, lack of access to good education or health care.

6. 6.Which two Indian measures promote just distribution?Show answer

   Abolition of untouchability and land reforms.

7. 7.Which international body is mentioned for calculating basic needs?Show answer

   The World Health Organisation.

8. 8.Why are there few good private schools in remote rural areas?Show answer

   Private agencies find them unprofitable and may avoid them or offer substandard services.

9. 9.Is disagreement about distribution bad for democracy, according to the chapter?Show answer

   No; it is inevitable and healthy, forcing us to examine and defend views through debate.

Quick revision checklist

The night before the exam: can you do each of these without looking?

• ☐Justice: intuitive like love, but about public life and distribution of goods and duties.
• ☐Dharma (India), Confucius (China), Plato's Republic (Socrates: justice serves all; each his due), Kant (dignity).
• ☐Equal treatment for equals: civil, political, social rights; no discrimination; same pay for same work.
• ☐Proportionate justice: reward by effort, skill, danger; balance with equality.
• ☐Special needs: disability, age, deprivation; reservations for SCs and STs; extends equal treatment.
• ☐Governments must harmonise the three principles.
• ☐Just distribution: fair laws plus redistribution (untouchability abolished, land reforms).
• ☐Rawls: veil of ignorance; rational self-interest → think as worst-off; rules benefiting all.
• ☐Basic minimum: nourishment, housing, water, education, minimum wage; state responsibility.
• ☐Markets: merit, neutrality, choice; state: reach, affordability; markets often favour the privileged.
• ☐Disagreements on justice are healthy; resolved through democratic debate.

Social Justice: frequently asked questions