1.9 JPE - Justice as a point of reference for ethical behavior
by Sören E. Schuster
Last updated: 2025/10/07
Plato: Task for society
The notion of justice is central to ethics and, as such, rooted in a long history of philosophy. The Greek philosopher Plato (428/427-347/348 BC), for example, conceptualized justice as harmony between the different classes of his ideal state in the Republic. If each class were enabled to „do their own work”[1] and fulfill their task for society without encroaching into the sphere of the others, justice would result. Plato’s political idea of justice directly challenges the notion that justice simply represents the right of the stronger, a belief influenced by the circumstance that people or classes in power often establish notions of justice that serve their own interests, whether in ancient Greece or today.
Aristotle: Particular justice and general justice
Plato’s student Aristotle (384-322 BC) discusses justice in two ways in his Nicomachean Ethics (2009, Book V): particular justice and general justice, which encompasses all virtues realized in social life. Particular justice divides into two forms. The first involves just distribution of goods according to merit, while in ancient Greece, "merit" often meant social rank rather than measurable input like labor. The second, corrective justice, concerns fairness in exchanges, ensuring equivalence regardless of status, such as in contracts or transactions. Like other virtues in virtue ethics, justice is about finding a mean between extremes. Aristotle’s general justice aims at realizing all virtues socially; thus, in his Politics, he defines it as “an ordering of the political association”[2]
While distributive justice evaluates whether the profits of a mining project are fairly allocated among stakeholders, corrective justice requires the mining company to compensate stakeholders who have been harmed.
Hobbes: Social contract vs Kant: universal laws
At the dawn of modernity, when Western philosophy began to emancipate itself from religious authority, Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) developed a notion of justice based on the view that morality arises from a social contract (add link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Co6pNvd9mc). To escape the violent state of nature, individuals agree to delegate ultimate power to a sovereign who ensures peace: “But when a Covenant is made, then to break it is Unjust […]. And whatsoever is not Unjust, is Just”.[3] In contrast, Immanuel Kant's deontological ethics holds that justice cannot rest on agreements securing order or peace but must be grounded in universal human duties. Through the categorical imperative, Kant links justice to rational, universal laws valid for all moral subjects. Thus, although Kant influenced modern social contract theory, he is not its traditional advocate.
Rawls: Individual liberties
One of the most influential 20th-century philosophers, John Rawls (1921-2002), drew on Kant in developing his Theory of Justice, a cornerstone of contemporary debate. Rawls critiques utilitarianism for risking neglect of minorities for the majority’s benefit. He reshaped social contract theory into a hypothetical scenario where rational citizens, behind a “veil of ignorance”[4], do not know their social position. From this original position, society’s foundations are established according to two principles:
“First: Each person has an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme for others. Second: Social and economic inequalities are arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage, and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all”.[5]
While utilitarianism might permit inequalities that disadvantage some individuals if doing so increases overall happiness, Rawls’ second principle rejects this. According to Rawls, economic inequalities are only justified if they benefit the least advantaged members of society. For example, a business owner may accumulate wealth, but this is only acceptable if that wealth also leads to improvements for the least well-off, such as through taxation, job creation, or positive economic impacts. Rather than basing justice on individual preferences or overall utility, Rawls – in a similar way to Kant – grounds his theory in normative principles aimed at protecting individual liberties while promoting a fair and just society.
A mining company has received a license to operate in a local area through an agreement with the regional government. However, growing numbers of local residents are protesting the project, claiming it is unjust and harmful to their community. The head of the company defends the project as just, arguing that it is based on a legitimate, factual agreement with the authorities. Using John Rawls’ theory of justice, analyze why other parties might view the project as unjust.
Time to complete approx. 45 min.
Sen: Real capabilities
More recently, Rawls’ theory has faced criticism from libertarian perspectives emphasizing voluntary exchanges and entitlements, echoing Aristotle’s commutative justice. The Indian economist and philosopher Amartya Sen criticized Rawls for focusing on distributing primary goods rather than people’s real capabilities to use them. Sen developed the capability approach, emphasizing individuals’ effective freedoms to achieve valuable lives. Since then, justice theory has broadened to include especially feminist, ecological, and postcolonial critiques.
Bernd G. Lottermoser /
Matthias Schmidt (Ed.)
with contributions of
Anna S. Hüncke, Nina Küpper and Sören E. Schuster
Publisher: UVG-Verlag
Year of first publication: 2024 (Work In Progress)
ISBN: 978-3-948709-26-6
Licence: Ethics in Mining Copyright © 2024 by Bernd G. Lottermoser/Matthias Schmidt is licensed under Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Deed, except where otherwise noted.
Further Informationen:
Project "Ethics in Mining"