Make a comparative assessment of Greek perspective of Justice with Rawlsian concept of Justice. (2020, 20 Marks)
Both traditions treat justice as the master virtue of political life, but they locate it differently. For the Greeks it was a virtue of souls and cities, grounded in nature and ordered by hierarchy; for John Rawls it is “the first virtue of social institutions”, a standard of fairness that free and equal persons could accept.
The Greek perspective
- Plato, Republic: justice is the fourth cardinal virtue, beside wisdom, courage and temperance, and the one that orders the rest: each part doing its own work and not meddling (433a). Rulers, auxiliaries and producers mirror reason, spirit and appetite. The myth of the metals presents the classes as fashioned by the god, so station is fixed by nature and sanctioned by religion. Plato rejects Glaucon’s view of justice as a compact among the weak.
- Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics Book V: general justice is lawfulness; particular justice is distributive (shares in geometrical proportion to merit) or corrective (restoring an arithmetical balance). Political justice is partly natural and partly conventional. In the Politics he finds inequality, real or perceived, the general cause of revolution: justice is also the condition of equilibrium.
The Rawlsian concept
Rawls starts from equality. His general conception requires all social primary goods to be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution benefits everyone; every departure from equality must be justified. Behind a veil of ignorance, parties choose equal basic liberties, fair equality of opportunity and the difference principle.
Criteria-wise comparison
| Criterion | Greek | Rawls |
|---|---|---|
| Basis | Nature and an objective good | Hypothetical agreement |
| Object | Soul and city: a virtue | Basic structure of institutions |
| Method | Teleology: what humans are for | Contract; right prior to good |
| Equality | Proportionate; natural hierarchy | Equality the default; inequality must serve the least advantaged |
| Talents | Nature fixes one’s station | Natural lottery is morally arbitrary |
| Liberty | Subordinate to harmony | Lexically first |
What the comparison reveals
A real rupture. The deepest contrast is teleological versus deontological. Plato and Aristotle reason from human ends and accept hierarchy; Aristotle defends natural slavery. Rawls refuses any comprehensive good because reasonable citizens disagree about it, and denies that anyone deserves a starting point: nature is “neither just nor unjust”, and “what is just and unjust is the way that institutions deal with these facts.” He revives the contract idea Plato gave Glaucon only to refute. Both are ideal theories, but Plato’s city is a pattern for the philosopher, while Rawls designs for a modern democracy under moderate scarcity.
Continuities.
- Primacy. Calling justice the first virtue of institutions keeps the classical view of justice as the architectonic virtue of a whole community.
- Proportion. Like Aristotle, Rawls permits unequal treatment for a relevant reason; the difference principle changes the relevant difference from merit to disadvantage.
- Stability. Aristotle’s warning that felt injustice breeds revolution returns in Rawls’s well-ordered society, regulated by a public conception of justice that citizens share.
- Revival. Alasdair MacIntyre (After Virtue, 1981) and Michael Sandel reassert Aristotle against Rawlsian neutrality; Martha Nussbaum’s capability list is explicitly Aristotelian.
Indian illustration. The merit versus level playing field debate restages the contrast. An Aristotelian reading rewards measured merit; the Rawlsian reply is that merit records prior advantage, so reservation under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) is a demand of justice. State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024), permitting sub-classification within Scheduled Castes, is Aristotle’s form of proportion with Rawls’s content.
Conclusion
Rawls rejects the Greek foundations (natural hierarchy, an objective good, justice as a virtue of the soul) but keeps the Greek questions: what each is due, and what makes a community’s order just and stable. The concept has evolved without cutting its roots; Rawls answers Aristotle’s question of proportion from democratic premises.