Justice and Care: Social Contract, Rawls, Nozick, Sen and Gilligan

Theories of justice

Beyond individual ethics, GS4 asks how a society should distribute rights, opportunities and resources fairly. This lesson covers the social contract thinkers (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau), modern theories of justice (Rawls, Nozick, Sen, Nussbaum), and the ethics of care (Gilligan, Noddings). These ideas help in questions on welfare, reservation, equity, and the role of the State.

The social contract tradition

Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), *Leviathan* (1651):

• In the state of nature life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short", a war of all against all.
• People agree to give up their rights to an absolute sovereign in exchange for security.
• Lesson: order and rule of law are preconditions for ethics in society.

John Locke (1632–1704), *Two Treatises of Government* (1689):

• People have natural rights to life, liberty and property.
• Government is formed by consent to protect these rights; if it violates them, people may resist.
• Lesson: limited government, rights, consent of the governed – foundations of liberal democracy.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778), *The Social Contract* (1762):

• "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains."
• The general will – the common good of all, not just the sum of private wills – should guide law.
• Lesson: popular sovereignty and participation; the Preamble's "We the People".

John Rawls: justice as fairness

John Rawls (1921–2002), *A Theory of Justice* (1971).

• Original position and veil of ignorance – imagine choosing principles of justice without knowing your own caste, gender, wealth, talents or religion. Rational people would then choose fair rules, because they could end up in any position.
• Two principles:

1. Equal basic liberties for all – speech, conscience, vote, person.
2. Social and economic inequalities are allowed only if (a) attached to positions open to all under fair equality of opportunity, and (b) they are to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged – the difference principle.

• Priority of liberty – the first principle cannot be traded for economic gain.
• Indian links: reservation for SCs, STs and OBCs; progressive taxation; free education under Article 21A; targeted welfare; directive principles (Article 38, 39).

Robert Nozick: entitlement theory

Robert Nozick (1938–2002), *Anarchy, State, and Utopia* (1974).

• Justice is about how holdings were acquired, not their pattern. If property was justly acquired and justly transferred, the result is just, however unequal.
• Supports a minimal State limited to protection against force, theft and fraud.
• Taxation for redistribution is "on a par with forced labour".
• Wilt Chamberlain argument – if many fans freely pay to watch a star, the resulting inequality is fair.
• Relevance: stresses property rights and liberty; reminds policy-makers of the costs of over-regulation. Critics say it ignores historical injustices like caste and colonial dispossession.

Amartya Sen: capabilities and real freedoms

Amartya Sen (born 1933), Nobel in Economics 1998. Works: *Development as Freedom* (1999), *The Idea of Justice* (2009), *The Argumentative Indian* (2005).

• Capability approach – judge well-being by what people are actually able to do and be (their capabilities and functionings), not just income or utility.
• Development as freedom – removing "unfreedoms": poverty, tyranny, poor education, ill health, lack of opportunity.
• Niti vs nyaya – *niti* is institutional rules; *nyaya* is realised justice in people's lives. Good institutions are not enough if outcomes are unjust (*matsyanyaya* – the big fish eating the small).
• Comparative approach – focus on removing clear injustices rather than designing a perfect ideal society.
• Influence: the Human Development Index (with Mahbub ul Haq, 1990) and the Multidimensional Poverty Index.

Martha Nussbaum

Nussbaum developed a list of ten central capabilities – life, bodily health, bodily integrity, senses and thought, emotions, practical reason, affiliation, other species, play and control over one's environment – that every just society must guarantee at a threshold level.

Ethics of care

Carol Gilligan, *In a Different Voice* (1982), criticised Kohlberg's stages for being based mostly on male subjects and for ranking abstract justice above care. She argued that many people reason through relationships, responsibility and context. Nel Noddings (*Caring*, 1984) built a full ethics of care.

• Moral life centres on caring relationships – parent and child, nurse and patient, officer and vulnerable citizen.
• Attentiveness, responsibility, competence and responsiveness are key (Joan Tronto's four elements).
• Relevance: care in health, child protection, elderly care, disaster relief; compassion toward weaker sections – a value named in the GS4 syllabus.

Comparing theories

Using these thinkers in answers

• Reservation, affirmative action: Rawls's difference principle and fair equality of opportunity.
• Health and education schemes: Sen's capabilities.
• Ease of doing business: Nozick's caution against excessive State.
• Gram sabha consent for projects: Rousseau's general will and Locke's consent.
• Compassion for victims: ethics of care.
• A case where rules give an unjust result: Sen's niti vs nyaya.

Other important ideas on justice

• Michael Sandel (*Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?*, 2009) argues that justice cannot be separated from questions of the good life and civic virtue; markets should not decide everything, for example, the sale of organs or votes.
• Communitarians (Sandel, MacIntyre, Charles Taylor, Michael Walzer) criticise Rawls for imagining people as isolated individuals; they stress community, tradition and shared values. Walzer's *Spheres of Justice* (1983) argues that different goods (health, education, office) should be distributed by different principles.
• Marx saw justice as abolishing class exploitation: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".
• Iris Marion Young highlighted structural injustice and oppression of groups.

Worked example: allocating scarce hospital beds

During a health emergency, a district has 100 ICU beds for 300 patients.

• Utilitarian – give beds to those most likely to survive, maximising lives saved.
• Rawlsian – ensure that the poorest are not excluded because they arrive late or lack connections; set fair, public criteria.
• Sen – look at real outcomes: are poor and remote patients actually able to reach the hospital? Arrange transport and tele-triage.
• Care ethics – keep families informed, provide palliative care to those who do not get beds, and support exhausted staff.
• Locke and Rousseau – publish criteria, take consent of the community through local bodies.

A good administrator blends these views: transparent clinical criteria, fair access, attention to the vulnerable and compassion in implementation.

Justice in the Indian Constitution

The Preamble promises justice – social, economic and political. Article 38 directs the State to secure a social order in which justice informs all institutions, and Article 39(b)–(c) asks for distribution of resources to serve the common good and to prevent concentration of wealth. Article 46 asks for special care of the educational and economic interests of weaker sections, especially SCs and STs. These provisions blend Rawlsian fairness, Sen's capabilities and the welfare State.

Mains practice question

What is Rawls's "veil of ignorance"? How can it help a civil servant make fair decisions in a diverse society like India? (150 words)

Answer framework

• Define original position and veil; two principles.
• Application: drafting beneficiary criteria, transfer policies, project siting – decide as if you could be the most disadvantaged person affected.
• Indian links: Article 46, reservations, targeted welfare.
• Limit: hard to apply fully; combine with Sen's real outcomes.