essay quotes on justice

LAST CHANCE: Become a monthly donor, get a limited-edition hoodie

14 Inspiring Quotes About Justice and Equality From Civil Rights Icons Past and Present

From Malcolm X to John Lewis, Rosa Parks to Alicia Garza, the words of these activists move us to keep fighting.

02.19.21 By Daniele Selby

Malcolm X holds up a paper for the crowd to see during a rally in New York City on Aug. 6, 1963. (Image: AP Photo)

Updated on Feb. 6, 2022: This piece has been updated to reflect the exoneration of Muhammad Aziz and the late Khalil Islam on Nov. 18, 2021.

Malcolm X was shot and killed 56 years ago, on Feb. 21, while addressing a crowd in New York City’s Audubon Ballroom. His death sent shockwaves across the country, and three people were quickly arrested — including Muhammad A. Aziz (then Norman 3X Butler) and Khalil Islam (then Thomas 15X Johnson). The men always maintained their innocence but were wrongly convicted. Represented by the Innocence Project and civil rights attorney David Shanies, they were finally exonerated on Nov. 18, 2021.

On the same tragic day of Malcolm X’s assassination, a young Black organizer from Alabama named John Lewis turned 25. Only a few months later, Lewis would make history by leading protesters across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, and would himself become a civil rights icon.  

Their struggles — and the struggles of countless Black Americans — helped advance justice and equality in the United States. But, despite this progress in voting rights and desegregation, the fight for fair and equal treatment of Black people across this country continues today.

At the Innocence Project, we work daily to advance justice and equality for all because as Martin Luther King, Jr., famously said “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” And through our work to free the innocent, prevent wrongful conviction, and hold the system accountable, we strive to bend that arc closer to justice.

Add your name to support justice for Muhammad Abdul Aziz and Khalil Islam

This Black History Month, as we reflect on the progress that has been made since the abolition of slavery and the Civil Rights Act, we also recognize the long way left to go. And we celebrate those who helped bring us to where we are today, as well as those who are continuing the fight to end racism and inequality today.

  These powerful quotes from civil rights leaders and current-day activists remind us why we must keep pushing forward.

Malcolm X on action

“I for one believe that if you give people a thorough understanding of what confronts them and the basic causes that produce it, they’ll create their own program, and when the people create a program, you get action.” — Malcolm X

John Lewis on justice and democracy

“A democracy cannot thrive where power remains unchecked and justice is reserved for a select few. Ignoring these cries and failing to respond to this movement is simply not an option — for peace cannot exist where justice is not served.” — John Lewis said of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act  

Martin Luther King, Jr., on injustice

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.” — Martin Luther King, Jr., “Letter from Birmingham Jail”

An Innocent Man Spent 20 Years in Prison for Malcolm X’s Murder

James baldwin on justice.

“If one really wishes to know how justice is administered in a country, one does not question the policemen, the lawyers, the judges, or the protected members of the middle class. One goes to the unprotected — those, precisely, who need the law’s protection most! — and listens to their testimony.” — Baldwin, No Name on the Street

Angela Davis on incarceration

“Jails and prisons are designed to break human beings, to convert the population into specimens in a zoo — obedient to our keepers, but dangerous to each other.” — Angela Davis, Angela Davis: An Autobiography  

Shirley Chisholm on racism and unconscious bias

“Racism is so universal in this country, so widespread, and deep-seated, that it is invisible because it is so normal.” ― Shirley Chisholm, Unbought and Unbossed

Toni Morrison on racism

“The very serious function of racism…is distraction. It keeps you from doing your work. It keeps you explaining, over and over again, your reason for being. Somebody says you have no language and so you spend 20 years proving that you do. Somebody says your head isn’t shaped properly so you have scientists working on the fact that it is. Somebody says that you have no art so you dredge that up. Somebody says that you have no kingdoms and so you dredge that up. None of that is necessary .” — Toni Morrison, A Humanist View

Thurgood Marshall on democracy

“Where you see wrong or inequality or injustice, speak out, because this is your country. This is your democracy. Make it. Protect it. Pass it on.” — Thurgood Marshall, 1978 University of Virginia commencement speech

Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., on progress

“Press forward at all times, climbing forward toward that higher ground of the harmonious society that shapes the laws of man to the laws of God.” — Adam Clayton Powell, Jr.

Rosa Parks on her legacy

“I would like to be known as a person who is concerned about freedom and equality and justice and prosperity for all people.” ― Rosa Parks said on her 77th birthday

Fannie Lou Hamer on liberation

“When I liberate myself, I liberate others. If you don’t speak out ain’t nobody going to speak out for you.” — Fannie Lou Hamer

Harry Belafonte on racism and the legacy of slavery

“Although slavery may have been abolished, the crippling poison of racism still persists, and the struggle still continues.” — Harry Belafonte, 2010 rally in Washington, D.C.

Muhammad Ali on activism

“I have nothing to lose by standing up for my beliefs. So I’ll go to jail, so what? We’ve been in jail for 400 years.” — Muhammad Ali, 1976  

Alicia Garza on power and oppression

“I learned that racism, like most systems of oppression, isn’t about bad people doing terrible things to people who are different from them but instead is a way of maintaining power for certain groups at the expense of others.” ― Alicia Garza, The Purpose of Power: How We Come Together When We Fall Apart

Leave a Reply

Thank you for visiting us. You can learn more about how we consider cases here . Please avoid sharing any personal information in the comments below and join us in making this a hate-speech free and safe space for everyone.

Bruce Allen February 28, 2021 at 8:58 pm Reply Reply   

These quotes vindicate my passion for African American history and the struggle against racism in the United States.

Damien Taylor February 22, 2021 at 1:11 pm Reply Reply   

Thank you for this email. I really needed it I do not understand why or how The Innocence Project just always breaks me down In tears and I seriously need to get it together. I genuinely love every person that is in involved with this nonprofit organization. Unjust is something that really bothers my heart, especially when the end results are the loss of an innocent person’s life after being put to death, or an innocent persons life is has been completely stolen from them, and its done so carelessly. It bothers me a lot, it bothers me in a really uncomfortable way because I have never felt certain feelings that I feels, and the feeling takes over. It’s very uncomfortable and I believe that is because they’re new feeling that I never knew existed. It’s a piercing sadness that I instantly feel and it really hurts my heart. I can’t watch the documentaries as much anymore and although reading the stories bothers me too, I force myself to read them. You all are Angels, SAVING LIVES!!! and I will always for by The Innocence Project. Thank you.

We've helped free more than 240 innocent people from prison. Support our work to strengthen and advance the innocence movement.

26 Justice Quotes to Fight for What’s Right: Empowering Words for Advocates of Fairness

• June 29, 2023
• July 28, 2024

Justice is a fundamental principle that shapes societies and guides moral behavior.

Throughout history, great thinkers , leaders, and activists have shared powerful insights about the importance of justice and the pursuit of what’s right.

These justice quotes serve as beacons of inspiration, reminding us of our collective responsibility to stand up for fairness and equality . By exploring these thought-provoking statements, you can gain valuable perspectives on the nature of justice and find motivation to take action in your own life and community.

Table of Contents

1) “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” – Martin Luther King Jr.

This powerful quote comes from Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” .

It emphasizes the interconnectedness of all people and communities.

King’s words remind you that injustice affects everyone, not just its immediate victims.

When you allow unfairness to persist anywhere, you weaken justice for all.

2) “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” – Martin Luther King Jr.

This powerful quote reminds you that progress towards justice can be slow. Martin Luther King Jr.’s words encourage persistence in the face of adversity.

You may encounter setbacks, but keep pushing for what’s right.

Justice will prevail in the long run if you stay committed to the cause.

3) “Justice delayed is justice denied.” – William E. Gladstone

This quote, attributed to William E. Gladstone , emphasizes the importance of timely legal proceedings.

When justice is delayed, it can effectively become a denial of justice.

Delays in the legal system can have serious consequences for those seeking resolution.

You may find that prolonged waits for court dates or verdicts can cause undue stress and hardship.

4) “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” – Edmund Burke

This powerful quote emphasizes the importance of taking action against injustice.

You have a responsibility to speak up and act when you witness wrongdoing.

Silence and inaction allow evil to flourish unchecked.

By standing up for what’s right, you can make a difference.

5) “There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of the law and in the name of justice.” – Charles-Louis de Secondat

This powerful quote from Montesquieu highlights the danger of abusing legal authority.

You should be wary of injustice masquerading as lawful action.

Remain vigilant against those who misuse the law to oppress others or further their own agenda.

6) “Justice cannot be for one side alone, but must be for both.” – Eleanor Roosevelt

Eleanor Roosevelt’s quote on justice emphasizes the importance of fairness.

You should consider both sides in any dispute or conflict.

True justice requires impartiality and equal treatment for all parties involved.

7) “True peace is not merely the absence of tension: it is the presence of justice.” – Martin Luther King Jr.

This powerful quote by Dr. King emphasizes that true peace requires more than just avoiding conflict.

You can recognize genuine peace when justice prevails.

Peace without justice is superficial.

It’s up to you to strive for both in your community and relationships.

8) “I have always found that mercy bears richer fruits than strict justice.” – Abraham Lincoln

This quote from Abraham Lincoln highlights the value of compassion over harsh punishment.

It suggests that showing mercy often leads to better outcomes than strictly enforcing justice.

You may find that forgiveness and understanding can resolve conflicts more effectively than rigid adherence to rules or punishments.

9) “Justice is truth in action.” – Benjamin Disraeli

Benjamin Disraeli, a former British Prime Minister, eloquently captured the essence of justice with this concise quote.

It suggests that true justice requires uncovering and acting upon the truth.

You can interpret this to mean that justice is not passive but demands active pursuit of facts and fairness in their application.

10) “In matters of truth and justice, there is no difference between large and small problems, for issues concerning the treatment of people are all the same.” – Albert Einstein

Einstein’s words remind you that justice applies equally to all situations, big or small.

When dealing with people, every issue deserves your full attention and fair consideration.

11) “It is in the nature of justice to show mercy.” – Winston Churchill

Winston Churchill’s quote highlights the connection between justice and mercy .

You might consider how showing compassion can strengthen the pursuit of fairness.

This perspective encourages balancing punishment with understanding and empathy.

12) “Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are.” – Benjamin Franklin

This quote often attributed to Benjamin Franklin is not actually his.

It emphasizes the importance of collective responsibility in pursuing justice.

You may find that true justice requires everyone’s engagement, not just those directly impacted by injustice.

13) “Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but in finding out the right and upholding it, wherever found, against the wrong.” – Theodore Roosevelt

Theodore Roosevelt’s words remind you that true justice requires active engagement.

You must discern right from wrong and uphold what is right against injustice.

Neutrality in the face of wrongdoing is not justice.

14) “Delay of justice is injustice.” – Walter Savage Landor

This quote by Walter Savage Landor emphasizes the importance of timely justice.

When legal processes drag on, those seeking resolution suffer.

You may find that prolonged court cases or delayed verdicts can cause additional harm.

Swift action is crucial in upholding justice and protecting rights.

15) “Justice without force is powerless; force without justice is tyrannical.” – Blaise Pascal

Blaise Pascal’s quote highlights the delicate balance between justice and power.

You need both for a fair society.

Justice alone can’t enforce itself.

Power without justice becomes oppressive.

Aim for a system where justice guides the use of force.

16) “If you want peace, work for justice.” – Pope Paul VI

This powerful quote by Pope Paul VI emphasizes the connection between peace and justice.

It suggests that achieving peace requires active effort to promote fairness and equality.

You can apply this wisdom by advocating for social justice in your community.

Small actions to address inequality can contribute to a more peaceful society.

17) “The dead cannot cry out for justice. It is a duty of the living to do so for them.” – Lois McMaster Bujold

This quote emphasizes your responsibility to speak up for those who no longer can.

It reminds you that seeking justice for the deceased falls to those still living.

You have the power to advocate for those who have passed.

Your voice can help right wrongs and honor their memory.

18) “Justice is not something that can be done; it must be seen to be done.” – Marcus Tullius Cicero

This quote emphasizes the importance of transparency in justice systems.

It suggests that for justice to be effective, it must be visible and apparent to all.

You can apply this principle by supporting open court proceedings and clear legal processes.

Demanding accountability from those in power also helps ensure justice is seen.

19) “Whenever a separation is made between liberty and justice, neither is safe.” – Edmund Burke

This quote from Edmund Burke highlights the crucial link between freedom and fairness.

You can see how liberty and justice rely on each other to function properly in society.

When you separate these two principles, both become vulnerable.

A just society requires freedom, while true liberty depends on a foundation of justice.

20) “The greatest justice is mercy.” – Terry Pratchett

This quote highlights the power of compassion in justice.

It suggests that showing mercy can be more impactful than strict punishment.

You might consider how forgiveness and understanding can lead to better outcomes in resolving conflicts.

Pratchett’s words encourage you to balance justice with empathy.

21) “Justice is what love looks like in public.” – Cornel West

This quote highlights the connection between love and justice in society.

When you act justly, you’re expressing love for your fellow humans on a broader scale.

Justice involves treating others fairly and with respect.

It’s a way to show care for your community and humanity as a whole.

22) “Charity is no substitute for justice withheld.” – Saint Augustine

This quote by Saint Augustine emphasizes the importance of justice over charity.

While charitable acts are valuable, they cannot replace the fundamental need for fairness and equality in society.

You should recognize that true progress comes from addressing systemic issues rather than relying solely on individual acts of kindness.

23) “An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind.” – Mahatma Gandhi

This famous quote emphasizes the futility of revenge.

Gandhi suggests that seeking retribution only perpetuates a cycle of violence and harm.

You can interpret this wisdom as a call for breaking the chain of retaliation.

By choosing forgiveness over vengeance, you contribute to a more peaceful world.

24) “Law and justice are not always the same.” – Gloria Steinem

This quote from Gloria Steinem highlights the potential disconnect between legal statutes and moral righteousness.

You may encounter situations where following the law doesn’t necessarily lead to a just outcome.

Recognizing this distinction can empower you to question and challenge unjust laws through proper channels.

Steinem’s words remind you to think critically about the relationship between legality and ethics in society.

25) “The moral arc of the universe bends at the elbow of justice.” – Martin Luther King Jr.

This powerful quote emphasizes the importance of justice in shaping society’s progress.

It suggests that your actions towards justice can influence the direction of history.

The metaphor of an “elbow” implies flexibility and the potential for change.

Your efforts to fight for what’s right can bend the moral arc of the universe.

26) “Justice and power must be brought together, so that whatever is just may be powerful, and whatever is powerful may be just.” – Blaise Pascal

This quote highlights the importance of aligning justice with power.

You can see how Pascal emphasizes that justice needs strength to be effective.

At the same time, he suggests that power should be guided by principles of justice .

This balance is crucial for a fair society.

Understanding Justice in Society

Justice forms the foundation of a fair and equitable society.

It encompasses the principles of fairness, equality, and moral righteousness that guide human interactions and legal systems.

The Importance of Justice

Justice serves as the cornerstone of social order and harmony.

It ensures that individuals are treated fairly and their rights are protected.

Without justice, societies can descend into chaos and inequality.

Justice is the sum of all moral duty , reflecting its crucial role in ethical behavior and decision-making.

It provides a framework for resolving conflicts and maintaining peace among diverse groups.

In everyday life, justice manifests in various forms.

It can be seen in fair treatment at work, equal access to education, and impartial legal proceedings.

When justice prevails, it fosters trust between citizens and institutions.

You benefit from justice through protection of your rights and freedoms.

It allows you to live without fear of discrimination or unfair treatment.

A just society provides equal opportunities for all, regardless of background or social status.

Historical Perspectives on Justice

Throughout history, concepts of justice have evolved and shaped civilizations. Ancient philosophers like Plato and Aristotle laid the groundwork for modern understanding of justice.

In medieval times, justice was often tied to religious beliefs and monarchical rule.

The Magna Carta in 1215 marked a significant shift, establishing the principle that even monarchs were subject to the law.

The Enlightenment period brought new ideas about individual rights and social contracts.

Thinkers like John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau influenced modern democratic systems and concepts of justice.

Martin Luther King Jr. famously said , “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,” highlighting the interconnected nature of justice in society.

This perspective has driven civil rights movements and social justice initiatives worldwide.

Today, international bodies like the United Nations work to promote global justice.

You can see the impact of these historical developments in current legal systems and human rights standards.

Inspirational Justice Quotes in Context

Justice quotes from legal experts and social activists provide powerful insights into fairness, equality, and human rights.

These words inspire action and highlight the ongoing struggle for a just society.

Quotes from Legal Luminaries

Legal professionals have long championed justice through their words and actions.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg famously said, “[R]eal change, enduring change, happens one step at a time.” This quote emphasizes the importance of persistence in pursuing justice.

Former South African President Nelson Mandela, who was also a lawyer, stated, “It always seems impossible until it’s done.” His words remind you that even seemingly insurmountable challenges can be overcome in the fight for justice.

Another powerful quote comes from Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall: “Where you see wrong or inequality or injustice, speak out, because this is your country.

This is your democracy.

Protect it.

Pass it on.” This statement encourages you to actively participate in shaping a just society.

Quotes from Social Activists

Social activists have been at the forefront of many justice movements, inspiring change through their powerful words.

Civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. proclaimed, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” This quote highlights the interconnected nature of justice across different communities and issues.

Feminist icon Gloria Steinem stated, “The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off.” Her words remind you that confronting injustice can be uncomfortable but necessary for progress.

Activist and author James Baldwin wrote, “Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced.” This quote encourages you to confront injustice head-on, even when the path forward seems unclear.

Related Posts:

• 32 Transformation Quotes to Inspire Change: Empowering Words for Personal Growth
• 33 Faith Quotes to Strengthen Your Belief: Timeless Wisdom for Spiritual Growth
• 33 Serenity Quotes to Bring Tranquility to Your Life: Finding Inner Peace in a Chaotic World

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Motivational And Inspirational Quotes

90 Justice Quotes To Promote Fairness And Equity

• March 13, 2024
• Inspirational Quotes

In a world where people have different ideas about what is fair and just, justice remains one of the important ideals of human aspiration. From the ancient halls of civilization to the modern courtroom corridors, justice has been a guiding light directing societies toward fairness, equity, and morality. Here are the best justice quotes that will inspire you to treat others with fairness and remind you to always stand for the right.

What is Justice?

Justice is the quality of treating people impartially and behaving in a morally right way. It is an ideal we strive for to create a fair and equitable society. It is a moral bedrock that allows people to enjoy their fundamental human rights.

The concept of justice encompasses the fair treatment of individuals, irrespective of factors such as skin color, gender, financial status, or beliefs, especially in a society where unfairness and discrimination happen.

Have you ever wondered why there are rules and laws?

Laws and regulations are made to protect individuals from harm and ensure that justice is served. They act as a framework for creating a just and secure environment for all members of society.

Governments and democracy play an important role in upholding justice, as they are responsible for enforcing laws that protect the fundamental rights and well-being of individuals.

The motto of the United States Supreme Court is “Equal Justice Under Law.” These words express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court to ensure fairness, treating everyone equally within the framework of the law.

Here is a list of inspirational justice quotes from the mouths of powerful leaders, activists, and thinkers to the pens of famous philosophers to inspire you to stand against injustice and fight for a fair society.

Top 10 Justice Quotes

• “Justice delayed is justice denied.” — William E. Gladstone

• “The opposite of poverty is not wealth; the opposite of poverty is justice.” — Bryan Stevenson

• “Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are.” — Benjamin Franklin

Famous Quotes About Justice

• “Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.” — Adam Smith
• “Never pray for justice, because you might get some.” — Margaret Atwood
• “It is the spirit and not the form of law that keeps justice alive.” — Earl Warren
• “Justice is what love sounds like when it speaks in public.” — Michael Eric Dyson
• “Somebody has to stand when other people are sitting. Somebody has to speak when everyone else is quiet.” — Bryan Stevenson
• You’re not to be so blind with patriotism that you can’t face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it.” — Malcom X
• “There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest.” — Elie Wiesel
• “There is a higher court than courts of justice, and that is the court of conscience. It supersedes all other courts.” — Mahatma Gandhi
• “Justice and power must be brought together, so that whatever is just may be powerful, and whatever is powerful may be just.” — Blaise Pascal
• “Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but in finding out the right and upholding it, wherever found, against the wrong.” — Theodore Roosevelt
• “A democracy cannot thrive where power remains unchecked and justice is reserved for a select few. Ignoring these cries and failing to respond to this movement is simply not an option — for peace cannot exist where justice is not served.” — John Lewis

Justice Quotes For Equality In Society

• “Justice is the sum of all moral duty.” — William Godwin
• “It is in justice that the ordering of society is centered.” — Aristotle
• “If we want a beloved community , we must stand for justice.” — bell hooks
• “Justice is not to be taken by storm. She is to be wooed by slow advances.” — Benjamin N. Cardozo
• “Ethics and equity and the principles of justice do not change with the calendar.” — D. H. Lawrence
• “Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone id for it.” — William Penn
• “If we are to keep our democracy, there must be one commandment: Thou shalt not ration justice.” — Sophocles
• “Women’s rights are not only an abstraction, a cause; it is also a personal affair. It is not only about us; it is also about me and you. Just the two of us.” — Toni Morrison
• “Overcoming poverty is not a gesture of charity. It is an act of justice. It is the protection of a fundamental human right, the right to dignity and a decent life.” — Nelson Mandela
• “When we choose to protect others, we are also protecting ourselves. We cannot achieve climate justice, without uplifting and supporting all communities.” — Intersectional Environmentalist
• “Justice is possible without equality, I believe, because of compassion and understanding. If I have compassion, then if I have more than you, which is unequal, I will still do the just thing by you.” — B ell Hooks

Inspirational Justice Quotes About Fairness

• “Justice is truth in action .” — Benjamin Disraeli
• “Justice and judgment lie often a world apart.” — Emmeline Pankhurst
• “If we do not maintain justice, justice will not maintain us.” — Francis Bacon
• “Justice cannot be for one side alone, but must be for both.” — Eleanor Roosevelt
• “When justice is done, it brings joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers.” — Unknown
• “I have always found that mercy bears richer fruits than strict justice.” — Abraham Lincoln
• “At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice, he is the worst.” — Aristotle
• “Justice is conscience, not a personal conscience but the conscience of the whole of humanity.” — Alexander Solzhenitsyn
• “Justice has nothing to do with what goes on on a courtroom; Justice is what comes out of a courtroom.” — Clarence Darrow
• “Justice has nothing to do with victor nations and vanquished nations, but must be a moral standard that all the world’s peoples can agree to. To seek this and to achieve it – that is true civilization.” — Hideki Tojo
• “Justice is never given; it is exacted and the struggle must be continuous for freedom is never a final fact, but a continuing evolving process to higher and higher levels of human, social, economic, political, and religious relationships.” — A. Philip Randolph

Justice Quotes About Peace And Happiness

• “If you want peace, work for justice.” — Pope Paul VI
• “ Peace without justice is tyranny.” — William Allen White
• “Peace and justice are two sides of the same coin.” — Dwight D. Eisenhower
• “Without justice and love, peace will always be a great illusion.” ― Dom Helder Camara
• “Justice must not only be seen to be done, but has to be seen to be believed.” — J. B. Morton
• “We know that a peaceful world cannot long exist, one-third rich and two-thirds hungry.” — Jimmy Carter
• “For it isn’t enough to talk about peace. One must believe in it. And it isn’t enough to believe in it. One must work at it.” — Eleanor Roosevelt
• “All the great things are simple, and many can be expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope.” — Winston Churchill
• “The world would be a paradise of peace and justice if global citizens shared a common definition of love which would guide our thoughts and action.” — Bell Hooks
• “There really can be no peace without justice. There can be no justice without truth. And there can be no truth unless someone rises up to tell you the truth.” — Louis Farrakhan
• “We need to keep making our streets safer and our criminal justice system fairer – our homeland more secure, our world more peaceful, and sustainable for the next generation.” — Barack Obama

Social Justice Quotes

• “Justice does not equal revenge .” — Carl Ellis Jr.
• “Equality of opportunity is the essence of social justice.” — Tony Honore
• “Charity begins at home, and justice begins next door.” — Charles Dickens
• “An eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind.” — Mahatma Gandhi
• “Justice is not something God has. Justice is something that God is.” — A.W. Tozer
• “Justice without force is powerless; force without justice is tyrannical.” — Blaise Pascal
• “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” — Theodore Parker
• “The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything.” ― Albert Einstein
• “If our social justice is guided by retribution, we will simply perpetuate the use and abuse of power to inflict violence.” — Jamie Arpin-Ricci
• “Man’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but man’s inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary.” — Reinhold Niebuhr
• “The greatest movement for social justice our country has ever known is the civil rights movement and it was totally rooted in a love ethic.” — bell hooks
• “Until the great mass of the people shall be filled with the sense of responsibility for each other’s welfare, social justice can never be attained.” — Helen Keller
• “It takes no compromise to give people their rights… it takes no money to respect the individual. It takes no political deal to give people freedom. It takes no survey to remove repression.” — Harvey Milk

Best Quotes On Justice

• “Without justice there can be no love.” — Bell Hooks
• “Justice is the crowning glory of the virtues .” — Marcus Tullius Cicero
• “Law is not law, if it violates the principles of eternal justice.” — Lydia Maria Child
• “Exclusion is never the way forward on our shared paths to freedom and justice.” — Desmond Tutu
• “Justice is the first virtue of those who command, and stops the complaints of those who obey.” — Denis Diderot
• “Law and justice are not always the same. When they aren’t, destroying the law may be the first step toward changing it.” — Gloria Steinem
• “It is essential that justice be done, and it is equally vital that justice not be confused with revenge, for the two are wholly different.” — Oscar Arias
• “The restorative justice movement is grounded in values that promote both accountability and healing for all affected by crime.” — Mark Umbreit
• “Justice and revenge are not the same thing. Justice is a continuum that includes accountability, change toward preventing further injustice, strategic hope , etc.” — Bernice King
• “Rather than justice for all, we are evolving into a system of justice for those who can afford it. We have banks that are not only too big to fail, but too big to be held accountable.” — Joseph E. Stiglitz

Fight For Justice Quotes

• “Justice always whirls in equal measure.” — William Shakespeare
• “People who don’t expect justice don’t have to suffer disappointment.” — Isaac Asimov
• “Justice is the means by which established injustices are sanctioned.” — Anatole France
• “True peace required the presence of justice, not just the absence of conflict.” — N.K. Jemisin
• “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.” — Desmond Tutu
• “Justice is about making them pay for [her] pain. Revenge is making them pay for yours.” — Erica O’Rourke
• “When you see something that is not right, not fair, not just, you have to speak up. You have to say something; you have to do something.” — John Lewis
• “Continue to speak out against all forms of injustice to yourselves and others, and you will set a mighty example for your children and for future generations.” — Bernice King
• “We have a right to protest for what is right. That’s all we can do. There are people hurting, there are people suffering, so we have an obligation, a mandate, to do something.” — John Lewis
• “Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob, and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe.” — Frederick Douglass

MLK Quotes About Justice

• “Without justice there can be no peace.” — Martin Luther King Jr.
• “One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” — Martin Luther King Jr.
• “The moral arc of the universe is long. but it bends toward justice.” — Martin Luther King, Jr.
• “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” — Martin Luther King, Jr.
• “True peace is not merely the absence of tension: it is the presence of justice.” — Martin Luther King, Jr.
• “We will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.” — Martin Luther King, Jr.
• “It is not possible to be in favor of justice for some people and not be in favor of justice for all people.” —  Martin Luther King Jr.
• “We need leaders not in love with money but in love with justice. Not in love with publicity but in love with humanity.” —  Martin Luther King Jr.
• “Peace is more important than all justice, and peace was not made for the sake of justice, but justice for the sake of peace.” — Martin Luther King Jr.
• “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.” — Martin Luther King Jr.
• “Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable… Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering, and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals.” — Martin Luther King Jr.
• “Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that.” — Martin Luther King Jr.

More Justice Quotes And Sayings

• “Conscience is the chamber of justice.” — Origen
• “Hunger is not an issue of charity. It is an issue of justice.” — Jacques Diouf
• “I’m for truth, no matter who tells it. I’m for justice, no matter who it is for or against.” — Malcolm X
• “The trouble with the laws these days is that criminals know their rights better than their wrongs.” — Unknown
• “Always seek justice, but love only mercy. To love justice and hate mercy is but a doorway to more injustice.” — Criss Jami
• “Revenge is a kind of wild justice, which the more a man’s nature runs to, the more ought law to weed it out.” — Francis Bacon
• “Justice grows out of recognition of ourselves in each other — that my liberty depends on you being free too.” — Barack Obama
• “Feminist thinking teaches us all, especially, how to love justice and freedom in ways that foster and affirm life.” — Bell Hooks
• “Freedom and justice cannot be parceled out in pieces to suit political convenience. I don’t believe you can stand for freedom for one group of people and deny it to others.” — Coretta Scott King
• “The cause of justice is the cause of humanity. Its advocates should overflow with universal goodwill. We should love this cause, for it conduces to the general happiness of mankind.” — William Godwin
• “Justice demands integrity . It’s to have a moral universe — not only know what is right or wrong but to put things in perspective, weigh things. Justice is different from violence and retribution; it requires complex accounting.” — Bell Hooks

Justice is a cornerstone in the journey towards creating a society based on the ideals of fairness, equality, and moral integrity. It makes sure that things are fair and people are treated right.

Unfortunately, few criminals are successful in escaping the consequences of their actions by exploiting their knowledge of legal intricacies to evade justice.

However, the truth has a way of prevailing and justice, even if it takes some time, ultimately prevails.

Feel free to share these powerful justice quotes and sayings with friends and family on Facebook, Tumblr, Twitter, Instagram, WhatsApp and more to spread positive vibes.

If you like these quotes about justice from government then check our posts on stand up for yourself quotes and resilience quotes to encourage you to pursue justice and fairness in your own life.

If we have missed some quotes, share it with us in the comment section below and we shall be happy to add it to the list.

Related Posts

30 Elton John Quotes And Song Lyrics To Inspire You

60 Immaturity Quotes About Immature People (Childish)

110 Hunter S. Thompson Quotes On Fear, Life And Death

60 Tyler Perry Quotes About Life, Dreams, & Success

90 Firefighter Quotes To Appreciate Our Real Heroes

Fulfillment Quotes On Life And Happiness

15 inspiring human rights quotes

1. “To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.”

Nelson mandela, south african civil rights activist.

2. “Activism works. So what I’m telling you to do now, is to act. Because no one is too small to make a difference.” 

Greta thunberg ,   swedish climate change activist and amnesty international ambassador of conscience.

3. “It means a great deal to those who are oppressed to know that they are not alone. Never let anyone tell you that what you are doing is insignificant.” 

Desmond tutu, south african civil rights activist.

4. “If you want to improve your quality of life and the quality of life for all women, never stop questioning society or calling for change. ” 

Justina de pierris , argentinian student activist.

5. “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

Martin luther king, african-american civil rights activist.

6. “The candle burns not for us, but for all those whom we failed to rescue from prison, who were shot on the way to prison, who were tortured, who were kidnapped, who ‘disappeared’. That’s what the candle is for.”

Peter benenson, founder of amnesty international.

7. “Peace can only last where human rights are respected, where the people are fed, and where individuals and nations are free.”

14th dalai lama.

8. “Letters aren’t just a simple gesture of solidarity, they become a source of hope and they have the potential to change people’s lives. I am living proof .” 

Nestor fantini , former political prisoner in argentina.

9. “People put up walls between each other – and it’s largely down to ignorance or negative media portrayals. We fail to realize there are so many good things and so many good people in this world.”

John sato , world war two veteran who took four buses to join an anti-racism march in auckland after the march 2019 christchurch shootings.

10. “A political struggle that does not have women at the heart of it, above it, below it, and within it is no struggle at all.”

Arundhati roy, indian author.

11. “Let us remember: One book, one pen, one child, and one teacher can change the world.”

Malala yousafzai, pakistani education activist.

12. “My government makes me angry. The police force makes me angry. Homophobia makes me angry. Luckily, anger is what motivates me.” 

Zhanar sekerbayeva , an lbq activist from kazakhstan.

13. “I never thought I’d be talking about police brutality and standing up for human rights. You never know what people are going through until it happens to you.” 

Monicah njoroge , kenyan civil rights activist whose brother evans was murdered after taking part in a peaceful protest.

14. “Get up, stand up, Stand up for your rights. Get up, stand up, Don’t give up the fight.”

Bob marley, jamaican singer.

15. “Humanitarian work isn’t criminal, nor is it heroic. Helping others should be normal.”

Seán binder , volunteer who was detained after provided life-saving assistance to refugees in greece .

43 Best Social Justice Quotes To Inspire Hope & Activism

We all know that social justice is important. It’s something we talk about, tweet about, and march for. But what does it really mean? And how can we make sure that we’re living it every day?

In this article, you’ll find some of the best quotes about social justice from people who have dedicated their lives to making the world a more equitable place. We hope they inspire you to do the same.m

P.S. You can read more quotes about justice , quotes about advocacy , and other positive quotes in our most popular quote roundups.

The Best Quotes About Social Justice

Famous quotes.

“I am no longer accepting the things I cannot change. I am changing the things I cannot accept.” — Angela Davis

“Freedom and justice cannot be parceled out in pieces to suit political convenience. I don’t believe you can stand for freedom for one group of people and deny it to others.” — Coretta Scott King

“We are all implicated when we allow other people to be mistreated. An absence of compassion can corrupt the decency of a community, a state, a nation.” — Bryan Stevenson , Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption

“I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights.” — Archbishop Desmond Tutu

Quotes on Activism & Taking Action

“When we identify where our privilege intersects with somebody else's oppression, we'll find our opportunities to make real change.” — Ijeoma Oluo, So You Want to Talk About Race

“We have a right to protest for what is right. That’s all we can do. There are people hurting, there are people suffering, so we have an obligation, a mandate, to do something.” — John Lewis

“When you get these jobs you have been so brilliantly trained for, just remember that your real job is that if you are free, you need to free somebody else. If you have some power, then your job is to empower somebody else. This is not just a grab-bag candy game.” — Toni Morrison

“Power concedes nothing without an organized demand” — Charlene Carruthers

“Don't sit around and wait for the perfect opportunity to come along — find something and make it an opportunity.” — Cecile Richards, Make Trouble: Standing Up, Speaking Out, and Finding the Courage to Lead

“I think each village was meant to feel pity for its own sick and poor whom it can help and I doubt if it is the duty of any private person to fix his mind on ills which he cannot help. This may even become an escape from the works of charity we really can do to those we know. God may call any one of us to respond to some far away problem or support those who have been so called. But we are finite and he will not call us everywhere or to support every worthy cause. And real needs are not far from us.” — C.S. Lewis

“Your vocation can be found where your greatest joy meets the world’s greatest need.” ‍ — Frederick Buechner

“There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest.” — Elie Wiesel

“Our freedoms are vanishing. If you do not get active to take a stand now against all that is wrong while we still can, then maybe one of your children may elect to do so in the future, when it will be far more riskier — and much, much harder.” — Suzy Kassem, Rise Up and Salute the Sun: The Writings of Suzy Kassem

→ Read more quotes about activism

“And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear? ... It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity.” — Martin Luther King Jr.

“It may well be that we will have to repent in this generation. Not merely for the vitriolic words and the violent actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence and indifference of the good people who sit around and say, ‘Wait on time.’” — Martin Luther King Jr. , A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches

“Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that.” — Martin Luther King Jr.

→ Read more MLK quotes

bell hooks Quotes on Social Change

“Without justice there can be no love.” — bell hooks

“There must exist a paradigm, a practical model for social change that includes an understanding of ways to transform consciousness that are linked to efforts to transform structures.” — bell hooks , Killing Rage: Ending Racism

“Justice is possible without equality, I believe, because of compassion and understanding. If I have compassion, then if I have more than you, which is unequal, I will still do the just thing by you.” — bell hooks

“Justice demands integrity. It’s to have a moral universe — not only know what is right or wrong but to put things in perspective, weigh things. Justice is different from violence and retribution; it requires complex accounting.” — bell hooks

“The world would be a paradise of peace and justice if global citizens shared a common definition of love which would guide our thoughts and action.” — bell hooks

→ Read more bell hooks quotes

Quotes For Students

“You have to get over the fear of facing the worst in yourself. You should instead fear unexamined racism. Fear the thought that right now, you could be contributing to the oppression of others and you don't know it. But do not fear those who bring that oppression to light. Do not fear the opportunity to do better.” — Ijeoma Oluo, So You Want to Talk About Race

“In a society that functions optimally, those who can should naturally want to provide for those who can't. That's how it's designed to work. I truly believe we're here to take care of one another.” — LeVar Burton

“Justice grows out of recognition of ourselves in each other — that my liberty depends on you being free too.” — Barack Obama

Quotes on Social Injustice

“Prisons do not disappear social problems, they disappear human beings. Homelessness, unemployment, drug addiction, mental illness, and illiteracy are only a few of the problems that disappear from public view when the human beings contending with them are relegated to cages.” — Angela Davis

“The death penalty is not about whether people deserve to die for the crimes they commit. The real question of capital punishment in this country is, Do we deserve to kill?” — Bryan Stevenson , Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption

Quotes on Systemic Injustice

“Our problems stem from our acceptance of this filthy, rotten system.” — Dorothy Day

“Colorful demonstrations and weekend marches are vital but alone are not powerful enough to stop wars. Wars will be stopped only when soldiers refuse to fight, when workers refuse to load weapons onto ships and aircraft, when people boycott the economic outposts of Empire that are strung across the globe.” — Arundhati Roy, Public Power in the Age of Empire

“There is no such thing as nonracist or race-neutral policy. Every policy in every institution in every community in every nation is producing or sustaining either racial inequity or equity between racial groups.” — Ibram X. Kendi, How to Be an Antiracist

On Maintaining Hope in the Face of Injustice

“When asked if I am pessimistic or optimistic about the future, my answer is always the same: If you look at the science about what is happening on earth and aren’t pessimistic, you don’t understand data. But if you meet the people who are working to restore this earth and the lives of the poor, and you aren’t optimistic, you haven’t got a pulse. What I see everywhere in the world are ordinary people willing to confront despair, power, and incalculable odds in order to restore some semblance of grace, justice, and beauty to this world.” — Paul Hawken

“There is always light, if only we're brave enough to see it. If only we are brave enough to be it.” — Amanda Gorman

"I want to be nurturing life when I go down in struggle. I want nurturing life to be my struggle." — Zainab Amadahy

“The reality is this: If we don’t make time to close our eyes, breathe deeply, push beyond the binds we’re in, and visualize a day when they don’t exist, we can never truly be free.” — Akiba Solomon & Kenrya Rankin

→ Read more quotes about hope

On the Injustice of Poverty

“Innovation comes, in science, by the people who are able to pull something apart with such insight and knowledge that they can then innovate, and they can create new — it’s how we make progress. And I think the same is true in the justice sector, that we cannot make progress in creating a more just society, healthier communities, if we allow ourselves to be disconnected from the people who are most vulnerable — from the poor, the neglected, the incarcerated, the condemned. If you’re trying to make policies in the criminal justice space but have never met someone who’s in a jail or prison, you haven’t been to a jail or prison, you’re going to fail.” — Bryan Stevenson

“I think sometimes, when you’re trying to do justice work, when you’re trying to make a difference, when you’re trying to change the world, the thing you need to do is get close enough to people who are falling down, get close enough to people who are suffering, close enough to people who are in pain, who’ve been discarded and disfavored — to get close enough to wrap your arms around them and affirm their humanity and their dignity.” — Bryan Stevenson

“In this increasingly interconnected world, we must understand that what happens to poor people is never divorced from the actions of the powerful. Certainly, people who define themselves as poor may control their own destinies to some extent. But control of lives is related to control of land, systems of production, and the formal political and legal structures in which lives are enmeshed. With time, both wealth and control have become increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few. The opposite trend is desired by those working for social justice.” — Paul Farmer

→ Read more quotes about poverty

More Sayings and Slogans

“Rebellion is the only thing that keeps you alive.” — Marianne Faithful

“The opposite of poverty is not wealth. In too many places, the opposite of poverty is justice.” — Bryan Stevenson

“Public education does not exist for the benefit of students or the benefit of their parents. It exists for the benefit of the social order. We have discovered as a species that it is useful to have an educated population. You do not need to be a student or have a child who is a student to benefit from public education. Every second of every day of your life, you benefit from public education. So let me explain why I like to pay taxes for schools, even though I don't personally have a kid in school: It's because I don't like living in a country with a bunch of stupid people.” — John Green

“I sometimes see people say that social change is impossible. But this is just not true. Social change is INEVITABLE. What isn’t inevitable is the timbre and shape of that social change, which we decide together.” — John Green

“In these days of difficulty, we Americans everywhere must and shall choose the path of social justice…, the path of faith, the path of hope, and the path of love toward our fellow man.” — Franklin D. Roosevelt

“By acting compassionately, by helping to restore justice and to encourage peace, we acknowledge that we are all part of one another.” — Ram Dass

“Ours is not the struggle of one day, one week, or one year. Ours is not the struggle of one judicial appointment or presidential term. Ours is the struggle of a lifetime, or maybe even many lifetimes, and each one of us in every generation must do our part.” ‍ — John Lewis , Across That Bridge: A Vision for Change and the Future of America

Article Details

These are the 17 best humanitarian quotes from famous world-changers

73 Inspirational Quotes for the Month of August

97 Best Quotes About Justice To Inspire Positive Change

34 Best Quotes About Activism — By Activists

Want to stay up-to-date on positive news.

The best email in your inbox. Filled with the day’s best good news.

• About Good Good Good
• Privacy Policy & Terms
• Take Action
• Subscriber Account
• Affiliate Program

Join the Good News Community

Quotes on Justice

Justice is a central concept in politics and morality that has inspired many thinkers, leaders and citizens throughout history. Quotes about justice can give us insight into the different perspectives on this complex and important topic. In this article, we will explore some of the most famous quotes about justice and reflect on their meaning and relevance to our understanding of justice.

You will find first the quotations of the ancient time on Justice, then of the modern time, and finally of the contemporary time.

“The war that is necessary is just, and blessed be the weapons where there is no recourse but by them.” Titus Livy

“Justice exists only when men are also bound by the law” Aristotle

“Justice is about the middle ground, while injustice is about the extremes.” Aristotle

“The war that is necessary is just, and blessed be the weapons where there is no recourse but by them.” Titus Livy.

“I have said before that to commit injustice is a greater evil than to suffer it” Plato,

“Justice is about the middle ground, while injustice is about the extremes.” Aristotle,

“Laws stand in credit not because they are just, but because they are laws. This is the mystical foundation of their authority.” Michel de Montaigne

“Justice without force is powerless, force without justice is tyrannical. – Blaise Pascal

“A judgment that is too swift is often without justice.” – Voltaire

“All justice comes from God, he alone is its source; but if we knew how to receive it from so high a source, we would need neither government nor laws.” Jean-Jacques Rousseau

“The vision of justice is the pleasure of God alone.” Arthur Rimbaud (1873)

“Right is what is good for the German people.” Adolf Hitler

“Justice is free. Fortunately, it is not compulsory.” Jules Renard

“Justice is like the Holy Virgin, if you don’t see her from time to time, doubt sets in.” Michel Audiard

→ General Knowledge: Quotes

Justice as Fairness

50 pages • 1 hour read

Justice as Fairness: A Restatement

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

Chapter Summaries & Analyses

Key Figures

Index of Terms

Important Quotes

Essay Topics

Discussion Questions

“One practicable aim of justice as fairness is to provide an acceptable philosophical and moral basis for democratic institutions and thus to address the question of how the claims of liberty and equality are to be understood.”

One of the most enduring problems in theories of democracy theory is to reconcile the seemingly competing claims of freedom and equality , as freedom permits the exercise of talents that are unequal among citizens. Rawls is seeking a logically precise definition of justice that resolves the apparent tension between freedom and equality, so that citizens do not need to be alike in all respects for each to have the ability to employ their abilities toward the betterment of themselves and society.

“The role of a political conception of justice [...] is not to say exactly how these questions are to be settled, but to set out a framework of thought with which they can be approached.”

Rawls insists that his definition of justice is strictly political, meaning that it pertains only to the distribution of social power and the design of legal institutions. It does not require that citizens believe anything in particular, only that their public conduct adheres to a common set of principles which they have decided is best for their functioning as a collective. In all other aspects, they are free to pursue their own understanding of what is good.

“In what sense are citizens regarded as equal persons? Let’s say they are regarded as equal in that they are all regarded as having to the essential minimum degree the moral powers necessary to engage in social cooperation over a complete life and take part in society as equal citizens.”

Related Titles

By John Rawls

A Theory of Justice

Political Liberalism

Featured Collections

Philosophy, Logic, & Ethics

View Collection

Political Science Texts

Politics & Government

Popular Study Guides

• Judge Robes
• Judge Accessories

Sign up and save

Sign up to our mailing list with discounts and exclusive offers! We promise not to spam you.

Get Inspired by These Great Courtroom Quotes by American Judges

Looking for wisdom in the words of legal giants? The   U.S. Supreme Court   has offered plenty. This blog reveals famous quotes from justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Thurgood Marshall, offering insights into justice and law.

Key Takeaways

• Judges like Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Thurgood Marshall share strong messages about justice. They tell us to fight for what we believe in and that everyone should get fair treatment.
• Courtroom quotes help shape how we see the law. Words from judges influence our ideas of fairness and rights.
• Quotes from the courtroom often become famous because they express deep truths about justice, equality, and fairness. These words guide people in law and beyond.
• Some courtroom quotes have changed history by inspiring movements for social change. They push society towards more justice for everyone.
• Judges reflect on the power of law to make society fairer. Their insights show how important courts are in making sure everyone's rights are respected.

The Significance of Courtroom Quotes

Courtroom quotes hold immense significance shaping   legal philosophy   and influencing public perception. They embody the virtues of bravery, perseverance, and courage while serving as practical wisdom in the realm of justice.

Shaping Legal Philosophy

Courtroom quotes from judges like   Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.   and Ruth Bader Ginsburg do more than just sound good. They lay the foundation for legal philosophy in the US Supreme Court and beyond.

These words show us what fairness, justice, and equality mean in our society. For instance,   "Equal justice under law"   is a principle that guides how we see right and wrong in legal battles.

Judges' reflections on their experiences shape how laws are understood and applied. Their bravery in making tough decisions affects how we think about courage, reasoning, and perseverance within the rule of law.

Quotes such as Thurgood Marshall's "Equal means getting the same thing, at the same time and in the same place" remind us that justice must be timely and fair for all.

Justice delayed is justice denied.

Influencing Public Perception

Moving from shaping legal philosophy, court quotes play a big role in how people see the law and justice. Judges and justices like Neil Gorsuch and Ruth Bader Ginsburg say things that stick with us.

They shape how we think about fairness and right versus wrong.

Their words during big cases or when a new Justice joins the Supreme Court catch everyone's attention. This influences what we expect from our legal system. People watch trials on TV or follow them online, seeing judges and jurors work.

What these legal figures say can change how we view important issues around freedom of expression and truth itself.

Notable Quotes from U.S. Supreme Court Justices

U.S. Supreme Court justices have made powerful remarks that resonate through the ages. These quotes shape legal philosophy and public perception, influencing society deeply.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.: "Equal justice under law"

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. made a big mark on justice in the U.S. He famously said, "Equal justice under law." This powerful idea means that everyone should get the same fair treatment in court.

It doesn't matter who you are or where you come from.

Holmes showed us that law is about fairness for all people. His words guide judges and lawyers today. They work hard to make sure courts follow this rule. When they decide cases, they keep Holmes's belief in equal justice in mind.

This keeps our legal system strong and trustworthy.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: "Fight for the things that you care about"

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the former U.S. Supreme Court Justice, emphasized standing up for beliefs and justice when she said, "Fight for the things that you care about." Her words inspire activism and a strong commitment to what one believes in.

Ginsburg's quote reflects her deep passion for equality and justice. It encourages all individuals to stand firm for their principles and advocate for fairness in society.

Thurgood Marshall: "Equal means getting the same thing, at the same time and in the same place"

Thurgood Marshall focused on equality and fairness in the   justice system. He made precedent-setting decisions and championed civil rights. His quote stresses that equality is about receiving the same things, at the same time, and in the same place.

This highlights his commitment to ensuring fairness for all.

Marshall's impact goes beyond just words; it is reflected in his pioneering legal decisions and tireless advocacy for civil rights, shaping the course of American jurisprudence.

Famous Legal Quotes by Judges

Famous Legal Quotes by Judges hold significant power. They encapsulate the weight and moral compass of the law, often shaping legal philosophy.

"Justice is what comes out of a courtroom."

The quote emphasizes the outcome of   courtroom proceedings   in delivering justice, capturing the essence of legal decision-making and its impact on society. It underscores the crucial role played by judges and attorneys in ensuring a fair and just conclusion to legal disputes, shaping public perception of the   judicial system   while upholding legal philosophy.

This quote holds particular significance within the realm of law, encapsulating the core purpose and function of courtrooms in resolving conflicts and dispensing impartial justice.

The profound meaning behind this statement resonates deeply with those involved in legal proceedings, highlighting their commitment to upholding fairness and equality under the law.

Through influential figures such as U.S. Supreme Court justices like Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Thurgood Marshall, among others who have left a lasting legacy through their impactful quotes that continue to shape legal history.

"The courtroom is a battlefield, and the truth is your weapon."

Famous legal quotes by judges further underscore this idea, emphasizing that justice is what emerges from a courtroom and highlighting how the courtroom itself serves as a battleground where truth stands as your most potent weapon.

These impactful expressions not only resonate within legal settings but also echo throughout society, reflecting on fairness, justice, societal change - embodying elements crucial to establishing trust within judicial systems.

Quotes That Have Made Legal History

"the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.".

The quote reflects the belief in the progressive improvement of justice over time. It has been influential in legal and social justice movements, emphasizing the long-term trajectory towards fairness and equity.

This affirmation embodies hope for positive change and serves as a guiding principle for those involved in the legal realm.

The statement has inspired many to persist in their pursuit of justice, highlighting that despite challenges, history shows a continuous progression towards a more just society. It underpins the underlying optimism that drives efforts to address injustices and work towards a fairer future, resonating with individuals across various roles within the legal system - judges, attorneys, jurors, clerks, bailiffs - as they navigate complexities within their respective duties.

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" It holds true in the legal realm, echoing the interconnectedness of fairness and equity. This quote emphasizes the far-reaching impact of injustice, highlighting its potential to undermine justice not only locally but also across broader societal contexts.

The essence lies in recognizing that any form of injustice has ripple effects, posing a significant risk to upholding justice universally.

This understanding underpins the very nature of legal philosophy and societal reforms, stressing the integral link between addressing local injustices and maintaining global standards of justice.

Such acknowledgment serves as a fundamental catalyst for advocating widespread legal and social changes, uniting various entities within the legal landscape towards achieving greater equity and fairness on a broader scale - influencing judges, attorneys, jurors, clerks, bailiffs as well as public perception altogether.

Personal Reflections from Judges on the Power of Law

Judges reflect on the impact of law on fairness and justice, as well as the judiciary's role in driving societal change. They articulate their insights into how legal principles shape society while highlighting the complexities of navigating evolving legal theories.

Reflections on fairness and justice

Lance Ito emphasized judges' biases impacting victims' courtroom experiences. Opinions about the fairness and dysfunctionality of the criminal justice system are crucial within legal philosophy.

Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, witnesses on the stand, and legal drama illustrate this impact.

The role of the judiciary in societal change

The judiciary plays a crucial role in driving societal change through its decisions and interpretations of the law. Court rulings set precedents, shaping how laws are applied and affecting the rights of individuals and communities.

For example, landmark cases like   Brown v. Board of Education   have led to significant shifts in societal norms, challenging discrimination and promoting equality.

Judges also interpret laws passed by legislatures, ensuring that they align with fundamental principles such as justice, fairness, and individual rights. By upholding these values in their decisions, judges influence public attitudes towards legal issues and help shape social norms.

Notably, judicial opinions often reflect changing societal values and guide future legislative actions that contribute to broader societal shifts.

Famous courtroom quotes from judges hold wisdom and insight. They shape legal philosophy and influence public perception. These quotes transcend time, impacting our understanding of justice.

The power of law lies in the words spoken by those who uphold it.

The significance of these quotes stretches beyond the courtroom walls, resonating with society. Their impact lingers in our minds, guiding us towards a fairer world.

Courtroom quotes embody the essence of justice and equality. They serve as beacons, illuminating the path to a better future for all.

In reflection, these powerful words echo through history, leaving an indelible mark on our collective consciousness.

1. What did Oliver Holmes, Jr., say about common sense in the courtroom?

Oliver Holmes, Jr., believed in using common sense as a guiding principle... He famously said it's essential for interpreting laws and making fair decisions.

2. How do judges view the role of evidence in deciding cases?

Judges see evidence as crucial... They often stress its importance for uncovering the truth, distinguishing between good and evil, and ensuring justice prevails.

3. Can famous quotes from judges teach us about business models like startups and crowdfunding?

Yes! Judges' insights often touch on discipline, rational decision-making, and deceit—key elements that impact startups and crowdfunding ventures. Their wisdom can guide entrepreneurs through challenges.

4. Why do judges emphasize narratives in their rulings or opinions?

Narratives help clarify complex legal issues... Judges use them to make their decisions more relatable to juries and the public, weaving suspense and motives into rational explanations.

5. What advice do courtroom quotes offer to those bootstrapping their ventures or seeking venture capital?

Judge's quotes remind us of virtues like honesty, hard work, and perseverance—values critical for anyone bootstrapping or seeking venture capital for their new business endeavors.

Free Shipping Available

Get Free Shipping on all orders over $999 and with the fastest deadlines in the US. What are you waiting to make an order?

Customer Service

We are available to resolve any issue that you may have with our products. Chat with us, call us or send us an email to see it!

Premium Quality

We are the biggest sellers of judge robes and apparel, so we have the lowest price with the most premium quality possible!

Essays About Justice: Top 5 Examples and 7 Prompts

Discover our guide with examples of essays about justice and prompts for your essay writing and discuss vital matters relating to a person’s or nation’s welfare. 

Justice, in general, refers to the notion that individuals get what they deserve. It includes fundamental moral values ​​in law and politics and is considered an act of fairness, equality, and honesty. Four types of justice deal with how victims can solicit a verdict. They are procedural, distributive, retributive, and restorative. There are many pieces with justice as the subject. It’s because justice is a broad subject encompassing many human values.

5 Essay Examples

1. juvenile justice system of usa essay by anonymous on ivypanda.com, 2. wrongful convictions in criminal justice system by anonymous on gradesfixer.com, 3. racial profiling within the criminal justice system by anonymous on papersowl.com, 4. criminal justice: the ban-the-box law by anonymous on ivypanda.com, 5. the special needs of the criminal justice on mental illness cases by anonymous on gradesfixer.com, 1. what is justice, 2. is justice only for the rich and powerful, 3. the importance of justice, 4. the justice system in mainstream media, 5. justice: then vs. now, 6. justice system around the world, 7. obstructions to justice.

“No doubt, familiarity about the nature of juvenile crimes and how juvenile justice structures function across the world will offer an insight to policy makers, social scientists and for gullible citizens. Thus, a comparative analysis will throw light on how well or how poorly one nation is exercising relative to other nations.”

The essay delves into the justice system process for teenagers who are 18 years and below who commit wrongful acts. Most teenagers involved in juvenile crimes do not have a strong foundation or parental support. The author also talks about the treatments, boot camps, and retreat houses available for teenagers serving in juvenile prisons.

The ever-increasing number of juvenile crimes in the world reflects the mismanagement and lack of juvenile courts, sentencing programs, rehabilitation, and age-appropriate treatment. The writer believes that if mistrials remain in the juvenile system, the problem will continue. They suggest that the government must initiate more system reforms and provide juvenile offenders with proper ethical education.

“The justice system is composed of various legal groups and actors, making a miscarriage possible at any stage of the legal process, or at the hands of any legal actor. Eyewitness error, police misconduct, or falsification of evidence are examples of factors that may lead to a wrongful conviction.”

In this essay, the author uses various citations that show the justice system’s flaws in the process and criteria of its rulings. It further discusses the different instances of unfair judgments and mentions that at least 1% of all convicts serving prison time were wrongfully accused. 

The writer believes that changing the way of addressing different cases and ensuring that all legal professionals do their assigned duties will result in fair justice. You might also be interested in these essays about choice .

“Here in the 21st century, we don’t exactly have ‘Black Codes’ we have what is known as Racial Profiling. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) defines racial profiling as ‘the discriminatory practice by law enforcement officials of targeting individuals for suspicion of crime based on the individual’s race ethnicity, religion or national origin.’”

This essay investigates the involvement of race in the criminal justice system, whether they are victims or perpetrators. The author claims that some law enforcement officers mistreat and misjudge people because of their race and presents various cases as evidence of these discriminatory actions. One example is the case of an unarmed black teenager, Jordan Edwards , who was shot because former officer Roy Oliver thought his partner was in danger.

Unfortunately, law enforcement officials use their power and position in society to deny any act of racial profiling, rendering the said law useless. The author declares that while their paper may not prove racial bias in the criminal justice system, they can prove that a person’s color plays a role and can cause harm.

“I think the Ban-the-Box law is the best way of creating employment opportunities for ex-convicts without discrimination. Criminal offenses vary in the degree of the crime, making it unfair to treat all ex-convicts the same. Moreover, some felons learn from their mistakes during detention and parole, creating a better and law-abiding citizen with the ability to work faithfully.”

The essay explains how ex-convicts or current convicts are consistently discriminated against. This discrimination affects their lives even after serving their sentence, especially in their rights to vote and work. 

Regarding job hunting, the author believes the Ban-the-Box law will effectively create more employment opportunities. The law allows employers to see an ex-convict’s skills rather than just their record.  The essay concludes with a reminder that everyone is entitled to a civil right to vote, while private enterprises are free to run background checks. 

“Case management focuses on incorporating key elements that focus on improving the wellbeing of individuals that are being assessed. Mental illness within the criminal justice system is treated as a sensitive issue that requires urgent intervention in order to ensure that an inmate is able to recover.”

This essay pries into one of the most delicate areas of ruling in the justice system, which is leading mentally ill convicts. Offenders who were deemed mentally ill should be able to receive particular treatments for their health while serving time. 

The author mentions that every country must be able to provide mental health services for the inmates to prevent conflicts inside the prison. In conclusion, they suggest that reviewing and prioritizing policies related to mental illness is the best solution to the issue.

Are you interested in writing about mental illnesses? Check out our guide on how to write essays about depression.

7 Prompts for Essays About Justice

Justice is a vast subject, and its literal meaning is the quality of being just. This process often occurs when someone who has broken the law gets what they should, whether freedom or punishment. Research and discuss everything there is to know about justice so your readers can fully understand it. Include a brief history of its origins, types, and uses.

Several situations prove that justice is only for the rich. One of the main reasons is the expensive court fees. Research why victims settle outside the court or just let their abusers get away with crimes.

Include data that proves justice is a luxury where the only ones who can ask for equal treatment are those with resources—present situations or well-known cases to support your statements. On the other hand, you can also provide counter-arguments such as government programs that help financially-challenged individuals.

Every citizen has the right to be protected and treated fairly in court. Explain the importance of justice to a person, society, and government. Then, add actual cases of how justice is applied to encourage reform or chaos. Include relevant cases that demonstrate how justice impacts lives and legal changes, such as the case of Emmett Till .

Talk about how justice is usually depicted on screen and how it affects people’s expectations of how the justice system works. Popular television shows such as Suits and Law and Order are examples of the justice system being portrayed in the media. Research these examples and share your opinion on whether movies or television portray the justice system accurately or not.

In this essay, research how justice worldwide has changed. This can include looking at legal systems, human rights, and humanity’s ever-changing opinions. For instance, child labor was considered normal before but is viewed as an injustice today. List significant changes in justice and briefly explain why they have changed over time. You might also be interested in these essays about violence .

Countries have different ways of instilling justice within their societies. For this prompt, research and discuss the countries you think have the best and worst legal systems. Then, point out how these differences affect the country’s crime rates and quality of life for its citizens.

Examine why people tend to take justice into their hands, disobey legal rules, or give up altogether. It can be because seeking justice is an arduous process resulting in emotional and financial burdens. Often, this occurs when a person feels their government is not providing the support they need. Take a look at this social issue, and discuss it in your essay for a strong argumentative. 

If you are interested in learning more, check out our essay writing tips !

• Utility Menu

Michael J. Sandel

Anne t. and robert m. bass professor of government, introduction: "justice with michael sandel".

Lectures 1 & 2

Lecture 1 – The Moral Side of Murder Would you kill one person to save the lives of five others? Would it be the right thing to do? Inviting students to respond to some amusing hypothetical scenarios, Professor Michael Sandel launches his course on moral reasoning.

Lecture 2 – The Case for Cannibalism Sandel introduces the principles of utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham with a famous nineteenth century law case involving a shipwrecked crew of four. After nineteen days lost at sea, the captain decides to kill the cabin boy, the weakest amongst them, so they can feed on his blood and body to survive.

The Lifeboat Case

Justice dilemma 1.

Lectures 3 & 4

Lecture 3 – Putting a Price Tag on Life Sandel presents some contemporary cases in which cost-benefit analysis was used to put a dollar value on human life. The cases give rise to several objections to the utilitarian logic of seeking “the greatest good for the greatest number.” Is it possible to sum up and compare all values using a common measure like money?

Lecture 4 – How to Measure Pleasure Sandel introduces J. S. Mill, a utilitarian philosopher who argues that seeking “the greatest good for the greatest number” is compatible with protecting individual rights, and that utilitarianism can make room for a distinction between higher and lower pleasures. 

The Cost of Life & the EPA

The cost of life & the epa: utilitarianism (lecture 3).

Opera & Dogfights

82cf0058474506c8f3fa2361d4c45e40.

Lectures 5 & 6

Lecture 5 – Free to Choose With humorous references to Bill Gates and Michael Jordan, Sandel introduces the libertarian notion that redistributive taxation—taxing the rich to help the poor—is akin to forced labor.

Lecture 6 – Who Owns Me? Are the successful morally entitled to the benefits that flow from the exercise of their talents? What about the fact that wealth is often due to good luck or fortunate family circumstances? A group of students dubbed “Team Libertarian” defend the libertarian philosophy against this objection.

Motorcycle Helmets

Motorcycle helmets: libertarianism (lecture 5).

Sports Money & Taxes

Sports money & taxes: libertarianism (lecture 6).

Lectures 7 & 8

Lecture 7 – This Land is My Land The philosopher John Locke argues that individuals have certain fundamental rights—to life, liberty, and property—that were given to us in “the state of nature,” a time before government and laws were created.  How then can private property arise?  Lecture 8 – Consenting Adults If we all have unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property, how can government enact laws that tax or earnings or send us to war? Does this amount to taking our property or our lives without our consent? 

Property Rights & Boston Parking

Lectures 9 & 10

Lecture 9 – Hired Guns?  During the Civil War, men drafted into war had the option of hiring substitutes to fight in their place. Many students say they find that policy unjust, arguing that it is unfair to allow the affluent to pay less privileged citizens to fight in their place.  Is today’s voluntary army open to the same objection?  

Lecture 10 – For Sale: Motherhood Sandel examines free-market exchange as it relates to reproductive rights. Examples include the business of egg and sperm donation and the case of “Baby M”—a famous law case that raised the unsettling question, “Who owns a baby?” 

Military Service: Markets & Morals

Surrogacy: Market & Morals

Surrogacy: market & morals (lecture 10).

Lectures 11 & 12

Lecture 11: Mind Your Motive Sandel introduces Immanuel Kant, a challenging but influential philosopher.  For Kant morality means acting out of duty—doing something because it is right, not because it is prudent or convenient.  Kant gives the example of a shopkeeper who passes up the chance to shortchange a customer only because his business might suffer if other customers found out.  According to Kant, the shopkeeper’s action lacks moral worth, because he did the right thing for the wrong reason.

Lecture 12: The Supreme Principle of Morality Immanuel Kant says that insofar as our actions have moral worth, what confers moral worth is our capacity to rise above self-interest and inclination and to act out of duty.  Using several real life examples, Sandel explains Kant’s test for determining whether an action is morally right: to identify the principle expressed in our action and then ask whether that principle could ever become a universal law that every other human being could act on.

The Shopkeeper's Action

The shopkeeper's action: immanuel kant (lecture 11).

Kant and Human Dignity: The Case of Torture

Kant and human dignity.

Lectures 13 & 14

Lecture 13 – A Lesson in Lying Immanuel Kant believed that telling a lie, even a white lie, is a violation of one’s own dignity. Sandel asks students to test Kant’s theory with this hypothetical case: if a friend were hiding inside your home, and a murderer came to your door and asked you where he was, would it be wrong to lie to him? This leads to a video clip of one of the most famous, recent examples of dodging the truth: President Clinton talking about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

Lecture 14 – A Deal is a Deal Sandel introduces the modern philosopher, John Rawls, who argues that a just society is one governed by principles we would choose if we did not know what advantages we would possess or what role in society we would occupy. 

Lying to a Murderer

Lying to a murderer: immanuel kant (lecture 12 & 13).

David Hume & the Contractor

David hume & the contractor: the morality of consent (lecture 14).

Lectures 15 & 16

Lecture 15 – What's a Fair Start? Rawls argues that even a meritocracy—a distributive system that rewards effort—doesn’t go far enough in leveling the playing field because the successful can’t claim to deserve the talents that enable them to get ahead.  Success often depends on factors as arbitrary as birth order. Sandel makes Rawls’s point when he asks the students who were first born in their family to raise their hands.

Lecture 16 – What do We Deserve? Sandel discusses the fairness of pay differentials in modern society. He compares the salary of former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor ($200,000) with the salary of television’s Judge Judy ($25 million). Sandel asks, is this fair? 

A Thought Experiment

A thought experiment: john rawls (lecture 15).

Inheritance Tax

Inheritance tax: who deserve what (lecture 16).

Lectures 17 & 18

Lecture 17 - Arguing Affirmative Action Is it just to consider race and ethnicity as factors in college admissions? Students discuss the pros and cons of affirmative action and discuss some controversial court cases. 

Lecture 18 - What's the Purpose? Sandel introduces Aristotle and his theory of justice. Aristotle disagrees with Rawls and Kant. He believes that justice is about giving people their due, what they deserve. The best flutes, for example, should go to the best flute players. And the highest political offices should go to those with the best judgment and the greatest civic virtue. 

Affirmative Action

Affirmative action (lecture 17).

The Violin: The Good Citizen (Lecture 18 & 19)

Lectures 19 & 20

Lecture 19 - The Good Citizen Aristotle believes the purpose of politics is to promote and cultivate the virtue of its citizens. The  telos or goal of the state and political community is the “good life”. And those citizens who contribute most to the purpose of the community are the ones who should be most rewarded. But how do we know the purpose of a community or a practice? Aristotle’s theory of justice leads to a contemporary debate about golf. Sandel describes the case of a disabled golfer who sued the PGA after it declined his request to use a golf cart.

Lecture 20 - Freedom VS. Fit  How does Aristotle address the issue of individual rights and the freedom to choose? In this lecture, Sandel addresses one of the most glaring objections to Aristotle—his defense of slavery as a fitting social role for certain human beings. Students discuss other objections to Aristotle’s theories and debate whether his philosophy overly restricts the freedom of individuals.

Casey Martin and the Telos of Golf

Casey martin and the telos of golf: aristotle (lecture 20).

Lectures 21 & 22

Lecture 21 – The Claims of Community Are all obligations based on consent, or are we also bound by unchosen obligations of membership and solidarity?

Lecture 22 – Where Our Loyalty Lies Do we owe more to our fellow citizens that to citizens of other countries? Is patriotism a virtue, or a prejudice for one’s own kind? Do I have a special responsibility for righting the wrongs of my great grandparents’ generation?

Justice, Community, and Membership

Citizen responsibility: justice, community, and membership (lecture 21).

Honesty vs. Loyalty?

Friendship & honesty: dilemmas of loyalty (lecture 22).

Collective Responsibility?

Collective responsibility for past wrongs.

Lectures 23 & 24

Lecture 23 – Debating Same-Sex Marriage If principles of justice depend on the moral or intrinsic worth of the ends that rights serve, how should we deal with the fact that people hold different ideas and conceptions of what is good? Students address this question in a debate about same-sex marriage. Can we settle the matter without discussing the moral status of homosexuality and the purpose of marriage?

Lecture 24 – The Good Life In his final lecture, Sandel challenges the notion that government and law should be neutral on hard moral questions. He argues that engaging, rather than avoiding, the moral convictions of our fellow citizens may be the best way of seeking a just society.

Debating Same Sex Marriage

Debating same sex marriage (lecture 23).

"More than exhilarating; exciting in its ability to persuade this student/reader, time and again, that the principle now being invoked—on this page, in this chapter—is the one to deliver the sufficiently inclusive guide to the making of a decent life." (Vivian Gornick, Boston Review )

“Sandel explains theories of justice…with clarity and immediacy; the ideas of Aristotle, Jeremy Bentham, Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, Robert Nozick and John Rawls have rarely, if ever, been set out as accessibly…. In terms we can all understand, ‘Justice’ confronts us with the concepts that lurk, so often unacknowledged, beneath our conflicts.”  (Jonathan Rauch, New York Times )

“Sandel dazzles in this sweeping survey of hot topics…. Erudite, conversational and deeply humane, this is truly transformative reading.” ( Publishers Weekly , starred review)

“A spellbinding philosopher…. For Michael Sandel, justice is not a spectator sport…. He is calling for nothing less than a reinvigoration of citizenship.”  (Samuel Moyn, The Nation )

“Michael Sandel, perhaps the most prominent college professor in America…practices the best kind of academic populism, managing to simplify John Stuart Mill and John Rawls without being simplistic. But Sandel is best at what he calls bringing ‘moral clarity to the alternatives we confront as democratic citizens ’…. He ends up clarifying a basic political divide -- not between left and right, but between those who recognize nothing greater than individual rights and choices, and those who affirm a ‘politics of the common good,' rooted in moral beliefs that can't be ignored.”  (Michael Gerson, Washington Post)

" Justice , the new volume from superstar Harvard political philosopher Michael Sandel, showcases the thinking on public morality that has made him one of the most sought-after lecturers in the world." (Richard Reeves, Democracy )

“Hard cases may make bad law, but in Michael Sandel’s hands they produce some cool philosophy…. Justice is a timely plea for us to desist from political bickering and see if we can have a sensible discussion about what sort of society we really want to live in.”  (Jonathan Ree, The Observer (London))

“Every once in a while, a book comes along of such grace, power, and wit that it enthralls us with a yearning to know what justice is.  This is such a book.”  (Jeffrey Abramson, Texas Law Review )

“Using a compelling, entertaining mix of hypotheticals, news stories, episodes from history, pop-culture tidbits, literary examples, legal cases and teachings from the great philosophers—principally, Aristotle, Kant, Bentham, Mill and Rawls—Sandel takes on a variety of controversial issues—abortion, same-sex marriage, affirmative action—and forces us to confront our own assumptions, biases and lazy thought…. Sparkling commentary from the professor we all wish we had.”  ( Kirkus Reviews , starred review) 

“Michael Sandel is…one of the world's most interesting political philosophers. Politicians and commentators tend to ask two questions of policy: will it make voters better off, and will it affect their liberty? Sandel rightly points out the shallowness of that debate and adds a third criterion: how will it affect the common good?”  ( Guardian)

“Michael Sandel transforms moral philosophy by putting it at the heart of civic debate…. Sandel belongs to the tradition, dating back to ancient Greece, which sees moral philosophy as an outgrowth and refinement of civic debate. Like Aristotle, he seeks to systematize educated common sense, not to replace it with expert knowledge or abstract principles.  This accounts for one of the most striking and attractive features of Justice —its use of examples drawn from real legal and political controversies…. Sandel's insistence on the inescapably ethical character of political debate is enormously refreshing.”  (Edward Skidelsky, New Statesman)  

“His ability to find the broad issues at the heart of everyday concerns verges on the uncanny, and his lucid explanations of classic figures such as Mill, Kant, and Aristotle are worth the price of admission.”  (William A. Galston, Commonweal ) 

“A remarkable educational achievement…. Generations of students and educated citizens will be very well served by Sandel’s introductory overviews.”  (Amitai Etzioni, Hedgehog Review )

“Reading ‘Justice’ by Michael Sandel is an intoxicating invitation to take apart and examine how we arrive at our notions of right and wrong….This is enlivening stuff. Sandel is not looking to win an argument; he's looking at how a citizen might best engage the public realm.” (Karen R. Long, Cleveland Plain Dealer )

“Sandel is a champion of a politics of the common good. He wants us to think of ourselves as citizens, not just consumers or isolated choosers.  For him, justice demands that we ask what kind of people and society we want (or ought) to be.”  (John A. Coleman, America )

 “Michael Sandel, political philosopher and public intellectual, is a liberal, but not the annoying sort.  His aim is not to boss people around but to bring them around to the pleasures of thinking clearly about large questions of social policy.  Reading this lucid book is like taking his famous undergraduate course ‘Justice’ without the tiresome parts, such as term papers and exams.”  (George F. Will, syndicated columnist)

“ Justice is Sandel at his finest: no matter what your views are, his delightful style will draw you in, and he’ll then force you to rethink your assumptions and challenge you to question accepted ways of thinking. He calls us to a better way of doing politics, and a more enriching way of living our lives.”  (E. J. Dionne, syndicated columnist)

“His is a new and authentic philosophical voice…. Michael Sandel’s elegantly argued book…describes what I take to be the reality of moral experience.” – Michael Walzer, The New Republic

“Sandel’s Liberalism and the Limits of Justice is a gracefully—even beautifully—written book that I would imagine is destined to be something of a classic on the subject.” – Chilton Williamson, Jr., National Review

“Sandel’s book is exemplary.  It is passionate and unrelenting, and yet meticulous and scrupulous in its argumentation…. [A]lways fair to its target, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice develops the best and most constructive interpretations with which to disagree…. It is the great virtue of this book, of its justness and generosity of spirit, that…one can come away from this book moved to deepen and improve the vision he criticizes.” – Charles Fried, Harvard Law Review  

“This brilliantly written critique of Rawls…can be read as an important contribution toward the reconstruction of liberal political theory.” – Steven M. DeLue, American Political Science Review  

“Sandel’s remarkable work forces us to take seriously the question: what kind of subjects must we be for our talk of justice and rights to make sense? He uncovers the strains and contractions in much contemporary liberalism. This is political philosophy on the level it should be written, confronting our moral beliefs with our best understanding of human nature.” – Charles Taylor, McGill University

“A genuinely important and philosophical book…written with style and precision…. Sandel’s account of friendship and self-knowledge is luminous.” – Ronald Beiner, Times Higher Education Supplement

“[S]ometimes soaring to exhilarating eloquence and flashes of insight… Liberalism and the Limits of Justice offers fresh and plausible readings of what politics is and might be.” – Stephen Whitfield, Worldview  

“Sandel [goes to] the heart of the epistemological confusions inherent in modern philosophical liberalism…. The real consequence of Sandel’s argument is…to reassert [the] fundamental lesson…that at the heart of all philosophy is political philosophy. – Mark Lilla, The Public Interest

“Sandel’s outstanding book is a significant and fascinating contribution…. Sandel’s point about the liberal conception of the self is exciting and significant in several ways.” – Richard Fentiman, Cambridge Law Journal

“Sandel offers an extended, very penetrating critique of what he calls the ‘deep individualism’ embedded in the premises of Rawlsian theory—and, more generally, in the foundations of liberal political theories which are influenced by Kantian moral philosophy.  This is fresh work of major importance to the ongoing discussion of justice and individualism….” – Norman Care, No ûs

“This clear and forceful book provides very elegant and cogent arguments against the attempt to use a certain conception of the self, a certain metaphysical view of what human beings are like, to legitimate liberal politics.” – Richard Rorty, in “The Priority of Democracy to Philosophy,” in Rorty, Objectivism, Relativism, and Truth  

“[John Rawls’s A Theory of Justice ] is widely viewed as the most important work of political philosophy to be written in our time.  It certainly has been the most widely discussed.  Of all the commentary it has spawned, none has been more important than the critique offered by Michael Sandel in a book published in 1982 called Liberalism and the Limits of Justice , which succeeded in calling into question some of Rawls’s more fundamental premises.” – R. Bruce Douglass, Commonwealth  

“Sandel’s work builds very strongly on A Theory of Justice by John Rawls, taking its place as the next voice in the running conversation of political theory…. Where critiques are often used by their author as a means to build their own name up by tearing down someone else’s name, Sandel’s is such a careful study that it ends up enhancing the stature of the work it builds upon.” – Chistopher Budd, The Philosophers’ Magazine

“Even though Sandel is critical of Rawls, he is scrupulously fair and respectful…. One cannot read Liberalism and the Limits of Justice without acquiring a deeper and clearer understanding of Rawls’ theory…. Sandel’s impressive work…illuminates not only Rawls’ theory but also the nature of moral argument…. It is an outstanding achievement.” – William Powers, Texas Law Review

8 Tips For Writing A Social Justice Essay

Social justice covers a variety of issues involving race, gender, age, sexual orientation, income equality and much more. How do you write an essay on a social justice issue that’s engaging, informative and memorable? Here are eight tips you should take to heart when writing:

When writing a social justice essay, you should brainstorm for ideas, sharpen your focus, identify your purpose, find a story, use a variety of sources, define your terms, provide specific evidence and acknowledge opposing views.

Do you want to pursue a career in human rights?

Our eBook “ Launching Your Career in Human Rights ” is an in-depth resource designed for those committed to pursuing a career in the human rights field. It covers a wide range of topics, including the types of careers available, the necessary skills and competencies, and the educational pathways that can lead to success in this sector. Whether you’re considering a master’s degree, looking for your first job, or exploring specific human rights issues, this guide offers valuable insights and practical advice. It’s a helpful tool for anyone looking to understand the complexities of working in human rights and how to effectively navigate the challenges and opportunities that come with this important work. Learn more .

#1. Brainstorm creatively

Before you start writing your social justice essay, you need a topic. Don’t hesitate to look far and wide for inspiration. Read other social justice essays, look at recent news stories, watch movies and talk to people who are also interested in social justice. At this stage, don’t worry about the “trendiness” of your idea or whether a lot of people are already writing about it. Your topic will evolve in response to your research and the arguments you develop. At the brainstorming stage, you’re focused on generating as many ideas as possible, thinking outside the box and identifying what interests you the most. Take a free online course to get a better understanding of social justice.

You can take a creative brainstorming approach! A blog on Hubspot offers 15 creative ideas such as storyboarding, which involves laying out ideas in a narrative form with terms, images and other elements. You can also try freewriting, which is when you choose something you’re interested in. Next, write down everything you already know, what you need to know but don’t already, why the topic matters and anything else that comes to mind. Freewriting is a good exercise because it helps you decide if there’s any substance to a topic or if it’s clear there’s not enough material for a full essay.

#2. Sharpen your topic’s focus

The best essays narrow on a specific social justice topic and sharpen its focus, so it says something meaningful and interesting. This is often challenging, but wrestling with what exactly you want your essay to say is worth the effort. Why? An essay with a narrow, sharp focus has a clearer message. You’re also able to dig deeper into your topic and provide better analysis. If your topic is too broad, you’re forced to skim the surface, which produces a less interesting essay.

How do you sharpen your essay’s focus? Grace Fleming provides several tips on ThoughtCatalog . First, you can tell your topic is too broad if it can be summarized in just 1-2 words. As an example, “health inequity” is way too broad. Fleming suggests applying the questions, “Who, what, where, when, why and how,” to your topic to narrow it down. So, instead of just “health inequity,” you might end up with something like “The impact of health inequity in maternal healthcare systems on Indigenous women.” Your topic’s focus may shift or narrow even further depending on the research you find.

Writing a human rights topic research paper? Here are five of the most useful tips .

#3. Identify your purpose

As you unearth your topic and narrow its focus, it’s important to think about what you want your essay to accomplish. If you’re only thinking about your essay as an assignment, you’ll most likely end up with a product that’s unfocused or unclear. Vague sentiments like “Everyone is writing about social justice” and “Social justice is important” are also not going to produce an essay with a clear purpose. Why are you writing this essay? Are you wanting to raise awareness of a topic that’s been historically ignored? Or do you want to inspire people to take action and change something by giving them concrete how-to strategies? Identifying your purpose as soon as possible directs your research, your essay structure and how you style your writing.

If you’re not sure how to find your purpose, think about who you’re writing for. An essay written for a university class has a different audience than an essay written for a social justice organization’s social media page. If there are specific instructions for your essay (professors often have requirements they’re looking for), always follow them closely. Once you’ve identified your purpose, keep it at the front of your mind. You’ll produce an essay that’s clear, focused and effective.

#4. Find a human story

The best social justice essays don’t only provide compelling arguments and accurate statistics; they show your topic’s real-world impact. Harvard’s Kennedy School’s communications program describes this process as “finding a character.” It’s especially useful when you’re writing something persuasive. Whatever your topic, try to find the human stories behind the ideas and the data. How you do that depends on the nature of your essay. As an example, if you’re writing something more academic, focusing too much on the emotional side of a story may not be appropriate. However, if you’re writing an essay for an NGO’s fundraising campaign, focusing on a few people’s stories helps your reader connect to the topic more deeply.

How do you choose what stories to feature? Harvard suggests choosing someone you have access to either through your research or as an interview subject. If you get the opportunity to interview people, make sure you ask interesting questions that dig beneath the surface. Your subject has a unique perspective; you want to find the information and stories only they can provide.

#5. Rely on a variety of sources

Depending on your essay’s purpose and audience, there might be certain sources you’re required to use. In a piece for Inside Higher Ed, Stephanie Y. Evans describes how her students must use at least 10 source types in their final paper assignment. Most of the time, you’ll have a lot of freedom when it comes to research and choosing your sources. For best results, you want to use a wide variety. There are a few reasons why. The first is that a variety of sources gives you more material for your essay. You’ll access different perspectives you wouldn’t have found if you stuck to just a few books or papers. Reading more sources also helps you ensure your information is accurate; you’re fact-checking sources against one another. Expanding your research helps you address bias, as well. If you rely only on sources that reflect your existing views, your essay will be much less interesting.

While we’re talking about sources, let’s touch on citations. If you’re writing an essay for school, your teacher will most likely tell you what citation method they want you to use. There are several depending on the discipline. As an example, in the United States, social science disciplines like sociology and education tend to use the American Psychological Association (APA) style. Some places are very rigid about citation styles, while others are more relaxed. If you’re writing an essay where your citation won’t be checked, you still need to give credit to any ideas, thoughts, or research that’s not yours. Proper citation builds trust with your reader and boosts your credibility.

Here are more tips on writing a human rights essay!

#6. Define your key terms

To make your essay as clear and effective as possible, you want every reader on the same page right at the beginning. Defining your key terms is an important step. As Ian Johnston writes, creating an effective argument requires “the establishment of clear, precise, and effective definitions for key terms in the arguments.” You may have to adapt an existing definition or write your own. Johnston offers principles such as adjusting a definition based on the knowledge of who you’re writing for, focusing on what a term is and not just on its effects, and expanding a definition so it covers everything a reader needs to know.

How do you decide which terms are important in your essay? First, never assume a reader understands a term because it’s “obvious.” The most obvious terms are often the ones that need the clearest definitions. If your reader doesn’t know exactly what you’re talking about when you use a term like “health equity,” your essay won’t be as effective. In general, you want to define any terms relevant to your topic, terms that are used frequently and terms with distinct meanings in the context of your essay.

#7. Provide specific evidence and examples

Social justice issues are grounded in reality, so an essay should reflect that. Don’t spend your whole paper being philosophical or hypothetical. As an example, let’s say you’re writing an essay about desertification in Mali. Don’t discuss desertification as an abstract concept. Include real statistics and case studies on desertification in Mali, who it’s affecting the most and what is being done about it. For every argument you make, present supporting evidence and examples.

The strength of your evidence determines the strength of your arguments. How do you find strong evidence? Cite This For Me lists a handful of examples , such as studies, statistics, quotes from subject matter experts and/or reports, and case studies. Good evidence also needs to be accurate and in support of your argument. Depending on your essay topic, how current a piece of evidence is also matters. If you’re not relying on the most current evidence available, it can weaken your overall argument. Evidence should also be as specific as possible to your topic. Referring back to our desertification in Mali essay, that means locating examples of how desertification affects people in Mali , not in Chad or Russia.

Academic essay writing requires specific skills. Here’s an online introductory course on academic writing .

#8. Acknowledge your critics

Not every social justice essay requires an acknowledgment of opposing viewpoints, but addressing critics can strengthen your essay. How? It lets you confront your critics head-on and refute their arguments. It also shows you’ve researched your topic from every angle and you’re willing to be open-minded. Some people worry that introducing counterarguments will weaken the essay, but when you do the work to truly dissect your critic’s views and reaffirm your own, it makes your essay stronger.

The University of Pittsburgh offers a four-step strategy for refuting an argument. First, you need to identify the claim you’re responding to. This is often the trickiest part. Some writers misrepresent the claims of their critics to make them easier to refute, but that’s an intellectually dishonest method. Do your best to understand what exactly the opposing argument is claiming. Next, make your claim. You might need to provide specific evidence, which you may or may not have already included in your essay. Depending on the claim, your own thoughts may be a strong enough argument. Lastly, summarize what your claim implies about your critics, so your reader is left with a clear understanding of why your argument is the stronger one.

You may also like

Child Rights Jobs: Our Short Guide

17 International Organizations Offering Early-Career Opportunities

7 Online Courses on Child Protection and Children’s Rights

Gender Rights Jobs: Our Short Guide

Apply Now for the United Nations The Hague Immersion Programme

The UN Immersion Programme Is Open for Applications!

The UN Young Leaders Online Training Programme is Open for Applications!

Apply now: Essex Human Rights Summer School (Fully Online)

Free MOOC on Children’s Right to Education in Armed Conflict

9 Online Courses on Leading Diverse Teams

40 Top-Rated Social Issues Courses to Study in 2024

Register now: Global Institute of Human Rights Certificate Program

About the author, emmaline soken-huberty.

Emmaline Soken-Huberty is a freelance writer based in Portland, Oregon. She started to become interested in human rights while attending college, eventually getting a concentration in human rights and humanitarianism. LGBTQ+ rights, women’s rights, and climate change are of special concern to her. In her spare time, she can be found reading or enjoying Oregon’s natural beauty with her husband and dog.

Essay: Justice for All

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…”

It would be easy to fault the Founders for not mentioning women in that statement, unless we remember that to their way of thinking, “men” and “mankind” were acceptable ways to describe groups that include men, women, and children. We might also fault them for allowing slavery to persist, even as they wrote a document about human freedom. What we should keep in mind, however, is that we base our belief that slavery is wrong on the very ideas embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution.

Even though some of their beliefs don’t fit our modern sensibilities, the Founders embraced world-changing ideas about justice and freedom. To appreciate this, it is helpful to understand how people were governed in the centuries before America’s Founding.

The scales of justice are a symbol for the justice system in the United States.

Throughout history, most people have been treated unequally by their rulers. Unless one were born into a privileged family or tribe, there was little access to the precious resources that are taken for granted in a prosperous society—things like meat, well-defended shelter, and education. In many cases people might be enslaved, or something close to it. People were treated unequally, both so that the powerful could have more comfort, and because rulers believed most people couldn’t be trusted to make decisions about how society should operate.

As we have seen, the Founders declared that no one has a right to rule others simply because of the family into which he’s born. Instead, they believed that everyone is born with certain rights and that the law should equally protect people’s freedoms and property.

“That alone is a just government,” wrote James Madison, “which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own” (James Madison, “On Property,” 1792).

This was important to the Founders because they believed government exists not only to make rules; but also to ensure justice.

The Constitution protects justice for all citizens in the United States.

As American ideas about equality changed, we enacted laws to free American slaves and to extend voting rights to women and those without property. We moved to stop government agencies from treating African Americans unequally, whether by denying them the right to vote, denying them access to city-owned hospitals, or simply failing to extend to them the same police protection enjoyed by other citizens.

A long period of mistreatment had contributed to substantial poverty in African-American communities, and this was not the only inequality in the United States. A growing economy presents numerous opportunities for people to start new businesses, or find ways to earn money using their particular skills and ideas. Just as varied abilities (and sometimes luck) ensure that different players on a baseball team will score different numbers of runs—even when they’re all playing by the same rules—a free economy yields different rewards. It offers substantial benefits to everyone participating in it, but especially large rewards for people whose luck, skill, or perseverance makes them exceptional.

Despite the Great Depression and two world wars, Americans—even the poorest Americans—saw their standard of living rise tremendously during the twentieth century. Our understanding of equality and fairness was changing, however. While the Founders believed government should protect everyone’s  rights  impartially, many Americans came to believe that  outcomes  should be more equal. We began to take money from some individuals to give to others, and to offer special benefits, like preferential treatment for minority-owned firms seeking government contracts. In order to achieve more equitable outcomes, in other words, our government began to treat people unequally.

Some people see this as necessary to pursue equal treatment. Their point is that if the game has been rigged to keep some people from scoring, it is not fair to just start treating everyone equally, because some are now behind in the game. Efforts to redistribute wealth and adjust racial, ethnic, and gender proportions in workplaces and even sports teams are, they believe, necessary to achieve the Founders’ vision of a society where everyone has equal protection under the law.

This statue on front of a courthouse is holding the scales of justice and her eyes are covered. What do you think her blindfold represents?

Others argue that two wrongs do not make a right, and that we are punishing people who did nothing wrong for the sins of their ancestors. People are getting accustomed to living on government programs, they say, creating long-term dependency.

Americans disagree about what our government should do—if anything—given the unequal outcomes that naturally occur in a free society. Thankfully, the Founders crafted a political system we can use to work out our disagreements. What we should avoid, meanwhile, is taking for granted that we will always enjoy the equality our Founders promoted. We each depend on our government to protect our rights equally, but we have to remember that this depends, in turn, on citizens upholding that ideal.

For example, if we see someone who is charged with governing others—whether a senator, a mayor, or even a homeowners association president—allow favored members of the community to get by without following rules, or, worse still, make rules designed to hurt those they disfavor, we should question the justice of this.

Even if we turn out to be mistaken, citizens must be willing to ask such questions, if only to remind ourselves—and our elected officials—that equal treatment before the law is essential to freedom.

Related Content

Justice for All

What were the Founders’ concepts of justice, liberty, and rights and where did those concepts came from? How have these ideas changed over time? Use these primary sources to analyze.

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

The idea of justice occupies centre stage both in ethics, and in legal and political philosophy. We apply it to individual actions, to laws, and to public policies, and we think in each case that if they are unjust this is a strong, maybe even conclusive, reason to reject them. Classically, justice was counted as one of the four cardinal virtues (and sometimes as the most important of the four); in modern times John Rawls famously described it as ‘the first virtue of social institutions’ (Rawls 1971, p.3; Rawls, 1999, p.3). We might debate which of these realms of practical philosophy has first claim on justice: is it first and foremost a property of the law, for example, and only derivatively a property of individuals and other institutions? But it is probably more enlightening to accept that the idea has over time sunk deep roots in each of these domains, and to try to make sense of such a wide-ranging concept by identifying elements that are present whenever justice is invoked, but also examining the different forms it takes in various practical contexts. This article aims to provide a general map of the ways in which justice has been understood by philosophers, past and present.

We begin by identifying four core features that distinguish justice from other moral and political ideas. We then examine some major conceptual contrasts: between conservative and ideal justice, between corrective and distributive justice, between procedural and substantive justice, and between comparative and non-comparative justice. Next we turn to questions of scope: to who or what do principles of justice apply? We ask whether non-human animals can be subjects of justice, whether justice applies only between people who already stand in a particular kind of relationship to one another, and whether individual people continue to have duties of justice once justice-based institutions have been created. We then examine three overarching theories that might serve to unify the different forms of justice: utilitarianism, contractarianism, and egalitarianism. But it seems, in conclusion, that no such theory is likely be successful.

More detailed discussions of particular forms of justice can be found in other entries: see especially distributive justice , global justice , intergenerational justice , international distributive justice , justice and bad luck , justice as a virtue , and retributive justice .

1.1 Justice and Individual Claims

1.2 justice, charity and enforceable obligation, 1.3 justice and impartiality, 1.4 justice and agency, 2.1 conservative versus ideal justice, 2.2 corrective versus distributive justice, 2.3 procedural versus substantive justice, 2.4 comparative versus non-comparative justice, 3.1 human vs non-human animals, 3.2 relational vs non-relational justice, 3.3 individuals vs institutions, 3.4 recognition vs. redistribution, 4.1 accommodating intuitions about justice, 4.2 utilitarian theories of justice: three problems, 5.1 gauthier, 5.3 scanlon, 6.1 justice as equality, 6.2 responsibility-sensitive egalitarianism, 6.3 relational egalitarianism, 7. conclusion, other internet resources, related entries, 1. justice: mapping the concept.

‘Justice’ has sometimes been used in a way that makes it virtually indistinguishable from rightness in general. Aristotle, for example, distinguished between ‘universal’ justice that corresponded to ‘virtue as a whole’ and ‘particular’ justice which had a narrower scope (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics , Book V, chs. 1–2). The wide sense may have been more evident in classical Greek than in modern English. But Aristotle also noted that when justice was identified with ‘complete virtue’, this was always ‘in relation to another person’. In other words, if justice is to be identified with morality as such, it must be morality in the sense of ‘what we owe to each other’ (see Scanlon 1998). But it is anyway questionable whether justice should be understood so widely. At the level of individual ethics, justice is often contrasted with charity on the one hand, and mercy on the other, and these too are other-regarding virtues. At the level of public policy, reasons of justice are distinct from, and often compete with, reasons of other kinds, for example economic efficiency or environmental value.

As this article will endeavour to show, justice takes on different meanings in different practical contexts, and to understand it fully we have to grapple with this diversity. But it is nevertheless worth asking whether we find a core concept that runs through all these various uses, or whether it is better regarded as a family resemblance idea according to which different combinations of features are expected to appear on each occasion of use. The most plausible candidate for a core definition comes from the Institutes of Justinian , a codification of Roman Law from the sixth century AD, where justice is defined as ‘the constant and perpetual will to render to each his due’. This is of course quite abstract until further specified, but it does throw light upon four important aspects of justice.

First, it shows that justice has to do with how individual people are treated (‘to each his due’). Issues of justice arise in circumstances in which people can advance claims – to freedom, opportunities, resources, and so forth – that are potentially conflicting, and we appeal to justice to resolve such conflicts by determining what each person is properly entitled to have. In contrast, where people’s interests converge, and the decision to be taken is about the best way to pursue some common purpose – think of a government official having to decide how much food to stockpile as insurance against some future emergency – justice gives way to other values. In other cases, there may be no reason to appeal to justice because resources are so plentiful that we do not need to worry about allotting shares to individuals. Hume pointed out that in a hypothetical state of abundance where ‘every individual finds himself fully provided with whatever his most voracious appetites can want’, ‘the cautious, jealous virtue of justice would never once have been dreamed of’ (Hume, An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals , pp. 183–4). Hume also believed – and philosophical controversy on this point persists until today – that justice has no place in close personal relationships, such as the family, where (it is alleged) each identifies with the others’ interests so strongly that there is no need and no reason for anyone to make claims of personal entitlement. (See Sandel 1982 for a defence of this view; for a critique, see Okin 1989. See also the entry on feminist perspectives on reproduction and the family) .

That justice is a matter of how each separate person is treated appears to create problems for theories such as utilitarianism that judge actions and policies on the basis of their overall consequences aggregated across people – assuming that these theories wish to incorporate rather than discard the idea of justice. In Section 4 below we examine how utilitarians have attempted to respond to this challenge.

Although justice is centrally a matter of how individuals are treated, it is also possible to speak of justice for groups – for example when the state is allocating resources between different categories of citizens. Here each group is being treated as though it were a separate individual for purposes of the allocation.

Second, Justinian’s definition underlines that just treatment is something due to each person, in other words that justice is a matter of claims that can be rightfully made against the agent dispensing justice, whether a person or an institution. Here there is a contrast with other virtues: we demand justice, but we beg for charity or forgiveness. This also means that justice is a matter of obligation for the agent dispensing it, and that the agent wrongs the recipient if the latter is denied what is due to her. It is a characteristic mark of justice that the obligations it creates should be enforceable: we can be made to deliver what is due to others as a matter of justice, either by the recipients themselves or by third parties. However it overstates the position to make the enforceability of its requirements a defining feature of justice (see Buchanan 1987). On the one hand, there are some claims of justice that seem not to be enforceable (by anyone). When we dispense gifts to our children or our friends, we ought to treat each recipient fairly, but neither the beneficiaries themselves nor anyone else can rightfully force the giver to do so. On the other hand, in cases of extreme emergency, it may sometimes be justifiable to force people to do more than justice requires them to do – there may exist enforceable duties of humanity. But these are rare exceptions. The obligatory nature of justice generally goes hand-in-hand with enforceability.

The third aspect of justice to which Justinian’s definition draws our attention is the connection between justice and the impartial and consistent application of rules – that is what the ‘constant and perpetual will’ part of the definition conveys. Justice is the opposite of arbitrariness. It requires that where two cases are relevantly alike, they should be treated in the same way (We discuss below the special case of justice and lotteries). Following a rule that specifies what is due to a person who has features X , Y , Z whenever such a person is encountered ensures this. And although the rule need not be unchangeable – perpetual in the literal sense – it must be relatively stable. This explains why justice is exemplified in the rule of law, where laws are understood as general rules impartially applied over time. Outside of the law itself, individuals and institutions that want to behave justly must mimic the law in certain ways (for instance, gathering reliable information about individual claimants, allowing for appeals against decisions).

Finally, the definition reminds us that justice requires an agent whose will alters the circumstances of its objects. The agent might be an individual person, or it might be a group of people, or an institution such as the state. So we cannot, except metaphorically, describe as unjust states of affairs that no agent has contributed to bringing about – unless we think that there is a Divine Being who has ordered the universe in such a way that every outcome is a manifestation of His will. Admittedly we are tempted to make judgements of what is sometimes called ‘cosmic injustice’ – say when a talented person’s life is cut cruelly short by cancer, or our favourite football team is eliminated from the competition by a freak goal – but this is a temptation we should resist.

This agency condition, however, is less restrictive than it might at first appear. It by no means excludes the possibility that agents can create injustice by omission – for example by failing to create the institutions or to enact the policies that would deliver vital resources to those who need them. Thus it is now common to speak of ‘systemic injustice’ in the case of bad outcomes that no-one intends to occur but that could be prevented by a shift in social norms or institutional practices. The agents in these cases are all those who by acting together to change these things could invert the injustice, but have so far failed to do so.

2. Justice: Four Distinctions

We have so far looked at four elements that are present in every use of the concept of justice. Now it is time to consider some equally important contrasts.

Philosophers writing on justice have observed that it has two different faces, one conservative of existing norms and practices, the other demanding reform of these norms and practices (see Sidgwick 1874/1907, Raphael 2001). Thus on the one hand it is a matter of justice to respect people’s rights under existing law or moral rules, or more generally to fulfil the legitimate expectations they have acquired as a result of past practice, social conventions, and so forth; on the other hand, justice often gives us reason to change laws, practices and conventions quite radically, thereby creating new entitlements and expectations. This exposes an ambiguity in what it means to ‘render each his due’. What is ‘due’ might be what a person can reasonably expect to have given existing law, policy, or social practice, or it might be what the person should get under a regime of ideal justice: this could mean what the person deserves, or needs, or is entitled to on grounds of equality, depending on which ideal principle is being invoked.

Conceptions of justice vary according to the weight they attach to each of these faces. At one extreme, some conceptions interpret justice as wholly concerned with what individuals can claim under existing laws and social conventions: thus for Hume, justice was to be understood as adherence to a set of rules that assign physical objects to individuals (such as being the first possessor of such an object) (Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature , Book III, Part II). These rules can be explained by reference to the natural associations that form in people’s minds between persons and external objects, and although the system of justice as a whole can be shown to be socially useful, there are no relevant independent standards by which its principles can be assessed (Hume briskly dismissed equality and merit as principles for allocating property to persons). In similar vein, Hayek argued that justice was a property of individual behaviour, understood as compliance with the ‘rules of just conduct’ that had evolved to enable a market economy to function effectively. For Hayek, to speak of ‘social justice’ as an ideal standard of distribution was as meaningless as to speak of a ‘moral stone’ (Hayek 1976, p. 78)

At the other extreme stand conceptions of justice which posit some ideal principle of distribution such as equality, together with a ‘currency’ specifying the respect in which justice requires people to be made equally well off, and then refuse to acknowledge the justice of any claims that do not arise directly from the application of this principle. Thus claims deriving from existing law or practice are dismissed unless they happen to coincide with what the principle requires. More often, however, ideal justice is seen as proposing principles by which existing institutions and practices can be assessed, with a view to reforming them, or in the extreme case abolishing them entirely, while the claims that people already have under those practices are given some weight. Rawls, for example, whose two principles of justice count as ideal principles for this purpose, is at pains to stress that they are not intended to be applied in a way that disregards people’s existing legitimate expectations. About the ‘difference principle’, which requires social and economic inequalities to be regulated so that they work to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society, he says:

It applies to the announced system of public law and statutes and not to particular transactions or distributions, nor to the decisions of individuals and associations, but rather to the institutional background against which these transactions and decisions take place. There are no unannounced and unpredictable interferences with citizens’ expectations and acquisitions. Entitlements are earned and honored as the public system of rules declares. (Rawls 1993, p. 283)

Here we see Rawls attempting to reconcile the demands of conservative and ideal justice. Yet he does not directly address the question of what should happen when changing circumstances mean that the difference principle requires new laws or policies to be enacted: do those whose prior entitlements or expectations are no longer met have a claim to be compensated for their loss? We could call this the question of transitional justice (though this phrase is often used now in a more specific sense to refer to the process of reconciliation that may occur following civil war or other armed conflicts: see the entry on transitional justice ).

A second important contrast, whose pedigree reaches back at least as far as Aristotle, is between justice as a principle for assigning distributable goods of various kinds to individual people, and justice as a remedial principle that applies when one person wrongly interferes with another’s legitimate holdings. Thus suppose Bill steals Alice’s computer, or sells Alice faulty goods which he claims to be in perfect order: then Alice suffers a loss, which justice demands that Bill should remedy by returning the computer or fulfilling his contract honestly. Corrective justice, then, essentially concerns a bilateral relationship between a wrongdoer and his victim, and demands that the fault be cancelled by restoring the victim to the position she would have been in had the wrongful behaviour not occurred; it may also require that the wrongdoer not benefit from his faulty behaviour. Distributive justice, on the other hand, is multilateral: it assumes a distributing agent, and a number of persons who have claims on what is being distributed. Justice here requires that the resources available to the distributor be shared according to some relevant criterion, such as equality, desert, or need. In Aristotle’s example, if there are fewer flutes available than people who want to play them, they should be given to the best performers (Aristotle, The Politics , p. 128). In modern debates, principles of distributive justice are applied to social institutions such as property and tax systems, which are understood as producing distributive outcomes across large societies, or even the world as a whole.

The conceptual distinction between distributive and corrective justice seems clear, but their normative relationship is more difficult to pin down (see Perry 2000, Ripstein 2004, Coleman 1992, chs. 16–17). Some have claimed that corrective justice is merely instrumental to distributive justice: its aim is to move from a situation of distributive injustice brought about by the faulty behaviour to one that is more nearly (if not perfectly) distributively just. But this view runs into a number of objections. One is that so long as Alice has a legitimate title to her computer, her claim of corrective justice against Bill does not depend on her having had, prior to the theft, the share of resources that distributive justice ideally demands. She might be richer than she deserves to be, yet corrective justice still require that the computer be returned to her. In other words, corrective justice may serve to promote conservative rather than ideal justice, to use the distinction introduced in 2.1. Another objection is that corrective justice requires the wrongdoer himself to restore or compensate the person he has wronged, even if the cause of distributive justice could be better served by transferring resources from a third party – giving Alice one of even-more-undeservedly-rich Charles’s computers, for example. This underlines the bilateral nature of corrective justice, and also the fact that it comes into play in response to faulty behaviour on someone’s part. Its primary demand is that people should not lose out because others have behaved wrongfully or carelessly, but it also encompasses the idea that ‘no man should profit by his own wrong’. If Alice loses her computer in a boating accident, she might, under an insurance scheme, have a claim of distributive justice to a new machine, but she has no claim of corrective justice.

If corrective justice cannot be subsumed normatively under distributive justice, we need to explain its value. What is achieved when we make Bill return the computer to Alice? Aristotle ( Nicomachean Ethics , Book V, ch. 4) suggested that corrective justice aims to restore the two parties to a position of equality; by returning the computer we cancel both Bill’s unjustified gain and Alice’s unjustified loss. But this assumes that the computer can be returned intact. Corrective justice requires that Alice be made no worse off than she was before the theft, even if that means Bill suffering an absolute loss (e.g. by paying for a new computer if he has damaged Alice’s). Aristotle himself recognized that the idea of evening out gain and loss made no literal sense in a case where one person assaults another and has to compensate him for his injury – there is no ‘gain’ to be redistributed. It seems, then, that the value of corrective justice must lie in the principle that each person must take responsibility for his own conduct, and if he fails to respect the legitimate interests of others by causing injury, he must make good the harm. In that way, each person can plan her life secure in the knowledge that she will be protected against certain kinds of external setbacks. Philosophers and lawyers writing on corrective justice disagree about what standard of responsibility should apply – for example whether compensation is required only when one person wilfully or negligently causes another to suffer loss, or whether it can also be demanded when the perpetrator displays no such fault but is nevertheless causally responsible for the injury.

A third distinction that must be drawn is between the justice of the procedures that might be used to determine how benefits and burdens of various kinds are allocated to people, and the justice of the final allocation itself. It might initially seem as though the justice of a procedure can be reduced to the justice of the results produced by applying it, but this is not so. For one thing, there are cases in which the idea of an independently just outcome makes no sense. A coin toss is a fair way of deciding who starts a game, but neither the Blues nor the Reds have a claim of justice to bat first or kick off. But even where a procedure has been shaped by a concern that it should produce substantively just outcomes, it may still have special properties that make it intrinsically just. In that case, using a different procedure to produce the same result might be objectionable. In an influential discussion, John Rawls contrasted perfect procedural justice , where a procedure is such that if it is followed a just outcome is guaranteed (requiring the person who cuts a cake to take the last slice himself is the illustration Rawls provides), imperfect procedural justice , where the procedure is such that following it is likely, but not certain, to produce the just result, and pure procedural justice , such as the coin-tossing example, where there is no independent way to assess the outcome – if we call it just, it is only on the grounds that it has come about by following the relevant procedure (Rawls 1971, 1999, § 14).

Theories of justice can then be distinguished according to the relative weight they attach to procedures and substantive outcomes. Some theories are purely procedural in form. Robert Nozick distinguished between historical theories of justice, end-state theories, and patterned theories in order to defend the first against the second and third (Nozick 1974). An end-state theory defines justice in terms of some overall property of a distribution (of resources, welfare, etc.) – for example whether it is egalitarian, or whether the lowest position in the distribution is as high as it can be, as Rawls’ difference principle requires. A patterned theory looks at whether what each receives as part of a distribution matches some individual feature such as their desert or their need. By contrast, an historical theory asks about the process by which the final outcome has arisen. In Nozick’s particular case, a distribution of resources is said to be just if everyone within its scope is entitled to what they now own, having acquired it by legitimate means – such as voluntary contract or gift – from someone who was also entitled to have it, leading back eventually to a just act of acquisition – such as labouring on a plot of land – that gave the first owner his valid title. The shape of the final distribution is irrelevant: according to Nozick, justice is entirely a matter of the sequence of prior events that created it (for critical assessments of Nozick’s position, see Paul 1982, Wolff 1991, Cohen 1995, chs. 1–2).

For most philosophers, however, the justice of a procedure is to a large extent a function of the justice of the outcomes that it tends to produce when applied. For instance, the procedures that together make up a fair trial are justified on the grounds that for the most part they produce outcomes in which the guilty are punished and the innocent are acquitted. Yet even in these cases, we should be wary of assuming that the procedure itself has no independent value. We can ask of a procedure whether it treats the people to whom it is applied justly, for example by giving them adequate opportunities to advance their claims, not requiring them to provide personal information that they find humiliating to reveal, and so forth. Studies by social psychologists have shown that in many cases people care more about being treated fairly by the institutions they have to deal with than about how they fare when the procedure’s final result is known (Lind and Tyler 1988).

Justice takes a comparative form when to determine what is due to one person we need to look at what others can also claim: to determine how large a slice of pie is rightfully John’s, we have to know how many others have a claim to the pie, and also what the principle for sharing it should be – equality, or something else. Justice takes a non-comparative form when we can determine what is due to a person merely by knowing relevant facts about that particular person: if John has already been promised the whole of the pie, then that is what he can rightfully claim for himself. Some theories of justice seem to imply that justice is always a comparative notion – for example when it is said that justice consists in the absence of arbitrary inequality – whereas others imply that it is always non-comparative. But conceptually, at least, both forms seem admissible; indeed we can find cases in which it appears we have to choose between doing justice comparatively and doing it non-comparatively (see Feinberg 1974; for a critical response, see Montague 1980). For example, we might have several candidates all of whom are roughly equally deserving of an academic honour, but the number of honours we are permitted to award is smaller than the number of candidates. If we honour some but not others, we perpetrate a comparative injustice, but if to avoid doing so we honour no-one at all, then each is treated less well than they deserve, and so unjustly from a non-comparative perspective.

Theories of justice can then be categorised according to whether they are comparative, non-comparative, or neither. Principles of equality – principles requiring the equal distribution of some kind of benefit – are plainly comparative in form, since what is due to each person is simply an equal share of the benefit in question rather than any fixed amount. In the case of principles of desert, the position is less straightforward. These principles take the form ‘ A deserves X by virtue of P ’, where X is a mode of treatment, and P is a personal characteristic possessed by A (Feinberg 1970). In the case of both X and P , we can ask whether they are to be identified comparatively or non-comparatively. Thus what A deserves might either be an entitlement, or an absolute amount of some benefit – ‘a living wage’, say – or it might be a share of some collective benefit, or a multiple or fraction of what others are receiving – ‘twice what B is getting’, say. Turning to P , or what is often called the desert basis, this may be a feature of A that we can identify without reference to anyone else, or it may be a comparative feature, such as being the best student in a graduating class. So desert-based claims of justice might take one of four different forms depending on whether the basis of desert and/or the deserved mode of treatment is comparative or non-comparative (see Olsaretti 2003 for essays that address this question; for a more advanced treatment, see Kagan 2012, Part III).

Among principles of justice that are straightforwardly non-comparative are ‘sufficiency’ principles which hold that what justice requires is that each person should have ‘enough’, on some dimension or other – for instance, have all of their needs fulfilled, or have a specified set of capabilities that they are able to exercise (for a general defence of sufficiency, though not one that links it specifically to justice, see Frankfurt 2015; for a critique, see Casal 2007). Such principles, however, need to be supplemented by other principles, not only to tell us what to do with the surplus (assuming there is one) once everyone has sufficient resources, but also to guide us in situations where there are too few resources to bring everyone up to the sufficiency threshold. Should we, for example, maximise the number of people who achieve sufficiency, or minimise the aggregate shortfall suffered by those in the relevant group? Unless we are prepared to say that these are not matters of justice, a theory of justice that contains only the sufficiency principle and nothing else looks incomplete.

Some theories of justice cannot readily be classified either as comparative or as non-comparative. Consider one part of Rawls’ theory of social justice, the difference principle, which as noted above requires that social and economic inequalities be arranged to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged (Rawls 1971, 1999, §12–13). Under this principle, ideally just shares are calculated by determining what each person would receive under the set of social institutions whose economic effect is to raise the worst off person to the highest possible level. This is neither a fixed amount, nor one that depends in any direct sense on what other individuals are receiving, or should receive. Applying the difference principle does require making comparisons, but these are comparisons between the effects of different social institutions – say different tax laws, or different ways of defining property rights – not between individual people and the amounts of benefit they are receiving. We might call theories of this kind ‘holistic’ or ‘systemic’.

3. The Scope of Justice

When we raise questions about the scope of justice, we are asking about when principles of justice take effect and among whom . We have already, when discussing Hume, encountered the idea that there might be circumstances in which justice becomes irrelevant – circumstances in which resources are so abundant that it is pointless to allocate individual shares, or, as Hume also believed, in which resources are so scarce that everyone is permitted to grab what he can in the name of self-preservation. But even in circumstances that are less extreme than these, questions about scope arise. Who can make claims of justice, and who might have the corresponding obligation to meet them? Does this depend on the kind of thing that is being claimed? If comparative principles are being applied, who should be counted as part of the comparison group? Do some principles of justice have universal scope – they apply whenever agent A acts towards recipient B , regardless of the relationship between them – while others are contextual in character, applying only within social or political relationships of a certain kind? The present section examines some of these questions in greater detail.

What does a creature have to do, or be like, to be included within the scope of (at least some) principles of justice? Most past philosophers have assumed that the line should be drawn so as to exclude all non-human animals, but more recently some have been prepared to defend ‘justice for animals’ (Nussbaum 2006, ch. 6; Garner 2013). Against this, Rawls asserts that although we have ‘duties of compassion and humanity’ towards animals and should refrain from treating them cruelly, nonetheless they are ‘outside the scope of the theory of justice’ (Rawls 1971, p. 512; Rawls 1999, p. 448). How could this claim be justified?

We can focus our attention either on individual features that humans possess and animals lack, and that might be thought relevant to their inclusion within the scope of justice, or on asymmetries in the relationship between humans and other animals. To begin with the latter, Hume claimed that the domination humans exercised over animals – such that an animal could only possess something by virtue of our permission – meant that we were ‘bound by the laws of humanity to give gentle usage to these creatures, but should not, properly speaking, lie under any restraint of justice with regard to them’ (Hume, Enquiry , p. 190). For Rawls and those influenced by him, principles of distributive justice apply among agents who are related to one another as participants in a ‘cooperative venture for mutual advantage’, and this might seem to exclude animals from the scope of such principles. Critics of this view have pointed to cases of human-animal co-operation (Donaldson and Kymlicka 2011, Valentini 2014); however these arguments focus mainly or entirely on the special case of dogs , and it seems implausible to generalise from them in an attempt to show that human-animal relationships generally have a co-operative character.

But the claim that justice only applies to participants in co-operative practices is anyway vulnerable to the objection that it risks excluding seriously disabled people, people living in isolated communities, and future generations from the scope of justice, so it does not seem compelling as a claim about justice in general (see further below). Might there be other reasons why animals cannot make claims of justice on us? Another Rawls-inspired suggestion is that animals lack the necessary moral powers, in particular the capacity to act on principles of justice themselves. They cannot distinguish what is justly owed to them from what is not; and they cannot determine what they owe to others – whether to humans or to other non-human animals – as a matter of justice. This suggestion interprets justice as involving a kind of reciprocity: an agent to whom justice is due must also in principle be an agent who could dispense justice to others, by virtue of having the relevant capacity, even if for physical reasons – such as suffering from severe disability – they cannot do so in practice.

If this suggestion is rejected, and we allow that some animals, at least, should be included within the scope of justice, we can then ask about the form that justice should take in their cases. Using the distinction drawn in 2.4 above, it appears that justice for animals must be non-comparative. For example, we might attribute rights to the animals over whom we exercise power – rights against cruel treatment, and rights to food and shelter, for instance. This would involve using a sufficiency principle to determine what animals are owed as a matter of justice. It is much less plausible to think that comparative principles might apply, such that giving special treats to one cat but not another could count as an injustice.

The Rawlsian view introduced in the previous section, which holds that principles of social justice apply among people who are engaged together in a co-operative practice, is a leading example of a relational theory of justice. Other theories offer different accounts of the relevant justice-generating feature: for example, Nagel has argued that principles of distributive justice apply among people who by virtue of being citizens of the same state are required both to comply with, and accept responsibility for, the coercive laws that govern their lives (Nagel 2005). In both cases, the claim being made is that when people stand in a certain relationship to one another, they become subject to principles of justice whose scope is limited to those within the relationship. In particular, comparative principles apply within the relationship, but not beyond it. If A stands in a relationship (of the right kind) to B , then it becomes a matter of justice how A is treated relative to B , but it does not matter in the same way how A is treated relative to C who stands outside of the relationship. Justice may still require that C be given treatment of a certain kind, but that will be justice in its non-comparative guise.

Whether justice is relational in either of the ways that Rawls and Nagel suggest has large implications for its scope. In particular it bears on the question whether there is such a thing as global distributive justice, or, in contrast, whether distributive principles only apply to people who are related together as members of the same society or citizens of the same state. For example, might the global inequalities that exist between rich and poor in today’s world be unjust simply as inequalities, or are they unjust only insofar as they prevent poor people from living lives that we judge to be acceptable? (see entries on international distributive justice and global justice ) So much hangs on the question whether, and if so in virtue of what, distributive justice has a relational character. What reason can be given for thinking that it does?

Suppose we have two people A and B , of whom one is significantly better off than another – has greater opportunities or a higher income, say. Why should this be a concern of justice? It seems it will not be a concern unless it can be shown that the inequality between A and B can be attributed to the behaviour of some agent, individual or collective, whose actions or omissions have resulted in A being better off than B – in which case we can ask whether the inequality between them is justifiable, say on grounds of their respective deserts. This reiterates the claim in 1.4 above that without an agent to whom the outcome can be attributed there can only be justice or injustice in a metaphorical, ‘cosmic’, sense. Relational theorists claim that when people associate with one another in the relevant way, they become agents of justice. On a small scale they can organize informally to ensure that each receives what is due to him relative to the rest. On a larger scale, distributive justice requires the creation of legal and other institutions to achieve that outcome. Moreover failure to co-ordinate their actions in this way is likely to be a source of injustice by omission.

Debates about the scope of justice then become debates about whether different forms of human association are of the right kind to create agency in the relevant sense. Take the question of whether principles of social justice should apply to market transactions. If we see the market as a neutral arena in which many individual people freely pursue their own purposes, then the answer will be No. The only form of justice that arises will be justice in the conduct of each agent, who must avoid inflicting harm on others, must fulfil her contracts, and so forth. Whereas if we see the market as governed by a humanly-constructed system of rules that the participants collectively have the power to change – by legislation, for example – then we cannot avoid asking whether the outcomes it currently produces meet relevant standards of distributive justice, whatever we take these to be. A similar issue arises in the debate about over principles of global justice referred to above: is the current world order such that it makes sense to regard humanity as a whole as a collective agent responsible for the distributive outcomes it allows to occur?

Once institutions are established for the purpose (among other things) of delivering justice on a large scale, we can ask what duties of justice individual people have in consequence. Is their duty simply to support the institutions, and comply with whatever rules of conduct apply to them personally? Or do they have further duties to promote justice by acting directly on the relevant principles in their daily lives? No one doubts that some duties of justice fall directly on individuals, for example duties not to deceive or defraud when engaging in commercial transactions (and duties of corrective justice where behaviour is faulty), or duties to carry out one’s fair share of an informally organized project from which one expects to benefit, such as cleaning up the neighbourhood park. Others fall on them because they are performing a role within a social institution, for example the duty of an employer not to discriminate on grounds of race or gender when hiring workers, or the duty of a local government officer to assign public housing to those in greatest need. But what is much more in dispute is whether individual people have more extensive duties to promote social justice (for contrasting views, see Cohen 2008, ch. 3, Murphy 1998, Rawls 1993, Lecture VII, Young 2011, ch. 2).

Consider two cases: the first concerns parents who confer advantages on their children in ways that undermine fair equality of opportunity. If the latter principle of justice requires, to cite Rawls, that ‘those who have the same level of talent and ability and the same willingness to use these gifts should have the same prospects of success regardless of their social class of origin’ (Rawls 2001, p. 44) then there are myriad ways in which some parents can bestow advantages on their children that other parents cannot – financial benefits, educational opportunities, social contacts, and so forth – that are likely to bring greater success in later life. Are parents therefore constrained as a matter of justice to avoid conferring at least some of these advantages, or are they free to benefit their children as they choose, leaving the pursuit of equal opportunities entirely in the hands of the state (for a careful analysis, see Brighouse and Swift 2014)?

The second example concerns wage differentials. Might individuals whose talents can bring them high rewards in the labour market have a duty not to make use of their bargaining power, but instead be willing to work for a fair wage – which if fairness is understood in egalitarian terms might mean the same wage as everyone else (perhaps with extra compensation for those whose labour is unusually burdensome)? Rawls, as we saw above, argued that economic justice meant arranging social and economic inequalities to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, and in formulating the principle in this way he assumed that some inequalities might serve as incentives to greater production that would also raise the position of the worst-off group in society. But if individuals were willing to forego incentives, and so economic inequalities served no useful purpose, then the arrangement that worked to the greatest benefit of the (otherwise) least advantaged would be one of strict equality. Cohen (2008) argues that Rawls’ position is internally inconsistent. As citizens designing our institutions we are supposed to be guided by the difference principle, but as private actors in the marketplace, we are permitted to ignore that principle and bargain for higher wages, even though doing so will work to the disadvantage of the worst-off group. Justice, according to Cohen, requires us to embrace an ethos of service that disdains material incentives.

Why might we hesitate before agreeing that in cases such as these, justice requires people to refrain from doing things that they are permitted to do by the public rules of their society (passing on benefits to their children; seeking higher wages)? One reason is that the refraining is only going to have a significant effect if it is practised on a large scale, and individuals have no assurance that others will follow their example; meanwhile they (or their children) will lose out relative to the less scrupulous. A connected reason has to do with publicity: it may be hard to detect whether people are following the required ethos or not (see Williams 1998). Is the person who sends her child to a private school because she claims he has special needs that the local state school cannot meet being sincere, or is she just trying to buy him comparative advantage? How can we tell whether the person who claims more money, but merely, he says, as compensation for the unusual stress that his work involves, is reporting honestly? (for Cohen’s response, see Cohen 2008, ch. 8) It appears, then, that there are principles of justice that apply to what Rawls calls ‘the basic structure of society [as] a public system of rules’ that do not apply in the same way to the personal behaviour of the individuals who live within that structure. Attending to the scope , as well as the content , of justice is important.

Recent philosophical writing on justice has drawn attention to forms of injustice that do not involve the material treatment that people receive, either from other persons or from institutions, but the harms they suffer through failures of recognition. They are impacted by social norms and social practices that diminish their sense of agency and induce them to see themselves as of lesser value than others. Here then justice is understood as being adequately and appropriately recognized, and injustice as involving failures of recognition, or in some cases ‘misrecognition’, when a person is placed in a category or assigned an identity that is not their own. In one influential formulation of this idea, ‘it is unjust that some individuals and groups are denied the status of full partners in social interaction simply as a consequence of institutionalized patterns of cultural value in whose construction they have not equally participated and which disparage their distinctive characteristics or the distinctive characteristics assigned to them’ (Fraser in Fraser and Honneth 2003, p. 29).

What, then, does it mean to be recognized? In general it means to be viewed and treated by others in the way that is appropriate to the features that you possess, but most philosophers regard recognition as multidimensional. In particular, they distinguish between being recognized as an equal, where a person is accorded the kind of standing that gives them an equal status with other members of the relevant group, and being recognized for having characteristics, achievements or an identity that may be uniquely their own. Recognition in this second sense may involve the unequal granting of social esteem. Justice as recognition, therefore, is internally complex. At the social level, Axel Honneth distinguishes ‘three forms of social recognition, based in the sphere-specific principles of love, equal legal treatment, and social esteem’ (Fraser and Honneth 2003 p. 180)

The question that arises is how best to understand the relationship between justice of this kind and distributive justice, involving the allocation of material resources and so forth. For Honneth, justice as recognition is understood expansively so that it can also capture issues of economic justice, the thought being that the harm inflicted when, say, labour is not adequately rewarded can be understood as a failure to offer adequate recognition of the worker’s social contribution. For Nancy Fraser, by contrast, recognition and redistribution are seen as two mutually irreducible but jointly necessary conditions for social justice. Failures of recognition can be experienced by some among the economically privileged – such as ‘the African-American Wall Street banker who cannot get a taxi to pick him up’ (Fraser and Honneth 2003, p. 34). Justice as recognition requires cultural shifts in the way that different forms of identity and different types of achievement are valued that are independent of the institutional changes required to achieve distributive justice.

A particular form of recognitional injustice is epistemic injustice as diagnosed by Miranda Fricker (Fricker 2007). This occurs when someone is wronged in their capacity as a source of knowledge, and it takes two main forms: testimonial injustice and hermeneutic injustice. As Fricker explains ‘testimonial injustice occurs when prejudice causes a hearer to give a deflated level of credibility to a speaker’s word; hermeneutical injustice occurs at a prior stage when a gap in collective interpretive resources puts someone as at an unfair disadvantage when it comes to making sense of their social experiences’ (Fricker 2007, p. 1). She argues that testimonial injustice matters for two reasons. First, the person who suffers from it is less able to protect or advance their interests – for example they are less likely to be believed when having to defend themselves in court. Second, since others are unwilling to regard them as competent sources of knowledge, they may lose trust in their own capacity to know, leading in some cases to ‘prolonged self-doubt and loss of intellectual confidence’.

Hermeneutical injustice arises in the context of unequal relationships in which the subordinated party lacks the concept or concepts needed to make sense of their experience (and thereby to challenge their subordination). Fricker uses the example of a woman who suffered sexual harassment at the time before feminists had developed that concept, and so had no adequate word to describe what she was experiencing. Hermeneutical injustice matters most when it is systematic, brought about by power inequalities that leave certain groups ‘hermeneutically marginalised’. However she treats epistemic justice as a virtue that individual hearers can develop, in contrast to recognition theorists like Fraser and Honneth for whom achieving recognitional justice requires collective action to change social and cultural norms on the part of misrecognized groups.

4. Utilitarianism and Justice

Can justice be understood in utilitarian terms? This may in the first place depend on how we interpret utilitarianism. We treat it here as a normative theory whose aim is to supply a criterion – the greatest happiness principle – that can be used, directly or indirectly, both by individuals and by institutions (such as states) in deciding what to do, rather than simply as a tool for evaluating states of affairs. Utilitarianism cannot plausibly provide a theory of justice unless it is interpreted in this action-guiding way, in light of what was said above about justice and agency. We also assume that the most likely candidate will be a rule-utilitarian view that treats principles of justice as belonging to the set of rules which when followed by the relevant agents will tend to produce the greatest total utility (for different ways of formulating this view, see the entry on rule consequentialism) .

Most utilitarians have regarded it as part of their task in defending utilitarianism to show that it can both accommodate and explain much of what we intuitively believe about justice. This is certainly true of two of the greatest among them, John Stuart Mill and Sidgwick, both of whom went to considerable lengths to show that familiar principles of justice could be given a utilitarian rationale (Mill Utilitarianism , ch. 5; Sidgwick 1874/1907, Book III, ch.5). Bentham, in contrast, was more cavalier: ‘justice, in the only sense in which it has a meaning, is an imaginary personage, feigned for the convenience of discourse, whose dictates are the dictates of utility, applied to certain particular cases’ ( The Principles of Morals and Legislation , pp. 125–6). If we follow the lead of Mill and Sidgwick in wishing to take seriously how justice is commonly understood, the utilitarian has two challenges to face. First he or she must show that the demands of justice as commonly understood correspond roughly to the rules that when followed by persons, or implemented by institutions, are most conducive to the greatest happiness. They need not mirror the latter exactly, because utilitarians will argue, as both Mill and Sidgwick did, that our intuitions about justice are often ambiguous or internally inconsistent, but there must be enough overlap to warrant the claim that what the utilitarian theory can accommodate and explain is indeed justice . (As Sidgwick (1874/1907, p. 264) put it, ‘we may, so to speak, clip the ragged edge of common usage, but we must not make excision of any considerable portion’.) Second, some explanation must be given for the distinctiveness of justice. Why do we have a concept that is used to mark off a particular set of requirements and claims if the normative basis for these requirements and claims is nothing other than general utility? What accounts for our intuitive sense of justice? The task confronting the utilitarian, then, is to systematize our understanding of justice without obliterating it.

By way of illustration, both Mill and Sidgwick recognize that desert , of both reward and punishment, is a key component of common understandings of justice, but they argue that if we remain at the level of common sense when we try to analyse it, we run into irresolvable contradictions. For instance, we are inclined to think that a person’s deserts should depend on what they have actually achieved – say the economic value of what they have produced – but also, because achievement will depend on factors for which the person in question can claim no credit, such as inborn talent, that their deserts should depend only on factors for which they are directly responsible, such as the amount of effort they expend. Each of these conceptions, when put into practice, would lead to a quite different schedule of rewards, and the only means to escape the impasse, these utilitarians claim, is to ask which schedule will generate most utility by directing people’s choices and efforts in the most socially productive way. Similar reasoning applies to the principles of punishment: the rules we should follow are the rules that are most conducive to the ends for which punishment is instituted, such as deterring crime.

To explain the distinctiveness of justice, Mill suggests that it designates moral requirements that, because of their very great importance to human well-being, people have a right to have discharged, and are therefore matters of perfect obligation. A person who commits an injustice is always liable to punishment of some kind, he argues. So he explains our sense of justice in terms of the resentment we feel towards someone who breaches these requirements. Sidgwick, who laid greater stress than Mill on the connection between justice and law, also underlined the relationship between justice and gratitude, on one side, and resentment, on the other, in order to capture the way in which our concern for justice seems to differ from our concern for utility in general.

Yet despite these efforts to reconcile justice and utility, three serious obstacles still remain. The first concerns what we might call the currency of justice: justice has to do with the way that tangible benefits and burdens are assigned, and not with the happiness or unhappiness that the assignees experience. It is a matter of justice, for example, that people should be paid the right amount for the jobs that they do, but, special circumstances aside, it is no concern of justice that John derives more satisfaction from his fairly-earned income than Jane does from hers (but see Cohen 1989 for a different view). There is so to speak, a division of labour, under which rights, opportunities, and material benefits of various kinds are allocated by principles of justice, while the conversion of these into units of utility (or disutility) is the responsibility of each individual recipient (see Dworkin 2000, ch. 1). Utilitarians will therefore find it hard to explain what from their point of view seems to be the fetishistic concern of justice over how the means to happiness are distributed, rather than happiness itself.

The second obstacle is that utilitarianism judges outcomes by totalling up utility levels, and has no independent concern for how that utility is distributed between persons. So even if we set aside the currency issue, utilitarian theory seems unable to capture justice’s demand that each should receive what is due to her regardless of the total amount of benefit this generates. Defenders of utilitarianism will argue that when the conduct-guiding rules are being formulated, attention will be paid to distributive questions. In particular, when resources are being distributed among people we know little about individually, there are good reasons to favour equality, since in most cases resources have diminishing marginal utility – the more of them you have, the less satisfaction you derive from additional instalments. Yet this is only a contingent matter. If some people are very adept at turning resources into well-being – they are so-called ‘utility monsters’ – then a utilitarian should support a rule that privileges them. This seems repugnant to justice. As Rawls famously put the general point, ‘each member of society is thought to have an inviolability founded on justice which….even the welfare of every one else cannot override’ (Rawls 1971, p. 28; Rawls 1999, pp. 24–25).

The third and final difficulty stems from utilitarianism’s thoroughgoing consequentialism. Rules are assessed strictly in the light of the consequences of adopting then, not in terms of their intrinsic properties. Of course, when agents follow rules, they are meant to do what the rule requires rather than to calculate consequences directly. But for a utilitarian, it is never going to be a good reason for adopting a rule that it will give people what they deserve or what they are entitled to, when desert or entitlement are created by events in the past, such as a person’s having performed a worthwhile action or entered an agreement. Backward-looking reasons have to be transmuted into forward-looking reasons in order to count. If a rule such as pacta sunt servanda (‘agreements must be kept’) is going to be adopted on utilitarian grounds, this is not because there is any inherent wrongness in defaulting on a compact one has made, but because a rule that compacts must be kept is a useful one, since it allows people to co-ordinate their behaviour knowing that their expectations about the future are likely to be met. But justice, although not always backward-looking in the sense explained, often is. What is due to a person is in many cases what they deserve for what they have done, or what they are entitled to by virtue of past transactions. So even if it were possible to construct a forward-looking rationale for having rules that closely tracked desert or entitlement as these are normally understood, the utilitarian still cannot capture the sense of justice – why it matters that people should get what is due to then – that informs our common-sense judgements.

Utilitarians might reply that their reconstruction preserves what is rationally defensible in common sense beliefs while what it discards are elements that cannot survive sustained critical reflection. But this would bring them closer to Bentham’s view that justice, as commonly understood, is nothing but a ‘phantom’.

5. Contractarianism and Justice

The shortcomings of utilitarianism have prompted several recent philosophers to revive the old idea of the social contract as a better way of bringing coherence to our thinking about justice. The idea here is not that people actually have entered a contract to establish justice, or that they should proceed to do so, but that we can understand justice better by asking the question: what principles to govern their institutions, practices and personal behaviour would people choose to adopt if they all had to agree on them in advance? The contract, in other words, is hypothetical; but the search for agreement is meant to ensure that the principles chosen would, when implemented, not lead to outcomes that people could not accept. Thus whereas a utilitarian might, under some circumstances, be prepared to support slavery – if the misery of the slaves were outweighed by the heightened pleasures of the slave-owners – contractarians claims that no-one could accept a principle permitting slavery, lest they themselves were destined to be slaves when the principle was applied.

The problem that contractarians face is to show how such an agreement is possible. If we were to ask people, in the real world, what principles they would prefer to live under, they are likely to start from a position of quite radical disagreement, given their interests and their beliefs. Some might even be willing to endorse slavery, if they were fairly certain that they would not end up as slaves themselves, or if they were sado-masochists who viewed the humiliations inflicted on slaves in a positive light. So in order to show how agreement could be achieved, contractarians have to model the contracting parties in a particular way, either by limiting what they are allowed to know about themselves or about the future, or by attributing to them certain motivations while excluding others. Since the modelling can be done differently, we have a family of contractarian theories of justice, three of whose most important members are the theories of Gauthier, Rawls and Scanlon.

Gauthier (1986) presents the social contract as a bargain between rational individuals who can gain through co-operating with one another, but who are competing over the division of the resulting surplus. He assumes that each is interested only in trying to maximise his own welfare, and he also assumes that there is a non-co-operative baseline from which the bargaining begins – so nobody would accept a solution that left her less well off than in the baseline condition. Each person can identify the outcome under which they fare best – their maximum gain – but they have no reason to expect others to accept that. Gauthier argues that rational bargainers will converge on the principle of Minimax Relative Concession , which requires each to concede the same relative proportion of their maximum possible gain relative to the non-co-operative baseline. Thus suppose there is a feasible arrangement whereby each participant can achieve two-thirds of their maximum gain, but no arrangement under which they all do better than that, then this is the arrangement that the principle recommends. Each person has made the same concession relative to the outcome that is best for them personally – not accepting the same absolute loss of welfare, let it be noted, but the same proportionate loss.

There are some internal difficulties with Gauthier’s theory that need to be recorded briefly (for a full discussion, see Barry 1989, esp. Part III). One is whether Minimax Relative Concession is in fact the correct solution to the bargaining problem that Gauthier introduces, as opposed to the standard Nash solution which (in a simple two-person case) selects the outcome in which the product of the two parties’ utilities is maximised (for discussion of different solutions to the bargaining problem, see the entry on contemporary approaches to the social contract , § 3.2). A second is whether Gauthier is able to justify positing a ‘Lockean’ baseline, under which each is assumed to respect the natural rights of the others, as the starting point for bargaining over the surplus – as opposed to a more conflictual ‘Hobbesian’ baseline in which individuals are permitted to use their natural powers to threaten one another in the process of establishing what each could expect to get in the absence of co-operation. But the larger question is whether a contract modelled in this way is an appropriate device for delivering principles of justice. On the one hand, it captures the idea that the practice of justice should work to everyone’s advantage, while requiring all those involved to moderate the demands they make on one another. On the other hand, it prescribes a final distribution of benefit that appears morally arbitrary, in the sense that A ’s bargaining advantage over B – which stems from the fact that his maximum possible gain is greater than hers – allows him to claim a higher level of benefit as a matter of justice . This seems implausible: there may be prudential reasons to recommend a distribution that reflects the outcome that self-interested and rational bargainers would arrive at, but claims of justice need a different basis.

John Rawls’ theory of justice is the most widely-cited example of a contractarian theory, but before outlining it, two words of caution are necessary. First, the shape of the theory has evolved from its first incarnation in Rawls (1958) through his major work A Theory of Justice (Rawls 1971) and on to Rawls (1993) and Rawls (2001). Second, although Rawls has consistently claimed that the principles of justice he defends are the principles that would be selected by people in a suitably designed ‘original position’ in which they are asked to choose the social and political institutions they will live under – this is what qualifies his theory as contractarian – it is less clear how important a role the contract itself plays in his thinking. His principles, which are discussed elsewhere (see the entry on John Rawls) , can be defended on their own merits as a theory of social justice for a modern liberal society, even if their contractual grounding proves to be unsound. Rawls presents the contracting parties as seeking to advance their own interests as they decide which principles to favour, but under two informational constraints. First, they are not allowed to know their own ‘conception of the good’ – what ends they personally find it most valuable to pursue – so the principles must be couched in terms of ‘primary goods’, understood as goods that it is better to have more rather than less of whatever conception of the good you favour. Second, they are placed behind a ‘veil of ignorance’ that deprives them of any knowledge of personal characteristics, such as their gender, their place in society, or the talents and skills they possess. This means that they have no basis on which to bargain for advantage, and have to consider themselves as generic persons who might be male or female, talented or untalented, and so forth. In consequence, Rawls argues, all will choose to live under impartial principles that work to no-one’s advantage in particular.

The problem for Rawls, however, is to show that the principles that would be selected in such an original position are in fact recognizable as principles of justice . One might expect the parties to calculate how to weigh the primary goods (which Rawls catalogues as ‘rights and liberties, opportunities and powers, income and wealth’) against each other, and then to choose as their social principle ‘maximise the weighted sum of primary goods, averaged across all persons’. This, however, would bring the theory very close to utilitarianism, since the natural method of weighing primary goods is to ask how much utility having a given quantity of each is likely, on average, to bring (for the claim that utilitarianism would be chosen in a Rawlsian original position, see Harsanyi 1975). Since Rawls wishes to reject utilitarianism, he has to adjust the psychology of the parties in the original position so that they reason differently. Thus he suggests that, at least in developed societies, people have special reason to prioritise liberty over the other goods and to ensure that it is equally distributed: he argues that this is essential to safeguard their self-respect. In later writing his argument is less empirical: now the parties to the contract are endowed with ‘moral powers’ that must be exercised, and it is then fairly easy to show that this requires them to have a set of basic liberties.

When he turns to the distribution of income and wealth, Rawls has to show why his choosers would pick the difference principle, which considers only the position of the worst-off social group, over other principles such as maximising average income across the whole society. In Theory of Justice he does this by attributing special psychological features to the choosers that make it appropriate for them to follow the ‘maximin’ rule for decisions under uncertainty (choose the option whose worst possible outcome is least bad for you). For example, they are said to be much more concerned to achieve the minimum level of income that the difference principle would guarantee them than to enjoy increases above that level. In his later work, he abandons this reliance on maximin reasoning and gives greater prominence to another argument hinted at in Theory . This portrays the contracting parties as starting out from the presumption that income and wealth should be distributed equally, but then recognizing that all can benefit by permitting certain inequalities to arise. When these inequalities are governed by the difference principle, they can be justified to everyone, including the worst off, thus creating the conditions for a more stable society. But we need then to ask why equal distribution should be treated as the benchmark, departures from which require special justification. When Rawls says that it is ‘not reasonable’ for any of the parties initially to expect more than an equal share (Rawls 1971, p. 150; Rawls 1999, p. 130), is this simply a corollary of their position as rational choosers behind a veil of ignorance, or has Rawls in addition endowed them with a substantive sense of justice that includes this presumption of equality?

Although Rawls throughout presents his theory of justice as contractarian, we can now see that the terms of the contract are in part determined by prior normative principles that Rawls engineers the parties to follow. So in contrast to Gauthier, it is no longer simply a case of self-interested contractors negotiating their way to an agreement. Rawls candidly admits that the contractual situation has to be adjusted so that it yields results that match our pre-existing convictions about justice. But then we may ask how much work the contractual apparatus is really doing (see Barry 1989, ch. 9 for a critical appraisal).

Scanlon (1998) does not attempt to deliver a theory of justice in the same sense as Rawls, but his contractarian account of that part of morality that specifies ‘what we owe to each other’ covers much of the same terrain (for an explicit attempt to analyse justice in Scanlonian terms, see Barry 1995). Like Rawls, Scanlon is concerned to develop an alternative to utilitarianism, and he does so by developing a test that any candidate moral principle must pass: it must be such that no-one could reasonably reject it as the basis for informed, unforced general agreement (see the entry on contractualism ). Scanlon’s contractors are not positioned behind a veil of ignorance. They are able to see what effect adopting any proposed principle would have on them personally. If that effect is unacceptable to them, they are permitted to reject it. Each person has, so to speak, a veto on any general principle for regulating conduct. Those that survive this test are defensible as principles of justice – Scanlon concedes that there might be alternative sets of such principles appropriate to different social conditions.

It might seem, however, that giving each person a veto would lead straightforwardly to deadlock, since anyone might reject a principle under which he fared badly relative to some alternative. Here the idea of reasonable rejection becomes important. It would not, Scanlon thinks, be reasonable to reject a principle under which one does badly if the alternatives all involve someone else faring worse still. One needs to take account of other people’s reasons for rejecting these alternatives. It might then appear that Scanlon’s contractualism yields the difference principle, which requires the worst-off group in society to be as well of as they can be. But this is not the conclusion that Scanlon draws (though he acknowledges that there might be special reasons to follow Rawls in requiring basic social institutions to follow the difference principle). The claims of other groups must be considered too. If a policy greatly benefits many others, while slightly worsening the position of a few, though without leaving them very badly off, it may well not be rejectable. Scanlon’s position leaves some room for aggregation – it makes a difference how many people will be benefitted if a principle is followed – though not the simple form of aggregation that utilitarians defend.

Scanlon also says that a person can have a reason for rejecting a principle if it treats them unfairly, say by benefitting some but not others for arbitrary reasons. This presupposes a norm of fairness that the contractarian theory does not itself attempt to explain or justify. So it looks as though the purpose of the theory is to provide a distinctive account of moral reasoning (and moral motivation) but not to defend any substantive principles of distributive justice. In this respect, Scanlon’s contractualism is less ambitious than either Gauthier’s or Rawls’.

6. Egalitarianism and Justice

In the recent past, many philosophers have sought to establish a close connection between justice and equality: they ask the question ‘what kind of equality does justice require?’, and to that several competing answers have been given (see, for example Cohen 1989, Dworkin 2000, Sen 1980). But we should not be too hasty to assume that what justice demands is always equality, whether of treatment or of outcome. Perhaps it does so only in a formal sense. As we saw in sect 1.3, justice requires the impartial and consistent application of rules, from which it follows that when two people are alike in all relevant respects, they must be treated equally. But, as Aristotle among others saw, justice also involves the idea of proportional treatment, which implies recipients getting unequal amounts of whatever good is at issue (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics , Book V, ch. 3). If A is twice as deserving or twice as needy as B , justice may require that she receives more than B does. So here formal equality of treatment – the same rule applied to both – leads to an unequal outcome. Again, when justice takes the conservative form of respect for existing entitlements or legitimate expectations (see para 2.1) there is no reason to anticipate that what is due to different people will be substantively the same.

So we need to ask about the circumstances in which justice requires a substantively equal distribution of advantages. One rather obvious case occurs when the members of the group within which the distribution is going to occur have no relevant distinguishing features, so there are no grounds on which some can claim greater shares of benefit than others. Suppose a group experiences a windfall gain for which no-one can claim any credit: a pot of gold somehow appears in their midst. Then unless any member can make a justice-related claim for a larger-than-equal share – say that she has special needs that she lacks sufficient resources to meet – an equal distribution of the gold is what justice demands, since any other distribution would be arbitrary. Equality here is the default principle that applies in the absence of any special claims that can be presented as reasons of justice.

Equality also acts as a default in circumstances where, although people may indeed have unequal claims to whatever good is being distributed, we have no reliable way of identifying and measuring those claims. By sharing the good equally, we can at least ensure that every claim has been partially satisfied. Thus suppose we have limited supplies of a drug that can treat malaria, and a number of patients displaying symptoms of the disease, but lacking specialised medical knowledge we cannot tell whether one person’s condition is more serious than another’s; then by sharing out the drug equally, we can guarantee that each person at least receives the highest fraction of what they really need. Any other distribution must leave at least one person with less (this of course assumes that there is no threshold amount of the drug beneath which it is ineffective; if that assumption is wrong, justice under the stated conditions might require a lottery in which the chosen ones receive threshold-size doses).

If justice requires equality only by default, it might seem to apply only in a narrow range of cases. How could egalitarian justice be made more robust? One approach involves declaring a wider range of factors irrelevant to just distribution. Thus one formulation of the principle holds that no-one should be worse-off than anyone else as a result of their ‘morally arbitrary’ characteristics, where a characteristic is morally arbitrary when its possessor cannot claim credit for having it. This captures a widespread intuition that people should not be advantaged or disadvantaged by virtue of their race or gender, but extends it (more controversially) to all personal features with a genetic basis, such as natural talents and inborn dispositions. In doing so, it discounts most claims of desert, since when people are said to deserve benefits of various kinds, it is usually for performing actions or displaying qualities that depend upon innate characteristics such as strength or intelligence. In the following section, we will see how egalitarian theories of justice have tried to incorporate some desert-like elements by way of response. But otherwise justice as equality and justice as desert appear to be in conflict, and the challenge is to show what can justify equal treatment in the face of inequalities of desert.

A second approach answers this challenge by explaining why it is positively valuable to afford people equal treatment even if they do display features that might appear to justify differential treatment. A prominent advocate of this approach is Dworkin, who argues that fundamental to justice is a principle of equal concern and respect for persons, and what this means in more concrete term is that equal resources should be devoted to the life of each member of society (Dworkin 2000). (The reference to membership here is not redundant, because Dworkin understands egalitarian justice as a principle that must be applied within sovereign states specifically – so in the terms of 3.2, this is a relational view of justice.) The thought is that showing persons equal respect may sometimes require us to afford them equal treatment, even in the face of relevant grounds for discrimination. Thus we insist on political equality – one person, one vote – even though we know that there are quite large differences in people’s competence to make political decisions.

As noted above, justice as simple equality of treatment seems open to the objection that it fails to acknowledge the agency of the recipients, who may have acted in ways that appear to qualify them to receive more (or less) of whatever benefit is being distributed. To answer this objection, several recent philosophers have presented alternative versions of ‘responsibility-sensitive egalitarianism’ – a family of theories of justice that treat equal distribution as a starting point but allow for departures from that baseline when these result from the responsible choices made by individuals (see Knight and Stemplowska 2011 for examples). These theories differ along several dimensions: the ‘currency of justice’ used to define the baseline of equality, the conditions that must be fulfilled for a choice to qualify as responsible, and which among the consequences that follow from a choice should count when the justice of an outcome is being assessed (it may in particular appear unjust to allow people to suffer the full consequences of bad choices that they could not reasonably have anticipated). The label that is often used to describe a sub-class of these theories is ‘luck egalitarianism’. According to luck egalitarians, justice requires that no-one should be disadvantaged relative to others on account of ‘brute’ bad luck, whereas inequalities that arise through the exercise of personal responsibility are permissible (for a full discussion of luck egalitarianism, see the entry on justice and bad luck ). ‘Brute’ luck is interpreted widely to include not only external circumstances such as one person’s initially having access to more resources than another, but also internal factors such as possessing natural abilities or disabilities, or having involuntarily acquired expensive tastes. All such inequalities are to be ironed out by redistribution or compensation, while people’s choices about how to use the assets they are granted should be respected, even if this leads to significant inequality in the long run.

Luck egalitarianism has proved surprisingly influential in recent debates on justice, despite the evident difficulties involved in, for example, quantifying ‘brute luck disadvantage’ in such a way that a compensatory scheme could be established. There are, however, a number of problems it has to face. By giving scope to personal responsibility, it seeks to capture what is perhaps the most attractive part of the conventional idea of desert – that people should be rewarded for making good choices and penalised for making bad ones – while filtering out the effects of having (undeserved) natural talents. But in reality the choices that people make are influenced by the talents and other qualities that they happen to have already. So if we allow someone to reap advantages by, for example, devoting long hours to learning to play the piano at a high level, we must recognize that this is a choice that she would almost certainly not have made unless early experiment showed that she was musically gifted. We cannot say what she would have chosen to do in a counterfactual world in which she was tone deaf. There seems then to be no coherent half-way house between accepting full-blooded desert and denying that people can justly claim relative advantage through the exercise of responsibility and choice (see further Miller 1999, ch. 7) .

A second problem is that one person’s exercise of responsibility may prove advantageous or disadvantageous to others, even though they have done nothing to bring this change about, so from their point of view it must count as ‘brute’ luck. This will be true, for example, in any case in which people are competing to excel in some field, where successful choices made by A will worsen the comparative position of B , C , and D . Or again, if A acts in a way that benefits B , but does nothing comparable to improve the position of C and D , then an inequality is created that counts as ‘brute bad luck’ from the perspective of the latter. One of the most influential exponents of luck egalitarianism seems to have recognized the problem in a late essay: ‘unlike plain egalitarianism, luck egalitarianism is paradoxical, because the use of shares by people is bound to lead to a distribution flecked by luck’ (Cohen 2011, p. 142).

We have seen that equality can sometimes be understood as required by justice; but it can also be valued independently. Indeed there can be circumstances in which the two values collide, because what justice demands is inequality of outcome. The kind of inequality that is independently valuable is social equality, best understood as a property of the relationships that prevail within a society: people regard and treat each other as social equals, and the society’s institutions are designed to foster and reflect such attitudes. A society of equals contrasts with one in which people belong to different ranks in a social hierarchy, and behave towards one another as their relative ranking prescribes. Different reasons can be given for objecting to social inequality, and conversely for valuing social equality (see Scanlon 2003).

Those who find equality valuable for reasons other than reasons of distributive justice are often described as ‘relational egalitarians’ (see Anderson 1999, Wolff 1998, Fourie, Schuppert and Wallimann-Helmer 2015). It is tempting to regard relational egalitarianism as a rival theory of justice to the luck egalitarian theory outlined in §6.2, but it may be more illuminating to see it instead as providing an alternative account of why we should care about limiting material inequality. Thus, faced with a world like the one we currently inhabit in which income differences are very large, justice theorists are likely to criticize these inequalities on grounds that they are not deserved, or arise from brute luck, etc., whereas relational egalitarians will say that they create a divided society in which people are alienated from each other, and cannot interact in a mutually respectful way. Relational equality does not address issues of distribution directly, and so cannot function as a theory of justice itself, but it can provide grounds for preferring one theory of justice to its rivals – namely that implementing that particular theory is more likely to create or sustain a society of equals.

We saw at the beginning of this article that justice can take a number of different forms, depending on the practical context in which it is being applied. Although we found common elements running through this diversity of use – most readily captured in Justinian’s ‘suum cuique ’ formula – these were formal rather than substantive. In these circumstances, it is natural to look for an overarching framework into which the various contextually specific conceptions of justice can all be fitted. Three such frameworks were examined: utilitarianism, contractarianism and egalitarianism. None, however, passed what we might call the ‘Sidgwick/Rawls test’, namely that of incorporating and explaining the majority at least of our considered convictions about justice – beliefs that we feel confident in holding about what justice requires us to do in a wide and varied range of circumstances (for Rawls’ version of the test see the entry on reflective equilibrium ). So unless we are willing to jettison many of these convictions in order to uphold one or other general framework, we will need to accept that no comprehensive theory of justice is available to us; we will have to make do with partial theories – theories about what justice requires in particular domains of human life. Rawls himself, despite the bold title of his first book ( A Theory of Justice ), came to recognize that what he had outlined was at best a theory of social justice applied to the basic institutional structure of a modern liberal state. Other forms of justice – familial, allocative, associational, international – with their associated principles would be applicable in their respective domains (for an even more explicitly pluralist account of justice, see Walzer 1983; for a fuller defence of a contextual approach to justice, see Miller 2013, esp. ch. 2).

One way to loosen up our thinking about justice is by paying greater attention to the history of the concept. We can learn a great deal by reading what Aristotle, or Aquinas, or Hume, has to say about the concept, but as we do so, we also see that elements we would expect to find are missing (there is nothing about rights in Aristotle, for example), while others that we would not anticipate are present. This may in some part be due to the idiosyncrasies of each thinker, but more importantly it reflects differences in the form of social life in which each was embedded – its economic, legal and political structure, especially. Various attempts have been made to write histories of justice that are more than just catalogues of what individual thinkers have said: they aim to trace and explain systematic shifts in the way that justice has been interpreted (for contrasting examples, see MacIntyre 1988, Fleischacker 2004, Johnston 2011). These should not be read as enlightenment stories in which our understanding of justice steadily improves as the centuries roll by. MacIntyre’s view, for example, is that modern liberal societies cannot sustain the practices within which notions of justice find their proper home. We can get a better grasp of what justice means to us by seeing the various conceptions that compete for our attention as tied to aspects of our social world that did not exist in the past, and are equally liable to disappear in the future.

• Anderson, Elizabeth, 1999, “What is the Point of Equality?” Ethics , 109: 287–337.
• Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics , translated by Roger Crisp, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
• –––, The Politics , translated by Thomas Sinclair, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1962.
• Barry, Brian, 1989, Theories of Justice , Hemel Hempstead: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.
• –––, 1995, Justice as Impartiality , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Bentham, Jeremy, The Principles of Morals and Legislation , ed. Laurence Lafleur, New York: Hafner Press, 1948.
• Brighouse, Harry and Adam Swift, 2014, Family Values: the ethics of parent-child relationships , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Buchanan, Allen, 1987, “Justice and Charity,” Ethics , 97: 558–75.
• Casal, Paula, 2007, “Why Sufficiency Is Not Enough,” Ethics , 117: 296–326.
• Cohen, G.A., 1989, “On the Currency of Egalitarian Justice,” Ethics , 99: 906–44.
• –––, 1995, Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 2008, Rescuing Justice and Equality , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 2011, “Fairness and Legitimacy in Justice, and: Does Option Luck ever Preserve Justice?” in On the Currency of Egalitarian Justice and Other Essays in Political Philosophy , edited by Michael Otsuka, Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Coleman, Jules, 1992, Risks and Wrongs , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Donaldson, Sue and Will Kymlicka, 2011, Zoopolis: a political theory of animals rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Dworkin, Ronald, 2000, Sovereign Virtue: the theory and practice of equality , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Feinberg, Joel, 1970, “Justice and Personal Desert,” in Doing and Deserving: essays in the theory of responsibility , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• –––, 1974, “Noncomparative Justice,” Philosophical Review , 83: 297–338.
• Fleischacker, Samuel, 2004, A Short History of Distributive Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Fourie, Carina, Fabian Schuppert and Ivo Wallimann-Helmer (eds.), 2015, Social Equality: on what it means to be equals , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Frankfurt, Harry, 2015, On Inequality , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Fraser, Nancy and Axel Honneth, 2003, Redistribution or Recognition? : a political-philosophical exchange , London: Verso.
• Fricker, Miranda, 2007, Epistemic Injustice; power and the ethics of knowing , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Garner, Robert, 2013, A Theory of Justice for Animals , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Gauthier, David, 1986, Morals by Agreement , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Harsanyi, John, 1975, “Can the Maximin Principle Serve as a Basis for Morality? A Critique of John Rawls’s Theory,” American Political Science Review , 69: 594–606.
• Hayek, Friedrich, 1976, Law, Legislation and Liberty (Volume II: The Mirage of Social Justice ), London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
• Hume, David, A Treatise of Human Nature , edited by L.A. Selby-Bigge, revised by P.H. Nidditch, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978.
• –––, An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals in Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals , edited by L. A. Selby-Bigge, revised by P.H. Nidditch, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975.
• Johnston, David, 2011, A Brief History of Justice , Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Kagan, Shelly, 2012, The Geometry of Desert , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Knight, Carl and Zofia Stemplowska (eds.), 2011, Responsibility and Distributive Justice , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Lind, E. Allan and Tom Tyler, 1988, The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice , New York and London: Plenum Press.
• MacIntyre, Alasdair, 1988, Whose Justice? Which Rationality? , London: Duckworth.
• Mill, John Stuart, Utilitarianism in Utilitarianism, On Liberty, Representative Government , ed. A.D. Lindsay, London: Dent, 1964.
• Miller, David, 1999, Principles of Social Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 2013, Justice for Earthlings: essays in political philosophy , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Montague, Phillip, 1980, “Comparative and Non-Comparative Justice,” Philosophical Quarterly , 30: 131–40.
• Murphy, Liam, 1998, “Institutions and the Demands of Justice,” Philosophy and Public Affairs , 27, 251–91.
• Nagel, Thomas, 2005, “The Problem of Global Justice,” Philosophy and Public Affairs , 33, 113–47.
• Nozick, Robert, 1974, Anarchy, State and Utopia , Oxford: Blackwell.
• Nussbaum, Martha, 2006, Frontiers of Justice: disability, nationality, species membership , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Okin, Susan, 1989, Justice, Gender, and the Family , New York: Basic Books.
• Olsaretti, Serena (ed.), 2003, Justice and Desert , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Paul, Jeffrey (ed.), 1982, Reading Nozick : essays on Anarchy, State, and Utopia , Oxford: Blackwell.
• Perry, Stephen, 2000, “On the Relationship between Corrective and Distributive Justice,” in Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence, Fourth Series , edited by Jeremy Horder, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Raphael, D. D., 2001, Concepts of Justice , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Rawls, John, 1958, “Justice as Fairness,” Philosophical Review , 67: 164–94.
• –––, 1971, A Theory of Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 1993, Political Liberalism , New York: Columbia University Press.
• –––, 1999, A Theory of Justice , revised edition, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 2001, Justice as Fairness: a restatement , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Ripstein, Arthur, 2004, “The Division of Responsibility and the Law of Tort,” Fordham Law Review , 72: 1811–44.
• Sandel, Michael, 1982, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Scanlon, T. M., 1998, What We Owe to Each Other , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 2003, “The Diversity of Objections to Inequality,” in The Difficulty of Tolerance: essays in political philosophy , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Sen, Amartya, 1980, “Equality of What?” in Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Volume 1 , ed. S. McMurrin, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Sidgwick, Henry, 1874/1907, The Methods of Ethics , London: Macmillan.
• Valentini, Laura, 2014, “Canine Justice: An Associative Account,” Political Studies , 62: 37–52.
• Walzer, Michael, 1983, Spheres of Justice: a defence of pluralism and equality , New York: Basic Books.
• Williams, Andrew, 1998, “Incentives, Inequality, and Publicity,” Philosophy and Public Affairs , 27: 225–47.
• Wolff, Jonathan, 1991, Robert Nozick : property, justice and the minimal state , Cambridge: Polity.
• –––, 1998, “Fairness, Respect and the Egalitarian Ethos,” Philosophy and Public Affairs , 27: 97–122.
• Young, Iris Marion, 2011, Responsibility for Justice , New York: Oxford University Press.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Justice , course lectures by Michael Sandel
• Justice Everywhere , a group blog about justice in public affairs

Aristotle, General Topics: ethics | consequentialism | consequentialism: rule | contractualism | feminist philosophy, topics: perspectives on reproduction and the family | justice: as a virtue | justice: distributive | justice: global | justice: intergenerational | justice: international distributive | justice: retributive | justice: transitional | luck: justice and bad luck | Rawls, John | reflective equilibrium | social contract: contemporary approaches to

Copyright © 2021 by David Miller < david . miller @ nuffield . ox . ac . uk >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Essay on Social Justice

Students are often asked to write an essay on Social Justice in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Social Justice

Understanding social justice.

Social justice is the fair treatment of all people in society. It’s about making sure everyone has equal opportunities, irrespective of their background or status.

Importance of Social Justice

Social justice is important because it promotes equality. It helps to reduce disparities in wealth, access to resources, and social privileges.

Role of Individuals

Every person can contribute to social justice. By treating others fairly, respecting diversity, and standing against discrimination, we can promote social justice.

In conclusion, social justice is vital for a balanced society. It ensures everyone has a fair chance to succeed in life.

250 Words Essay on Social Justice

Social justice, a multifaceted concept, is the fair distribution of opportunities, privileges, and resources within a society. It encompasses dimensions like economic parity, gender equality, environmental justice, and human rights. The core of social justice is the belief that everyone deserves equal economic, political, and social opportunities irrespective of race, gender, or religion.

The Importance of Social Justice

Social justice is pivotal in fostering a harmonious society. It ensures that everyone has access to the basic necessities of life and can exercise their rights without discrimination. It is the cornerstone of peace and stability in any society. Without social justice, the divide between different socio-economic classes widens, leading to social unrest.

Challenges to Social Justice

Despite its importance, achieving social justice is fraught with challenges. Systemic issues like discrimination, poverty, and lack of access to quality education and healthcare are significant roadblocks. These challenges are deeply ingrained in societal structures and require collective efforts to overcome.

The Role of Individuals in Promoting Social Justice

Every individual plays a crucial role in promoting social justice. Through conscious efforts like advocating for equal rights, supporting policies that promote equality, and standing against discrimination, individuals can contribute to building a just society.

In conclusion, social justice is a fundamental principle for peaceful coexistence within societies. Despite the challenges, each individual’s conscious effort can contribute significantly to achieving this noble goal. The journey towards social justice is long and arduous, but it is a path worth treading for the betterment of humanity.

500 Words Essay on Social Justice

Introduction to social justice, origins and evolution of social justice.

The concept of social justice emerged during the Industrial Revolution and subsequent civil revolutions as a counter to the vast disparities in wealth and social capital. It was a call for societal and structural changes, aiming to minimize socio-economic differences. The term was first used by Jesuit priest Luigi Taparelli in the mid-19th century, influenced by the teachings of Thomas Aquinas. Since then, the concept has evolved and expanded, encompassing issues like environmental justice, health equity, and human rights.

The Pillars of Social Justice

Social justice rests on four essential pillars: human rights, access, participation, and equity. Human rights are the fundamental rights and freedoms to which all individuals are entitled. Access involves equal opportunities in terms of resources, rights, goods, and services. Participation emphasizes the importance of all individuals contributing to and benefiting from economic, social, political, and cultural life. Equity ensures the fair distribution of resources and opportunities.

Social Justice in Today’s World

Despite the progress, numerous challenges to social justice persist. Systemic and structural discrimination, political disenfranchisement, economic inequality, and social stratification are just a few. Moreover, the rise of populism and nationalism worldwide has further complicated the fight for social justice, as these ideologies often thrive on division and inequality.

Promoting social justice requires collective action. Individuals can contribute by becoming more aware of the injustices around them, advocating for policies that promote equity, and standing up against discrimination. Education plays a crucial role in this process, as it can foster a deeper understanding of social justice issues and equip individuals with the tools to effect change.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

• Classroom Programme
• Interview Guidance
• Online Programme
• Drishti Store
• My Bookmarks
• My Progress
• Change Password
• From The Editor's Desk
• How To Use The New Website
• Help Centre

Achievers Corner

• Topper's Interview
• About Civil Services
• UPSC Prelims Syllabus
• GS Prelims Strategy
• Prelims Analysis
• GS Paper-I (Year Wise)
• GS Paper-I (Subject Wise)
• CSAT Strategy
• Previous Years Papers
• Practice Quiz
• Weekly Revision MCQs
• 60 Steps To Prelims
• Prelims Refresher Programme 2020

Mains & Interview

• Mains GS Syllabus
• Mains GS Strategy
• Mains Answer Writing Practice
• Essay Strategy
• Fodder For Essay
• Model Essays
• Drishti Essay Competition
• Ethics Strategy
• Ethics Case Studies
• Ethics Discussion
• Ethics Previous Years Q&As
• Papers By Years
• Papers By Subject
• Be MAINS Ready
• Awake Mains Examination 2020
• Interview Strategy
• Interview Guidance Programme

Current Affairs

• Daily News & Editorial
• Daily CA MCQs
• Sansad TV Discussions
• Monthly CA Consolidation
• Monthly Editorial Consolidation
• Monthly MCQ Consolidation

Drishti Specials

• To The Point
• Important Institutions
• Learning Through Maps
• PRS Capsule
• Summary Of Reports
• Gist Of Economic Survey

Study Material

• NCERT Books
• NIOS Study Material
• IGNOU Study Material
• Yojana & Kurukshetra
• Chhatisgarh
• Uttar Pradesh
• Madhya Pradesh

Test Series

• UPSC Prelims Test Series
• UPSC Mains Test Series
• UPPCS Prelims Test Series
• UPPCS Mains Test Series
• BPSC Prelims Test Series
• RAS/RTS Prelims Test Series
• Daily Editorial Analysis
• YouTube PDF Downloads
• Strategy By Toppers
• Ethics - Definition & Concepts
• Mastering Mains Answer Writing
• Places in News
• UPSC Mock Interview
• PCS Mock Interview
• Interview Insights
• Prelims 2019
• Product Promos

Make Your Note

• 06 Sep 2018
• 10 min read

Gender Equality

" A gender-equal society would be one where the word 'gender' does not exist: where every one can be themselves "

— GLORIA STEINEM

" When God created man and woman, he was thinking, 'Who shall I give the power to, to give birth to the next human being?' And God chose woman. And this is the big evidence that women are powerful "

— MALALA YOUSAFZAI

" Gender equality is more than a goal in itself. It is a precondition for meeting the challenge of reducing poverty, promoting sustainable development and building good governance "

— KOFI ANNAN

" Achieving gender equality requires the engagement of women and men, girls and boys. It is everyone's responsibility "

— BAN KI-MOON

" I measure the progress of a community by the degree of progress which women have achieved "

— B. R. AMBEDKAR

" Women are the largest untapped reservoir of talent in the world "

— HILLARY CLINTON

" You educate a man, you educate a man. You educate a woman, you educate a generation "

— BRIGHAM YOUNG

" To educate girls is to reduce poverty "

— KOFI ANNAN

" Empower a woman - Empower a community "

" When women do better economies do better "

— CHRISTINA LAGARDE

" There is no chance of the welfare of the world unless the condition of women is improved. It is not possible for a bird to fly on one wing "

— SWAMI VIVEKANAND

" We cannot all succeed when half of us are held back "

— MALALA YOUSAFZAI

" The measure of any society is how it treats its women and girls "

— MICHELLE OBAMA

" We may have different religions, different languages, different colored skin, but we all belong to one human race "

" Poverty is like a punishment for a crime you didn’t commit. "

— ELI KHAMAROV

" It is the health that is real wealth and not pieces of gold and silver "

— MAHATMA GANDHI

ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE

" What we are doing to the forests of the world is but a mirror reflection of what we are doing to ourselves and to one another "

" This is our world, a common world. Everybody should feel a common responsibility "

— BAN KI MOON

" Climate change is simply, the greatest collective challenge we face as a human family "

" Sustainable development and climate change are two sides of the same coin "

" Climate change does not respect border; it does not respect who you are- rich and poor, small and big. Therefore, this is what we call global challenges, which require global solidarity "

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

" Sustainable development is the pathway to the future we want for all. It offers a framework to generate economic growth, achieve social justice, exercise environmental stewardship and strengthen governance "

" Any society that does not succeed in tapping into the energy and creativity of its youth will be left behind "

" Young people should be at the forefront of global change and innovation. Empowered, they can be key agents for development and peace "

INCLUSIVE DEVELOPMENT

" You cannot have peace without security, and you cannot have security without inclusive development "

" Literacy is a bridge from misery to hope "

" One child, one teacher, one book and one pen can change the world "

" We want the education by which character is formed, strength of mind is increased, the intellect is expanded, and by which one can stand on one's own feet "

" Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in a harmony "

" Be truthful, gentle and fearless "

" Heart is a very good fertilizer; anything we plant love, fear, hate, hope, revenge, jealousy-surely grows and bears fruit. We have to decide what to harvest "

" We must become the change we want to see "

" To believe in something, and not live it, is dishonest "

SEVEN DANGERS TO HUMAN VIRTUE

1. Wealth without work

2. Pleasure without conscience

3. Knowledge without character

4. Business without ethics

5. Science without humanity

6. Religion without sacrifice

7. Politics without principle

" You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean area dirty, the ocean does not become dirty "

" The best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of others "

" An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind "

" Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will "

" It has always been a mystery to me how men can feel themselves honored by the humiliation of their fellow beings "

" Peace is its own reward "

" The mind is everything. What you think, you become "

— BUDDHA

" Be kind to all creatures; this is the true religion "

" Purity, patience, and perseverance are the three essentials to success, and, above all, love "

" Gratitude is a flower that blooms in noble souls "

— POPE FRANCIS

" May your choices reflect your hopes, not your fears "

— NELSON MANDELA

" Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power "

— ABRAHAM LINCOLN

" Success is not about how much money you make, it’s about the difference you make in people’s lives "

" Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere "

— MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.

" Greed has poisoned man’s souls "

— CHARLIE CHAPLIN

" Educating the mind without educating the heart is no education at all "

— ARISTOTLE

" The best test of a man is authority. "

— ANONYMOUS

" We are unnecessarily wasting our precious resources in wars... if we must wage war, we have to do it on unemployment, disease, poverty, and backwardness "

— ATAL BIHARI VAJPAYEE

" Good governance depends on ability to take responsibility by both administration as well as people "

— NARENDRA MODI

" Progress is more plausibly judged by the reduction of deprivation than by the further enrichment of the opulent "

— AMARTYA SEN

" The test of progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; It is whether we provide enough for those who have little "

— FRANKLIN D ROOSEVELT

" Children are like buds in a garden and should be carefully and lovingly nurtured, as they are the future of the Nation and the citizens of tomorrow "

— Pt. JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU

SCIENCE & TECH

" I fear the day when technology will suppress human interaction and the world will have a generation of idiots "

— ALBERT EINSTEIN

" The great thing about social media was how it gave a voice to voiceless people. "

— JON RONSON

" Social media is reducing social barriers. It connects people on the strength of human values, not identities "

" It is dangerously destabilizing to have half the world on the cutting edge of technology while the other half struggles on the bare edge of survival "

— BILL CLINTON

" The Internet is becoming the town square for the Global village of tomorrow "

— BILL GATES

AGRICULTURE

" If agriculture fails, everything else will fail "

— M S SWAMINATHAN

• Quote of the Day
• Picture Quotes

Mahatma Gandhi Quotes About Justice

Standart top banner.

Let the first act of every morning be to make the following resolve for the day: - I shall not fear anyone on Earth. - I shall fear only God. - I shall not bear ill will toward anyone. - I shall not submit to injustice from anyone. - I shall conquer untruth by truth. And in resisting untruth, I shall put up with all suffering.

There is a higher court than courts of justice and that is the court of conscience. It supercedes all other courts.

Truth never damages a cause that is just.

Civility does not ...mean the mere outward gentleness of speech cultivated for the occasion, but an inborn gentleness and desire to do the opponent good.

An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so.

Of all the evils for which man has made himself responsible, none is so degrading, so shocking, or so brutal as his abuse of the better half of humanity; to me, the female sex is not the weaker sex.

It is open to a war resister to judge between the combatants and wish success to the one who has justice on his side. By so judging he is more likely to bring peace between the two than by remaining a mere spectator.

No reform is possible unless some of the educated and the rich voluntarily accept the status of the poor, travel third, refuse to enjoy the amenities denied to the poor and, instead of taking avoidable hardships, discourtesies and injustice as a matter of course, fight for their removal.

A non-violent revolution is not a program of seizure of power. It is a program of transformation of relationships, ending in a peaceful transfer of power.

Peace will not come out of a clash of arms but out of justice lived and done by unarmed nations in the face of odds.

Justice does not help those who slumber but helps only those who are vigilant.

Justice that love gives is a surrender, justice that law gives is a punishment.

Non-cooperation is directed not against men but against measures. It is not directed against the Governors, but against the system they administer. The roots of non-cooperation lies not in hatred but in justice if not in love.

God is always the upholder of justice.

A weak man is just by accident. A strong but non-violent man is unjust by accident.

Be the change you want to see.

Even the dog is described by the poet to have received justice under Ramarajya.

God of Truth and Justice can never create distinctions of high and low among His own children.

God, who is the embodiment of Truth and Right and Justice, can never have sanctioned a religion or practice which regards one - fifth of our vast population as untouchables.

It is impossible that God, who is the God of Justice, could have made the distinctions that men observe today in the name of religion.

The first condition of nonviolence is justice all round, in every department of life.

There are unjust laws as there are unjust men.

The only true resistance to this Government... [is] to cease to co-operate with it.

Even a believer in nonviolence has to say between two combatants which is less bad or whose cause is just.

We win justice quickest by rendering justice to the other party.

last adds STANDART BOTTOM BANNER

Send report.

• The author didn't say that
• There is a mistake in the text of this quote
• The quote belongs to another author
• Other error

Related Authors

Mahatma Gandhi

• Born: October 2, 1869
• Died: January 30, 1948
• Occupation: Civil rights leader
• Cite this Page: Citation

Get Social with AzQuotes

Follow AzQuotes on Facebook, Twitter and Google+. Every day we present the best quotes! Improve yourself, find your inspiration, share with friends

Popular Topics

• Inspirational
• Motivational

SIDE STANDART BANNER

• New Quotes (28)
• Absolute Truth
• Animal Cruelty
• Animal Rights
• Appreciation
• Being Strong
• Brotherhood
• Changing The World
• Christianity
• Citizenship
• Civil Disobedience
• Cleanliness
• Consciousness
• Conservation
• Consumerism
• Contentment
• Deliverance
• Determination
• Dictatorship
• Empowerment
• Encouragement
• English Language
• Environment
• Exploitation
• Finding Yourself
• Forgiveness
• Freedom And Liberty
• Gun Control
• Helping Others
• Human Nature
• Human Rights
• Imagination
• Imperialism
• Independence
• Individualism
• Individuality
• Indulgences
• Inspiration
• Jesus Christ
• Knowing God
• Law Of Attraction
• Life And Death
• Life And Love
• Making A Difference
• Martial Arts
• Metaphysics
• Nationalism
• Non Violence
• Nonviolence
• Not Giving Up
• Opportunity
• Peace Of Mind
• Perseverance
• Persistence
• Philanthropy
• Politicians
• Positive Thinking
• Preparation
• Recognition
• Reincarnation
• Religion And Politics
• Responsibility
• Righteousness
• Self Control
• Self Defense
• Self Esteem
• Self Respect
• Selfishness
• Simple Life
• Social Justice
• South Africa
• Spirituality
• Sustainability
• Transcendentalism
• True Friends
• Trust In God
• Understanding
• Working Together
• World Hunger
• Javascript and RSS feeds
• WordPress plugin
• ES Version AZQuotes.ES
• Submit Quotes
• Privacy Policy

Login with your account

Create account, find your account.