Three principles of justice

Modern society broadly agrees that all people matter equally, but deciding how to give each person their due is not simple. Three principles are often put forward:

1. Equal treatment for equals. All humans share certain characteristics and so deserve equal rights and equal treatment.

• Liberal democracies grant civil rights (life, liberty, property), political rights (such as voting) and some social rights (such as equal opportunity).
• People must not be discriminated against by class, caste, race or gender; they should be judged by their work and actions, not their group.
• So two people of different castes doing the same work, whether breaking stones or delivering pizzas, should get the same reward; paying one ₹100 and the other ₹75 for it because of caste would be unjust. A male teacher paid more than a female teacher for the same job is equally unjust.

2. Proportionate justice. Sometimes treating everyone equally would itself be unfair. Starting from a baseline of equal rights, justice may mean rewarding people in proportion to the scale and quality of their effort.

• It is fair to reward different kinds of work differently by considering the effort and skill required and the dangers involved.
• By this measure, some workers, such as miners, skilled craftspeople, or police officers in dangerous but socially useful jobs, may not be paid justly compared with others.
• So equal treatment must be balanced with proportionality.

3. Recognition of special needs. Even non-discrimination and proportionate reward may not ensure real equality. Some people may need special help: those with disabilities, the old, or people who lacked access to good education or health care. Treating the deprived exactly like the well-off would produce an unequal, not a just, society.

• In India, lack of good education and health care often combines with caste discrimination, so the Constitution allowed reservations in government jobs and education for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
• This principle does not contradict equal treatment so much as extend it: people who are unequal in important respects may be treated differently.

Harmonising the three is hard. Equal treatment alone may neglect merit; stressing merit alone may disadvantage marginalised groups who lacked good nourishment or schooling. Different groups favour different principles, and it is the government's task to harmonise them.

Example (new): a cricket board that pays men and women players the same match fee (equal treatment), gives a bonus to the player of the match (proportionate justice), and runs free coaching camps in districts with no academies (special needs) is using all three principles together.