'Social Contract' theorists such as Rousseau and Locke, suggest that this equal starting point is an imaginary one whereby individuals come together and give all that they possess, both physically and non-physically to the State. They do this because they realise that if everybody gives equally (i.e. everything) then nobody loses anything, as the state (which is constituted by the individuals) possesses all things. From here on it is possible to provide protection by the state, and those objects that were once possessions now become property.
More recently, John Rawls has taken a slightly different approach to this classic 'Contract Theory'. Rawls argues that if we take people in an 'original position' we would find that rational people would choose a set of principles that would call justice 'fairness'. This original position that he refers to is a hypothetical situation in which rational people were held behind a 'veil of ignorance' in that their destined social status and wealth would not be known. He argues that the persons in the original position would "choose two rather different principles: the first requires equality in the assignment of basic rights and duties, while the second holds that social and economic inequalities, for example the inequalities of wealth and authority, are just only if they result in compensating benefits for everyone, and in particular for the least advantaged members of society." Rawls believes that these principles chosen are indeed just as they are not skewed by anyone's particular interests. It follows that we may test whether a society is just or not by checking to see whether these principles are manifest or not.
However, Rawls' theory has been criticised on the basis of one of its assumptions. This assumption is that society is entirely self contained. Whilst this made it easier for Rawls and others to deal with the question of justice, it fundamentally contradicts the conclusion that he comes to. This is because a theory of justice should produce universal results, yet laws derived from different states' interpretation of justice are different. Therefore, the failure in Rawls' theory of justice lies in its applicability. As Miller argues in 'Principles of Social Justice', "Nowadays peoples shares of resources and their life prospects depend not only on domestic institutions within states but also on transnational economic and political forces." Why should principles of normative social justice be restricted to national societies and not extended to humanity as a whole?
Yet whilst this practicality is an obvious flaw in Rawls' theory, I would argue that it is not enough to nullify it. This is simply because Rawls' theory could in practice be applied to the entire world if it were not made up of nation states. Furthermore, the world is increasingly moving towards governance through supranational institutions. These institutions have laid down universal rights (for all member countries) such as the United Nations' 'Declaration of Human Rights'. Whilst this is not quite the same as a just society where fair laws are made and moreover, where distribution is fair, it is a step in the right direction.
So far I have written about two different approaches to justice, both in which justice has been the salient characteristic of the society. However, whilst these theories are popular ones, there are many others. There are sceptical theories of justice such as Pascal's, where justice is predetermined by the society in which we live. For example he says "justice is what is established; thus all our established laws will necessarily be regarded as just without examination since they are established." Here he proposes a negative view of justice, obviously not attributing to it the property of 'supreme virtue'. It is negative because it suggests that we can not do anything about the justice in our society. It has no universal name, only fragmented realities. I do think though that this is a very weak argument on two counts. Firstly, the question must be asked as to whom established the laws in the first place? There must have been a trend of thinking to create the laws (just or not) originally. Secondly, it seems extremely passive to say that the status quo is just, merely because it is the status quo. Apathy can not define justice.
It must be ceded though that there is trouble precisely defining what substantive justice is. Yet it is not so hard to do this with procedural justice i.e. third parties adjudicating over a dispute. Most countries in the world seem to conform around the structure of a third party (usually the courts) settling disputes between two others. The rational that they employ, whilst stemming from (possibly) different concepts of justice tends to follow intuitive principles e.g. in deciding who should pay for a fence between two neighbours gardens it seems intuitive that the neighbours pay half each. Consequently it may be the case that general ideas of what justice is are similar, but that the routes to these ideas are different. Moreover it seems that people intuitively departmentalise in that they apply one principle of justice to a specific case, and another to a second. Michael Walzer does this in his book 'Spheres of Justice'. He takes a good such as education, considers what meaning it has for us, and elicits from the meaning a criterion of just distribution. Unfortunately this empirical theory does not deal with the cases in which people genuinely disagree and therefore cannot provide us with a universal theory of justice in which justice is salient and affords us a choice between the just and the unjust.
So far I have dealt solely with the issue of justice and what it is precisely. However, there is another principle historically competing with justice for the title of the 'First Principle'. This is the principle of Utility. Utilitarianism is the belief that all conflicts, laws, actions and the like may be resolved through appeal to the principle of utility, which espouses the 'greatest good to the greatest number'. Essentially this is an aggregative principle in that it is primarily concerned with the total happiness / good in the society rather than relative happiness or indeed individuals' absolute happiness. A typical example of this principle in practice is the case of a healthy man that walks in to a hospital. Immediately it is seen that his organs could be used to save ten peoples lives. Under the Utilitarian principle the man would be slaughtered in order for his organs to be replaced and push aggregate utility higher. This does seem entirely bizarre yet when coupled with the idea of individual self interest, does not seem that far fetched in that the ten whose lives were saved will be ultimately more happy than they would have been otherwise. On the other hand, it does seem as if Utilitarianism would require a society of saints in order to be successful. This is the fundamental problem with Utilitarianism. It removes the idea of individual rights and replaces them with an appeal to the aggregate appeal to the good of society.
Therefore, in concluding, it seems to me that justice is indeed the 'supreme virtue' of a society. Rawls' account of justice seems to portray the most accurate and plausible (in a world without nation states) description of a just society and it incorporates the idea of justice being the first principle of that society.
