The Latin words jungere (to bind, to tie together) and jus (justice) are combined to form the word “justice” (a bond or tie). Justice, as a uniting or joining concept, helps to bring individuals together in a just or fair order of relationships by allocating each person’s fair share of rights and responsibilities, rewards and penalties. Justinian, the Roman Emperor, expressed several of the commandments of justice in Latin, such as alterum non laedere (do not injure or hurt others) and suum cuique tribuere i.e to deliver to every what is owed to them. Justinian’s principles of justice were based on Aristotle’s definition of fairness as treating equals equally and unequals unequally in accordance to their disparities. He also identified three sorts of justice: distributive, corrective, and commutative justice i.e the concept of equivalency in the trading of different items
Justice is intertwined with other moral-political ideals including equality liberty, and fraternity as a moral-political value. In a fundamental sense, what makes a society or state just is its just or fair ordering of human interactions, which includes granting each individual their rightful rights and obligations, as well as appropriate rewards and penalties. Justice does this through adjusting the ideals of liberty, equality, cooperation, and so on. The notion of justice was previously seen to be a principle that balances or reconciles the ideas of equality, liberty and so on. This balancing or integrating is done in light of some ultimate ideal, such as the worth of the greatest happiness for the largest number of people or the worth of all people of a society’s freedom and equality. In this regard, it’s worth noting that the figure of personified justice, who holds a balance in her hands, represents the balancing or reconciling quality of justice.
The liberal-utilitarian notion of the greatest pleasure of the greatest number is a correction to Rawls’ ideas of social justice. So, what are his criticisms of utilitarianism? Rawls acknowledges that liberal utilitarianism constituted a welfare-oriented and progressive shift from classical liberalism’s absorption along with individual rights. Yet, in Rawls’ opinion, utilitarianism is a morally deficient theory of justice. Its moral problem is that it excuses or condones the sacrifice of some people’s happiness for the enjoyment of the vast majority. The aggregate total of utility, pleasure, or welfare produced by a society, rather than the well-being or welfare of each member of the community, is the criteria of justice for utilitarians.