Social JusticeClass 11 Political Theory NCERT Solutions
6 Solutions
Generated by KedovoAI
Solution 1 of 6
Q1Exercises
What does it mean to give each person his／her due？How has the meaning of＂giving each his due＂changed over time？
Solution
Giving each person his or her due is a fundamental idea of justice. It means that every individual should receive what they are entitled to, whether it is rewards, respect, or opportunities. This concept involves ensuring the well-being of all people and treating them fairly.
The meaning of 'giving each his due' has evolved significantly over time:
-
Ancient Understanding: In Plato's time, justice and 'giving each his due' were linked to a person's role and status in society. It often meant doing good to friends and harm to enemies, or simply pursuing one's own interests. Socrates broadened this to mean the well-being of all people, similar to how a doctor cares for all patients.
-
Modern Understanding: Today, the concept is closely tied to the idea of human dignity, as articulated by the philosopher Immanuel Kant. According to this view, all human beings possess inherent dignity. Therefore, what is 'due' to each person is the opportunity to develop their talents and pursue their chosen goals. It requires giving due and equal consideration to all individuals, recognizing their worth as human beings, and ensuring they have access to fundamental rights and opportunities.
Q2Exercises
Briefly discuss the three principles of justice outlined in the chapter？Explain each with examples．
Solution
The chapter outlines three key principles of justice that are often balanced to create a just society:
-
Equal Treatment for Equals: This is a foundational principle of modern justice. It asserts that all individuals, as human beings, share certain characteristics and therefore deserve equal rights and equal treatment. It requires that people should not be discriminated against on grounds of class, caste, race, or gender.
- Example: If two people, one from a higher caste and one from a lower caste, perform the same job like delivering pizzas, they should receive the same salary. Paying them differently based on their caste would be unjust.
-
Proportionate Justice: This principle acknowledges that in certain situations, treating everyone equally would be unjust. It suggests that it is fair to reward people differently in proportion to the scale, quality, and effort of their work. This principle is applied when factors like skill, effort, and risk are taken into account.
- Example: In an examination, it would be unfair to give all students the same marks. Justice demands that students receive marks based on the quality of their answers and the effort they have put in. Similarly, a highly skilled and dangerous job like that of a miner might be rewarded more than a less demanding job.
-
Recognition of Special Needs: This principle states that a just society must consider the special needs of its members while distributing rewards or duties. It does not contradict the principle of equal treatment but rather extends it, recognizing that people who are unequal in certain important respects may need to be treated differently to ensure fairness. This is a key aspect of promoting social justice.
- Example: A visually impaired student being given extra time to complete an exam is a form of special consideration. This helps to create a level playing field and ensures the student is not disadvantaged by their disability. Another example is the reservation of jobs and educational seats for people from Scheduled Castes and Tribes in India to compensate for historical social discrimination and lack of opportunities.
Q3Exercises
Does the principle of considering the special needs of people conflict with the principle of equal treatment for all？
Solution
No, the principle of considering the special needs of people does not necessarily conflict with the principle of equal treatment for all. Instead, it can be seen as an extension or a deeper application of it.
The chapter explains that the principle of treating equals equally implies that individuals who are unequal in certain significant respects could be treated differently to ensure a just outcome. Treating people with very different starting points in life (for example, a person with a disability versus an able-bodied person, or someone from a deprived background versus someone from a privileged one) in an identical manner can perpetuate and even worsen inequality.
Providing special help, such as reservations for marginalized communities or accommodations for people with disabilities, is not about providing unfair advantages. It is about creating a level playing field and ensuring genuine equality of opportunity. The goal is to compensate for existing disadvantages so that everyone has a fair chance to compete and develop their talents. Therefore, recognizing special needs is essential for achieving a truly egalitarian and just society, and it complements the principle of equal treatment rather than contradicting it.
Q4Exercises
How does Rawls use the idea of a veil of ignorance to argue that fair and just distribution can be defended on rational grounds？
Solution
John Rawls uses the idea of a 'veil of ignorance' as a thought experiment to arrive at a system of fair and just principles for society. He argues that this method provides a rational basis for a just distribution of resources and opportunities.
The process works as follows:
-
The Original Position: Rawls asks us to imagine ourselves in a situation where we have to decide the rules and organization of a future society. This is the 'original position'.
-
The Veil of Ignorance: In this original position, we are placed behind a 'veil of ignorance'. This means we do not know anything about our future position in that society. We do not know our class, caste, gender, religion, wealth, or whether we will be privileged or disadvantaged, talented or not.
-
Rational Self-Interest: Since we are ignorant of our future status, we have to make a choice that would be acceptable to us no matter where we end up. A rational person, acting in their own self-interest, would not want to risk being born into a severely disadvantaged position with no opportunities. Therefore, each person will think from the perspective of the worst-off members of society.
-
The Outcome: To protect themselves from the worst possible outcome, individuals behind the veil of ignorance would agree on two main principles:
- They would ensure that basic liberties and rights are guaranteed for everyone.
- They would design social and economic rules that benefit the least advantaged members of society. They would ensure that important resources like education, healthcare, and a minimum standard of living are available to all.
By using this method, Rawls argues that we can arrive at fair and just principles not through emotion, generosity, or morality, but through pure rational thinking. The resulting society would be just because its foundational rules were chosen in a fair and impartial manner.
Q5Exercises
What are generally considered to be the basic minimum requirements of people for living a healthy and productive life？What is the responsibility of governments in trying to ensure this minimum to all？
Solution
The basic minimum requirements for a healthy and productive life are the essential conditions that enable individuals to live with dignity, develop their talents, and pursue their goals. According to the chapter, these generally include:
- Basic Nourishment: A sufficient amount of healthy food to maintain physical well-being.
- Housing: A safe and secure place to live.
- Clean Drinking Water: Access to safe water for drinking and sanitation.
- Education: Opportunities for learning to develop skills and knowledge.
- Minimum Wage: An income that allows a person to meet their basic needs.
Responsibility of Governments:
It is considered a primary responsibility of a democratic government to ensure that all its citizens have access to these basic minimum conditions. While providing these facilities can be a significant challenge, especially for countries with large populations of poor people, it is crucial for achieving social justice. The government's role includes:
- Creating Policies: Designing and implementing laws and policies that aim to redistribute resources and opportunities more fairly. This can include measures like land reforms, social security programs, and public health and education systems.
- Harmonizing Principles: The government must balance the different principles of justice—equal treatment, proportionate rewards, and special needs—to create a just society.
- State Intervention: In areas where free markets fail to provide affordable and quality basic services (like healthcare and education in remote or poor areas), the government may need to step in and provide these services directly or regulate private agencies to ensure they are accessible to all.
Q6Exercises
Which of the following arguments could be used to justify state action to provide basic minimum conditions of life to all citizens？ （a）Providing free services to the poor and needy can be justified as an act of charity． （b）Providing all citizens with a basic minimum standard of living is one way of ensuring equality of opportunity． （c）Some people are naturally lazy and we should be kind to them． （d）Ensuring basic facilities and a minimum standard of living to all is a recognition of our shared humanity and a human right．
Solution
The arguments that could be used to justify state action to provide basic minimum conditions of life to all citizens are (b) and (d).
-
(b) Providing all citizens with a basic minimum standard of living is one way of ensuring equality of opportunity. This is a strong justification supported by the chapter. The text argues that for people to pursue their goals and develop their talents, they need a 'level playing field'. Providing basic needs like education, healthcare, and nourishment ensures that even the most deprived have a fair chance to improve their condition and compete with others.
-
(d) Ensuring basic facilities and a minimum standard of living to all is a recognition of our shared humanity and a human right. This is also a valid justification based on the chapter's content. The text links modern justice to the idea of human dignity, as proposed by Immanuel Kant. If all human beings possess dignity, then what is 'due' to them includes the basic conditions necessary to live a dignified life. This frames the provision of basic needs not as a favor, but as a fundamental human right stemming from our shared humanity.
The other options are not suitable justifications:
- (a) Providing free services to the poor and needy can be justified as an act of charity. The chapter discusses justice as a matter of rights and fairness, which is a duty of the state, not optional charity.
- (c) Some people are naturally lazy and we should be kind to them. This is a prejudiced and unsubstantiated claim. The chapter attributes disadvantage to factors like lack of access to education and social discrimination, not inherent laziness.