Journey · 10 stops
What Is Just?
Two and a half millennia of argument over the good order.
Stops
Stop 1 of 10: Republic
What makes a social order just? Plato’s Republic begins with that question and answers it with an ideal city: justice means each part doing its own task – producers producing, guardians guarding, and philosophers ruling, because only they know the Good. The soul is ordered the same way. Bold and unsettling, this blueprint provokes his student into a more down-to-earth reply.
Stop 2 of 10: Politics
Aristotle, Plato’s student, criticizes the Republic directly – its common property, its unity pushed too far. Humans are political animals who flourish only in a community, but the best order must suit real people and real conditions. Comparing many constitutions, he favors a mixed form resting on a strong middle class. For almost two thousand years, politics is thought in his terms.
Stop 3 of 10: Leviathan
Hobbes, writing in the wake of the English Civil War, breaks with Aristotle: humans are not political by nature. Without a common power, life would be a war of all against all – “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”. So people covenant to hand power to an absolute sovereign. The state now rests on a contract among individuals – a foundation that can be turned against absolute power.
Stop 4 of 10: Two Treatises of Government
Locke uses the same contract to opposite ends. People have natural rights to life, liberty and property before any state; government exists only to protect them. If it betrays that trust, the people may resist and replace it – an argument later echoed in the American Declaration of Independence. But who exactly is “the people”, and how does it speak?
Stop 5 of 10: The Social Contract
Rousseau answers: “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” Building on Locke but rejecting Hobbes, he makes the people itself sovereign. A just law expresses the general will, which aims at the common good rather than private interests – freedom means obeying a law one has given oneself. Yet how do we know what serves everyone? A more calculating answer is coming.
Stop 6 of 10: An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation
Bentham replaces natural rights – “nonsense upon stilts”, as he later called them – with a single measure: pleasure and pain. Laws are just if they produce the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Utilitarianism makes justice calculable and reform-minded, but it can sacrifice the individual to the sum. Nearly two centuries later, that weakness becomes the starting point of a new theory.
Stop 7 of 10: A Theory of Justice
Rawls, in 1971, revives the social contract of Locke, Rousseau and Kant against utilitarianism, which ignores the separateness of persons. Choose the rules behind a veil of ignorance, not knowing who you will be, and you would secure equal liberties and allow inequalities only where they benefit the worst off. Justice becomes fairness – and the debate over the welfare state gets its philosophical form.
Stop 8 of 10: Anarchy, State, and Utopia
Three years later his Harvard colleague Nozick replies, drawing on Locke’s natural rights. Justice concerns how holdings came about, not how they are distributed: if fans freely pay to watch the basketball star Wilt Chamberlain play, his wealth is just. Taxing for redistribution comes close to forced labor; only a minimal state is legitimate. Rawls and Nozick mark the poles between which liberal theory now moves.
Stop 9 of 10: Justice and the Politics of Difference
Iris Marion Young, in 1990, questions what Rawls and Nozick both take for granted: that justice is above all a matter of distributing goods. Many injustices concern not who has what but how people are treated within institutions – she names five faces of oppression: exploitation, marginalisation, powerlessness, cultural imperialism and violence. Justice means ending domination and taking group differences seriously instead of looking past them. The turn away from the ideal distribution continues.
Stop 10 of 10: The Idea of Justice
Amartya Sen, economist and philosopher, objects to something else in both Rawls and Nozick: the search for a perfectly just order. Drawing on Adam Smith’s impartial spectator, he asks instead how to reduce manifest injustices here and now, judged by what people can actually do and be. From Plato’s ideal city to Sen’s comparisons, the journey shows justice moving from blueprint to practice – and never ceasing to be argued over.
As of November 2026 · Improve this page · How Agora is made