Justice

===Fairness===
{{More citations needed|date=February 2018}}
[[File:Justice statue.jpg|thumb|J. L. Urban, statue of [[Lady Justice]] at court building in [[Olomouc]], [[Czech Republic]]]]

In his ''[[A Theory of Justice]]'', [[John Rawls]] used a [[social contract]] argument to show that justice, and especially distributive justice, is a form of fairness: an impartial distribution of goods. Rawls asks us to imagine ourselves behind a [[veil of ignorance]] that denies us all knowledge of our personalities, social statuses, moral characters, wealth, talents and life plans, and then asks what theory of justice we would choose to govern our society when the veil is lifted, if we wanted to do the best that we could for ourselves. We do not know who in particular we are, and therefore can not bias the decision in our own favor. So, the decision-in-ignorance models fairness, because it excludes selfish [[bias]]. Rawls said that each of us would reject the [[utilitarianism|utilitarian]] theory of justice that we should maximize welfare (see below) because of the risk that we might turn out to be someone whose own good is sacrificed for greater benefits for others. Instead, we would endorse Rawls's ''two principles of justice'':
* Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all.
* Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both
** to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just savings principle, and
** attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.<ref>John Rawls, ''A Theory of Justice'' (revised edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 266.</ref>

This imagined choice justifies these principles as the principles of justice for us, because we would agree to them in a fair decision procedure. Rawls's theory distinguishes two kinds of goods&nbsp;– (1) [[Freedom (political)|the good of liberty rights]] and (2) social and economic goods, i.e. wealth, income and power&nbsp;– and applies different distributions to them&nbsp;– equality between citizens for (1), equality unless inequality improves the position of the worst off for (2).

In one sense, theories of distributive justice may assert that everyone should get what they deserve. Theories vary on the meaning of what is "deserved". The main distinction is between theories that say the basis of just deserts ought to be held equally by everyone, and therefore derive egalitarian accounts of distributive justice&nbsp;– and theories that say the basis of just deserts is unequally distributed on the basis of, for instance, hard work, and therefore derive accounts of distributive justice by which some should have more than others.

According to ''[[Meritocracy|meritocratic]]'' theories, goods, especially wealth and [[social status]], should be distributed to match individual ''merit'', which is usually understood as some combination of talent and hard work. According to ''[[need]]s''-based theories, goods, especially such basic goods as food, shelter and medical care, should be distributed to meet individuals' [[basic needs]] for them. [[Marxism]] is a needs-based theory, expressed succinctly in [[Karl Marx|Marx's]] slogan "[[from each according to his ability, to each according to his need]]".<ref>Karl Marx, 'Critique of the Gotha Program' in ''Karl Marx: Selected writings'' ed. David McLellan (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977): 564–70 [569].</ref> According to ''contribution''-based theories, goods should be distributed to match an individual's contribution to the overall social good.