Justice, according to John Rawls, is defined as fairness. He defines socio-justice as a society’s fair distribution of advantages and liabilities. As a result, he developed two principles. These principles state that everyone has an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others, as well as that socio-economic inequalities should be addressed in such a way that they are both reasonably expected to be to everyone’s benefit and opportunities open to all.

Rawls’ principle merely points us to each individual’s equal rights. This equality can take the form of a direct or indirect relationship. His beliefs aid in the assignment of rights and responsibilities in society’s basic institutions, as well as the proper distribution of benefits and liabilities.

Furthermore, his concern for justice extends beyond people’s happiness, touching every aspect of man’s existence and bringing him to a better place. There is no doubt that if Rawls’ idea of justice as fairness were to be implemented, society would be at peace. There is little doubt that this was the driving force behind man’s decision to enter into the socio-contract agreement. Only by seeing social justice as an intrinsic component of society can we achieve the social order that every society desires.

The goal of this study is to conduct a thorough and critical assessment of the nature of social justice as a sine qua non of social order.

To accomplish this, I plan to critically assess John Rawls.




Let’s start our discussion with a look at how society came to be. We may gain a sense of what this project is about by looking at society’s historical backdrop, which is socio-justice as a condition sine qua non for social order.

Apart from the major philosopher in this endeavor, John Rawls, there are a number of philosophers who have spoken about the original viewpoint. I will utilize two of them. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are the other two philosophers.

John Locke believed that in the pre-political condition of nature, people discovered that they needed to band together to safeguard their natural rights.

1 According to Thomas Hobbes, man must be free of fear in order to be happy.

Humans in the state of nature, according to John Locke, have absolute freedom to organise their actions according to the laws of nature. Because humans are to have equal values, Locke agreed with Thomas Hobbes that people should be able to act without having to obtain permission from anybody else. 3 People leave the state of nature only when they agree to join a society in order to safeguard their property and rights.

The project’s major philosopher, John Rawls, was thinking about the big picture, which was a just society. He felt that everything that causes people to submit to a sovereign and unite together to establish a just society is cultivating their own common good.


There are many different conceptions of justice, hence there is no universal one. Justice cannot be viewed objectively, but it may be comfortably seen from a subjective and relative perspective. For example, what one individual considers to be justice may not be regarded as such by another. Furthermore, justice in one society may not be considered as such in another.


The goal of this research is to shed more light on the foundations of socio-order through the lens of John Rawls’ Socio-Justice theory.


This research will help people understand how to live in a well-ordered society and how socio-justice plays a role in it.


This paper will look at John Rawls’ theory of socio-justice and how it can be used to build a well-ordered society.


The study’s methodology will be an analytical and critical examination of Rawls’ work on Justice as Fairness.

Leave a Comment