Justice can be defined as the concept of righteousness or morality, and morality is based, among other things, on the law of equality, ethics and natural law, which are sanctioned in the event of an offence. Justice and social justice declare virtue virtue, but not morality, according to the traditional definition of morality.
The concept of distributional justice is determined by normative principles that are oriented towards the distribution of advantages and disadvantages in economic activities. Social justice, on the other hand, refers to the distribution of wealth and power within a particular society, not to a particular class of people.
The concept of distributional justice tends to pursue a strict egalitarianism that demands an even distribution of material goods. For example, if a resource, a public utility such as electricity, is called into question, that resource should benefit all parts of society, not just one part of society.
Furthermore, distributional justice also adheres to other principles that permit distribution in cases where it contradicts strict equality but does not affect its effect. This means that the effect must be a slight benefit to society, which is materially better than the strict quality. The Stanford Encyclopedia also reflects justice as a virtue.
This term is obviously ambiguous and may therefore vary according to individual and social application. It refers to the qualities of an individual that can be good or bad, and it refers only to a certain kind of justice, not to all.
Aristotle and Plato have historically proved to be rationalists who saw justice as virtue, and two scholars have used it as an example of what is just or not. A good example is the practice of looking at unfair conditions, such as refusing to pay debts or steal.
Some ethical thinkers therefore argue that justice is not based on mere feelings, and instead argue that it is just. Other scholars present their different views on the nature of justice and social equality, such as Aristotle, Plato and Aristotle’s son Aristotle.
In his article, Frederickson reveals the existing link between social justice and justice. The author talks about the relationship between the essence of social equality and the role of justice in the social order. It also deals with the link between justice, the role of justice in society and its relationship to the social and political order, as well as its relationship to human rights.
Of course, social justice can be influenced by government programs aimed at creating equality. A good example is that, according to the article, there is a strong correlation between the number of students enrolled in public schools and the level of social equality in the United States. The challenge of “social justice” is supposedly based on equality for all people, as opposed to existing economic differences. Therefore ethnicity and race give a face and identity to poverty and ethnicity and race give the face of identity.
Historically, the concept of social equality in public administration has been emphasised, and it has been said for years that public administration takes the lead in matters of “social justice.” Since then, the situation has improved and is addressed by equity, which is now much more broadly defined. But other threats to social justice and equity have been uncovered, such as rising inequality in the private sector and erosion of the public sector’s role as a public institution.
In short, the concept of justice and social justice is inescapable in public administration and therefore of great importance. As we have discussed above, although justice, or “social justice,” has improved over the years, there are still certain threats that act as stumbling blocks, such as the erosion of the public sector as a public institution.
