The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with United States and the Western world and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate. (September 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this message)iconThis section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Evidence about the Nazi Ernst Kaltenbrunner's war crimes is presented at the Nuremberg trials.Part of a series onPolitics

OutlineIndexCategoryPrimary topicsSystemsAcademic disciplinesPublic administrationPolicyGovernment branchesRelated topicsSubseriesicon Politics portalvteIn its broadest sense, justice is the treatment of individuals fairly. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the most plausible candidate for a core definition comes from the Institutes of Justinian, a 6th-century codification of Roman law, where justice is defined as the constant and perpetual will to render to each his due.[1]

A society where justice has been achieved would be one in which individuals receive what they deserve. The interpretation of what deserve means draws on a variety of fields and philosophical branches including ethics, rationality, law, religion, and fairness. The state may pursue justice by operating courts and enforcing their rulings.

HistoryEarly Western theories of justice were developed in part by Ancient Greek philosophers such as Plato in his work The Republic, and Aristotle, in his Nicomachean Ethics and Politics. Modern-day Western notions of justice also have their roots in Christian theology, which largely follows the divine command theory, according to which God dictates morality and determines whether or not an action is seen as morally good. This, in turn, determines justice.[2]

Western thinkers later advanced different theories about where the foundations of justice lie. In the 17th century, philosophers such as John Locke said justice derives from natural law. Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a prominent advocate of social contract theory, which holds that justice arises from a mutual agreement among members of society to be governed within a political system.

Modern frameworks include concepts such as distributive justice, utilitarianism, retributive justice and restorative justice.

In broad terms, distributive justice considers what is fair based on what goods are to be distributed, between whom they are to be distributed, and what the proper distribution is, utilitarian theories look forward to the future consequences of punishment, retributive theories look back to particular acts of wrongdoing and attempt to match them with appropriate punishment, and restorative theories look at the needs of victims and society and seek to repair the harms from wrongdoing. Theories of retributive justice say justice is served by punishing wrongdoers, whereas restorative justice (also sometimes called reparative justice) is an approach to justice that focuses on the needs of victims and offenders.[citation needed]

Platonic justiceMain article: The Republic (Plato)Justice, according to Plato, is about balance and harmony. It represents the right relationship between conflicting aspects within an individual or a community. He defines justice as everyone having and doing what they are responsible for or what belongs to them.[3] In other words, a just person is someone who contributes to society according to their unique abilities and receives what is proportionate to their contribution. They are in the right place, always striving to do their best, and reciprocating what they receive fairly and equitably. This applies both at the individual level and at the organizational and societal levels.[4]

To illustrate these ideas, Plato describes a person as having three parts: reason, spirit, and desire. These parallel the three parts of a city in his philosophy, which he describes through the metaphor of a chariot: it functions effectively when the charioteer, representative of reason, successfully controls the two horses, symbolizing spirit and desire.[citation needed] Continuing on these themes, Plato theorizes that those who love wisdom, or philosophers, are the most ideal to govern because only they truly comprehend the nature of the good. Just like one would seek a doctor's expertise in matters of health rather than a farmer's, so should the city entrust its governance to someone knowledgeable about the good, rather than to politicians who might prioritize power over people's genuine needs. Socrates later used the parable of the ship to illustrate this point: the unjust city is like a ship in open ocean, crewed by a powerful but drunken captain (the common people), a group of untrustworthy advisors who try to manipulate the captain into giving them power over the ship's course (the politicians), and a navigator (the philosopher), the latter of whom being the only one who knows how to get the ship to port.[4]c