Since justice is a subjective value judgment, whether a behavior or state is just involves three elements: people, society and things directly related to people. Man is the subject of justice reflection and evaluation; The formation of society is attributed to the generation and combination of people, and society plays an important role in the division and distribution of people. Individuals can't get equal status and treatment with others, which is often attributed to social injustice (fairness); And things that are directly related to people, such as status, qualifications, freedom, etc., dominate people's evaluation. When the most primitive society in ancient times was formed, with the distribution of primitive labor fruits, people began to discuss justice. As for what kind of behavior and state is just, with different standards, angles and different positions, their observations and conclusions are often different.
Rawls, an American scholar, put forward two principles of justice. First, everyone should have an equal right to other people's most extensive and basic free systems and similar free systems. Secondly, social and economic inequalities should be arranged in such a way that (1) they are reasonably expected to suit everyone's interests; And (2) depending on status and position, it is open to all. Rawls also pointed out a more general view of justice, which can be expressed as follows: "All social values-freedom and opportunity, income and wealth, self-esteem and foundation-should be distributed equally, unless an unequal distribution of one value or all values is in everyone's interest."
it is difficult to free the concept of law from justice. In the eyes of the media and ordinary people, the concepts of justice and law are constantly confused, and pure jurisprudence opposes equating law and justice and advocates treating them as two different issues. Personally, I prefer to combine the two concepts, and I don't agree with the overly clear distinction between the two concepts. When the law abandons justice, it loses its role in regulating social relations; Similarly, when justice is divorced from the law, it loses its carrier and can only become a "value judgment" with no practical use. I highly admire kelsen's view that justice, as a subjective value judgment, may be rejected by legal science, but if justice is understood as "legitimacy", then the concept of justice should be included in legal science.
when people evaluate whether a law meets the standard of justice (legitimacy), they often base on whether it can adjust social relations to the satisfaction of all members of society. But in fact, it is impossible to have a law that can meet the needs of every member of society. It can be said that everyone's needs are inconsistent, and conflicts between needs are inevitable. Those social relations and social order adjusted by just laws can only be recognized and satisfied by most members of society.
What should also be mentioned is the concept of absolute justice put forward by the natural law school. The natural law school advocates the dualism of law and thinks that law should be divided into positive law and natural law. On top of imperfect positive law, there is a perfect and absolutely just natural law. But rational people should know that this kind of absolute justice cannot exist, just as the world is knowable, people have infinite cognitive ability, and the world can never be fully understood. To borrow kelsen's words, "justice is an ideal that one's understanding cannot approach."
the law needs to be tested in all aspects. When people seek legal help and punish criminals by law, whether fairness is maintained and whether justice is upheld is the yardstick for the determination of legal justice (legitimacy) and the soil for the survival of law. Only when the law is based on justice can the concept of justice be sublimated on the basis of law.