The importance of “the language of rights, is that it enables individuals and groups to demand attention from others for points of view that have been neglected”
— Fiona Robinson (1999, p. 64)

Definition

The ethic of justice emphasizes individual human rights and freedoms, the rule of law, and the values of fairness and justice (Frick et al., 2012; Shapiro et al., 2014). Beckner (2004) referred to this ethic as rule-based, as it attempts to objectively resolve ethical dilemmas through pre-established principles, rules, and laws. In this way, the ethic of justice is deontological and non-consequentialist, where the morality of an action is judged based on whether it adheres to a set of rules rather than the consequences of any action taken to resolve the dilemma.

Individuals who adhere to the ethic of justice prioritize impartiality, objectivity, and the fair treatment of all individuals based on universal principles and legislated human rights (Beckner, 2004; Robbins & Trabichet, 2009; Skoe & von der Lippe, 2002). From this perspective, the concepts of ‘fairness’ and ‘justice’ involve treating all individuals equally based on the assumption that equal access to opportunities and resources will lead to a fair and just outcome for all. In other words, a ‘fair solution’ is one based on general principles applied to all situations, and little consideration is given to context-specific issues, such as a person’s economic status or family situation.

Consider the classic moral quandary where a person steals bread to feed their family. On one side, the act of stealing is illegal, as it violates the rights of the bread’s owner. On the other side, the person’s motivation is driven by a desperate need to provide for their starving family, highlighting a situation of extreme necessity and survival. This dilemma pits the principles of justice against the principles of care, raising questions about the morality of actions taken under dire circumstances.

Business ethicists Chryssides and Kaler (1996) outlined five types of justice in their analysis of corporate responsibility and equal opportunities legislation:

• Procedural or “due process” — treats individuals in an impartial, unbiased, and fair manner based on application of rules and laws.
• Substantive — critically examines whether rules and laws result in inequitable outcomes for certain individuals or groups.
• Retributive — aims to right wrongs by punishing those who have violated existing rules and laws.
• Remedial — aims to right wrongs through remediation or reparations to counterbalance injustices that have occurred.
• Distributive — aims to ensure the fair allocation of benefits, opportunities, resources, and wealth among individuals in society and is concerned with how the outcomes of social policies are distributed among members of a community, with an emphasis on the good of the majority.

While the ethic of justice considers all five types of justice as defined by Chryssides and Kaler, it is primarily focused on procedural and distributive justice (Wood & Hilton, 2012). For this reason, the ethic of justice is closely aligned with transactional forms of leadership, with its focus on rules and regulations, structured environments and processes, defined tasks, and clear expectations. A study by Simola et al. (2010) of leaders and followers at a Canadian university showed that leader propensity toward an ethic of justice was significantly positively related to follower perceptions of transactional leadership but not transformational leadership.

Transactional leadership is concerned with the benefits that individuals accrue (economic, political, and psychological) through a social exchange, such as that of a leader and follower (Northouse, 2021). Transactional leaders employ a system of reward and punishment to motivate followers that align with established standards. The ethical values congruent with transactional leadership are also closely related to the individualist underpinnings of an ethic of justice (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999). The following summary table highlights the main objectives of the ethic of justice, core principles, and benefits of adopting this framework for analysing ethical dilemmas.

Historical Origins

The ethic of justice has long been informed by a Western worldview; as such, it has been dominated by an individualist ontology, assuming that each person is autonomous, has moral agency, and is responsible for their own actions. Two contemporary scholars are often attributed for our current understanding of the ethic of justice in education: John Rawls and Lawrence Kohlberg.

John Rawls

American philosopher John Rawls (1971) sought to create a framework for moral reasoning based on objectivity (free from personal biases, emotions, and subjective influences) and impartiality (a system that treats all people and perspectives fairly and equally, without favouritism or bias). In 1971, Rawl’s Theory of Justice outlined the concept of “justice as fairness,” where he argued that individuals should select principles of justice behind a “veil of ignorance.” By being ignorant of our circumstances (e.g., social status, religious beliefs, class, race, gender, and (dis)ability), he believed that people could make objective decisions about how societies should function and agree upon a “social contract” to govern how the world should work. Rawl’s proposed social contract was designed as a general agreement by representatives of all adult members of a society; as such, the point of view of justice was represented as an agreement by free and equal persons (Freeman, 2023).

Rawls (1971) outlined several stages for developing and implementing this social contract:

1. Original position — where individuals select principles of justice behind a veil of ignorance, ensuring impartiality by hiding their personal characteristics and social status.
2. Constitutional convention — where individuals partially lift the veil of ignorance so they can understand their societal context but not their personal identities. They then draft a constitution based on the chosen principles, ensuring majority rule and equal liberties for voting and holding government positions.
3. Legislation — where lawmakers, still unaware of their personal circumstances, formulate laws that comply with principles of liberty and difference (described below).
4. Implementation — where judges apply these laws, with the veil of ignorance fully removed.

Two primary principles supplement Rawls’ veil of ignorance, as described by Freeman (2023): the liberty principle and the difference principle.

• Liberty principle — based on the belief that the social contract should try to ensure that everyone enjoys the maximum liberty possible without intruding upon the freedom of others.
  • Basic liberties include freedom of conscience, thought, expression, and association; freedom and integrity of the person with the right to hold personal property; and equal political liberties and rights protected by the rule of law.
• Difference principle — based on the belief that the social contract should guarantee that everyone has an equal opportunity to prosper.
  • If there are any social or economic differences in the social contract, they should help those who are the worst off.
  • It requires economic inequalities of income, wealth, powers, and prerogatives to be arranged to maximally benefit the least advantaged members of society, making them better off than they would be in any alternative economic system.
  • To ensure that these opportunities are genuinely fair, the state is responsible for providing essential services like education, training, basic income, and healthcare for all citizens.

Lawrence Kohlberg

Twentieth-century American psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg is often credited for his influence on our current understanding of the ethic of justice. Like Rawls, Kohlberg (1973) viewed moral conflicts as abstract logical problems that could be resolved by following pre-determined laws and rules, or a social contract. According to Kohlberg, contextual factors such as someone’s personal situation, emotional condition, or difficulties in performing tasks should be eliminated from the decision-making process, and people should face the consequences of their actions when they break the social contract.

Kohlberg’s (1973) model of moral reasoning enhanced Rawls’ theory of justice by offering a developmental perspective on how people come to adopt just principles. While Rawls’ theory outlined the principles of justice chosen from an original position behind a veil of ignorance, Kohlberg’s developmental stages explained the cognitive and moral progression that enables individuals to understand and apply these principles.

Kohlberg (1973) suggested that abstract reasoning based on universal ethical principles represented the highest developmental stage of moral maturity. He outlined three levels of moral reasoning:

1. Pre-conventional — individuals base their moral decisions on personal consequences, such as avoiding punishment or seeking rewards.
2. Conventional — marked by a focus on societal rules and norms, where individuals aim to uphold laws and social conventions.
3. Post-conventional — involves abstract reasoning guided by universal ethical principles like justice, equality, and human rights, which go beyond specific laws and social agreements.

Critique of Rawls and Kohlberg

Kohlberg’s work has been critiqued from a gender-based perspective, most notably by Carol Gilligan (1982), a student of Kohlberg, who challenged his lack of inclusion of women and girls in his research and therefore, his assumption that what is just and unjust is the same for everyone. Gilligan further critiqued Kohlberg for focusing on hypothetical dilemmas rather than using real-world examples in his research to support his model of moral reasoning.

Alternatively, Gilligan studied women who were confronted with real dilemmas and, through her research, discovered the ethic of care — a relational ontology for moral reasoning that emphasizes interconnections between people and seeks creative ways to benefit everyone involved rather than focusing on individual rights and self-interest (Simola et al., 2010). Gilligan further argued that men have a tendency to make decisions from a justice orientation, whereas women have a propensity to make decisions from a care orientation (and some research supports this claim). However, cultural background has been found to be a more accurate predictor of justice and care orientations (see Strater (2023) for a gender-based analysis of the ethic of justice).

Emerging research and postmodern scholars have demanded that justice be reframed from an individualist ontology to a relational and care-based one, while others have argued for an ecological perspective. For example, Thomas E. Randall (2023) called for a critical rethink of the ethic of justice framework and argued that an individualist ontology is antithetical to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations General Assembly, 1948). Randall believed that structures of power and dependency promote or impede access to basic human rights in a global context and, therefore, human rights should be viewed through a relational ontology, where “an individual’s interests are intertwined with those around them” (p. 562).

Others have called for an ecological framing of justice, which stretches beyond that of human rights to consider the rights of all living things, including the land. As Blackstock (2007) noted, “Western thought places importance on individuals and the fulfilment of individual rights” (p. 5). As a result of an insatiable desire for human advancement, growth, and dominance, humans face danger from climate change, which will affect basic rights to life, health, and subsistence and “increase the number of people suffering from death, disease and injury from heatwaves, floods, storms, fires and droughts” (Confalonieri et al., 2007, p. 393), particularly among poorer nations. Climate change threatens the basic rights of individuals. Arguably, a paradigmatic shift is required; one which is more closely aligned with Indigenous worldviews that “hold the land and life knowledge in a sacred trust for the generations to follow” as opposed to “many Western peoples [who] believe they can own land and knowledge and use it for individual benefit with little concern for future generations” (Blackstock, 2007, p. 1).

Situated Within Educational Leadership Theory and Practice

Leaders whose moral reasoning is informed by a justice paradigm emphasize legal compliance, ensuring actions and decisions are grounded in established laws and ethical standards. They prioritize due process and procedural justice, treating all parties in disputes fairly (Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2016). They may acknowledge the imperfections of certain rules, yet they abide by and enforce them until improvements have been made. This is perceived to be an objective way to resolve dilemmas because contextual factors (e.g., personal, cultural, and historical) are not taken into consideration.

Smith (2000) argued that the ethic of justice offers a set of rules at the general level from which leaders can begin their moral deliberations, but he cautioned that other ethical paradigms (e.g. care) should inform moral decision-making. For example, culturally diverse contexts can be seen as an obstacle to universalism and individualism, which underpin the ethic of justice. Educational leaders who work within multicultural and increasingly globalized contexts are called to adopt equity, diversity, and inclusion policies and work towards decolonization and Indigenization in response to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (United Nations General Assembly, 2007) and, in Canada, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s (2015) Calls to Action.

Therefore, it is important to question the true universality of so-called universal principles. These principles are often established from a specific reference point, and if multiple perspectives are not included in their formulation, their universality is questionable (Engster & Hamington, 2015; Makoff & Read, 2016).

Benefits of Ethic

While the ethic of justice has been presented as non-consequentialist — where the morality of an action is judged based on whether it adheres to a set of rules, rather than the consequences of the action — in today’s world, educational leaders are called upon to acknowledge, examine, and address the systemic inequities inherent in educational systems. When leaders analyze the outcomes of actions taken and view justice through a consequentialist lens, there is potential to provoke policy changes and embrace relational and ecological ontologies of justice (Zembylas, 2010).

The importance of “the language of rights,” as Robinson (1999) highlighted, “is that it enables individuals and groups to demand attention from others for points of view that have been neglected” (p. 64). As previously discussed, calls for a relational framing of justice have the potential to address the limitations of an individualist frame. For example, Jan Hare (2022), an Anishinaabe scholar and educator from the M’Chigeeng First Nation, called for a relational approach to justice and made the case for a rights-based approach to Indigenous education, grounded in the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (United Nations General Assembly, 2007). Hare argued that Indigenous rights to education, language, and culture must be advanced on Indigenous terms. Teacher education in ‘right’ relations with Indigenous people requires that post-secondary institutions comply with their obligations to live up to responsibilities when part of a relationship (Gram-Hanssen et al., 2021).

Drawbacks of Ethic

Much of what has been written about the ethic of justice is based on a Western philosophical framing of liberal and individualistic ideals first positioned by white male European and American philosophers and enshrined in human rights legislation. For example, Rawls’ (1971) theory of justice was based on a representative group of “adult members” and “free and equal persons.” As Botting (2016) noted, these rights have historically been limited to “white, middle-class, tax-paying, property-owning male subjects who wished to enjoy the powers of self-governing republican citizens” (p. 40).

Much of the literature lacks a critical awareness of the relational contexts of power and privilege. As a result, universal and liberal rights are based on a Western perception of reality that ignores issues of class, gender, race, sexual orientation, eco-justice, and capitalism. In this vein, human rights are defined from a Western perception of morality and positioned as superior to other cultural and ethical variations, such as humans’ relationship with the land and the rights of LGBTQIA+, immigrants, and refugees. Notably, as Engsjö-Lindgren (2021) argued, universal laws and human rights were initially defined at a time when women and Indigenous peoples were not seen as full members of society and anti-LGBTQIA+ laws saw the criminalization of people who did not follow heteronormative standards.

Our current understanding of the ethic of justice is based on an anthropocentric worldview, where the rights of humans supersede all else, often to the detriment of other species and the environment. The ethic of justice has been heavily critiqued by scholars of the ethics of care, community, and critique for its narrow focus on Western thought, which was spread by European imperialism and colonization and has led to forms of epistemic injustice, where the ideas of the colonizers are treated with respect and those of the colonized are belittled, ignored, erased, or persecuted.

The ethic of justice has also been critiqued for being impersonal and detached, failing to adequately consider the emotional or relational aspects of ethical dilemmas, which could lead to decisions that lack empathy and compassion (Alolo, 2006). By focusing primarily on abstract principles and rights, justice-based ethics run the risk of dehumanizing individuals and reducing moral considerations to legalistic or rule-based frameworks (Engster & Hamington, 2015). This can undermine the recognition of the unique worth and dignity of each person.

Recommended Readings

• Episode 1 – Futures of Indigenous Education: Living in Right Relations [32:09 min] by Dr. Jan Hare (2002), Faculty of Education at the University of Melbourne
• “A Care Ethical Justification for an Interest Theory of Human Rights” by Thomas E. Randall (2023), Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy
• “Transformational Leadership and Leader Moral Orientation: Contrasting an Ethic of Justice and an Ethic of Care” by Sheldene K. Simola et al. (2010), The Leadership Quarterly

References

Alolo, N. (2006). Ethic of care versus ethic of justice? The gender-corruption nexus: Testing the new conventional wisdom. Ethics and Economics, 4(2). https://hdl.handle.net/1866/3380

Bass, B. M. & Steildmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 181–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00016-8

Beckner, W. (2004). Ethics for educational leaders. Pearson/A and B.

Blackstock, C. (2007). The breath of life versus the embodiment of life: Indigenous knowledge and western research. World Indigenous Nations Higher Education Consortium Journal, 4(1), 67–79.

Botting, E. H. (2016). Wollstonecraft, Mill and women’s human rights. Yale University Press.

Chryssides, G. D. & Kaler, J. H. (1996). Essentials of business ethics. McGraw-Hill.

Confalonieri, U., Menne, B., Rais Akhtar, K. L., Ebi, M. H., Sari Kovats, R., Revich, B., & Woodward, A. (2007). Human health. In M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden, & C. E. Hanson (Eds.), Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 391–431). Cambridge University Press.

Engsjö-Lindgren, M. (2021). Creating a caring union: Examining the possibilities, and advantages of replacing the ethics of justice with the ethics of care as the moral framework of the European Union [Master’s thesis, Linköping University]. DiVA. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1575165&dswid=3322

Engster, D., & Hamington, M. (Eds.). (2015). Care ethics and political theory. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198716341.001.0001

Enomoto, E. K. (1997). Negotiating the ethics of care and justice. Educational Administration Quarterly, 33(3), 351–370. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X97033003005

Freeman, S. (2023). Original position. Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/original-position/

Frick, W. C., Faircloth, S. C., & Little, K. S. (2012). Responding to the collective and individual “best interests of students”: Revisiting the tension between administrative practice and ethical imperatives in special education leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(2), 207–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X12463230

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Harvard University Press.

Gram-Hanssen, I., Schafenacker, N., & Bentz, J. (2021). Decolonizing transformations through ‘right relations.’ Sustainability Science, 17, 673–685. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-00960-9

Hare, J. (2022, October 26). Episode 1 – Futures of Indigenous education: Living in right relations [Video]. Faculty of Education, University of Melbourne. https://education.unimelb.edu.au/worldviews-in-education/episodes/episodes/episode-1

Kohlberg, L. (1973). Stages and aging in moral development—Some speculations. The Gerontologist, 13(4), 497–502. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/13.4.497

Makoff, R., & Read, R. (2016). Beyond just justice–Creating space for a future‐care ethic. Philosophical Investigations, 40(3), 223–256. https://doi.org/10.1111/phin.12138

Northouse, P. G. (2021). Leadership theory and practice (9th ed.). Sage Publications.

Randall, T. E. (2023). A care ethical justification for an interest theory of human rights. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 26(4), 554–578. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2020.1774184

Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press. https://archive.org/details/theoryofjustice0000rawl

Robbins, S., & Trabichet, L. (2009). Ethical decision-making by educational leaders: Its foundations, culture and more recent perspectives. Management in Education, 23(2), 51–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020609104810

Robinson, F. (1999). Globalizing care: Ethics, feminist theory, and international relations. Westview Press.

Shapiro, J. P., & Stefkovich, J. A. (2016). Ethical leadership and decision making in education: Applying theoretical perspectives to complex dilemmas. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315773339

Shapiro, J. P., Stefkovich, J. A., & Gutierrez, K. J. (2014). Ethical decision making. In C. M. Branson, & S. J. Gross, Handbook of ethical educational leadership. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203747582.ch14

Simola, S. K., Barling, J., & Turner, N. (2010). Transformational leadership and leader moral orientation: Contrasting an ethic of justice and an ethic of care. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(1), 179–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.10.013

Skoe, E. E., & von der Lippe, A. L. (2002). Ego development and the ethics of care and justice: The relations among them revisited. Journal of personality, 70(4), 485–508. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.05016

Smith, D. M. (2000). Moral geographies: Ethics in a world of difference. Edinburgh University Press.

Strater, P. P. (2023). Leading from an ethic of care or an ethic of justice during a crisis: Residential higher education student affairs leaders’ ethical perspective relative to student wellbeing during the Covid-19 pandemic (Publication No. 30424999) [Doctoral dissertation, Marymount University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.

United Nations General Assembly. (1948). The universal declaration of human rights.

United Nations General Assembly. (2007). United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples.

Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (2015). Truth and reconciliation commission of Canada: calls to action.

Wood, J. L., & Hilton, A. A. (2012). Five ethical paradigms for community college leaders: Toward constructing and considering alternative courses of action in ethical decision making. Community College Review, 40(3), 196–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552112448818

Zembylas, M. (2010). The ethic of care in globalized societies: Implications for citizenship education. Ethics and Education, 5(3), 233–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449642.2010.516636