Key Idea: Topic 7.2 asks what everyone appeals to and no one agrees on: what does justice actually require? Who should get what, how should wrongdoers be treated, and how do we balance freedom against equality? Master this topic and you have a ready-made answer for Paper 1 Section B, a 25-mark essay where you're handed a claim about justice and told to 'Evaluate' it.
⚖️ The four big questions, one card each
Topic 7.2 at a glance
- 7.2.1 · What is justice? — Everyone uses the word; no one pins it down. Thrasymachus says justice is just the interest of the strong; Plato answers that it is a real standard, a kind of order in the soul and the city, not merely a mask for power.
- 7.2.2 · Distributive justice — How to slice the cake of goods and burdens. Rawls: design the rules behind a 'veil of ignorance', not knowing who you'll be, so you protect the worst off. Hayek: chasing a fair pattern of outcomes is a mistake — no one authored them.
- 7.2.3 · Retributive justice and punishment — Why do we deliberately harm wrongdoers? Kant: because punishment is DESERVED — backward-looking. The forward-looking reply: punishment is justified by its usefulness — deterrence, reform and protecting the public.
- 7.2.4 · Justice, freedom and equality — Three ideals that pull apart. Nozick: forcing an equal outcome tramples freedom, because free choices constantly upset any pattern. The hard question 'equality of WHAT?' shows why balancing them is the real work.
Patterned theories of justice judge a distribution by its SHAPE — is it equal, does it help the worst off, does it match need or desert? Historical (entitlement) theories judge it by its STORY — was each holding justly acquired and freely transferred? Rawls is patterned; Nozick is historical. Almost every Section B question on justice is really asking you to weigh a fair-pattern answer against a fair-process answer.
✍️ Bring it together — a Section B question
Evaluate the claim that a just society must reduce the gap between its richest and poorest members.
🔒 Model answer plan
See the mark-by-mark plan — for / against / judgement, with marking guidance — in study mode.
Important: Describing views instead of evaluating the claim. Section B hands you a claim to weigh — don't just tour 'Rawls thinks X, Nozick thinks Y.' Argue FOR the claim, argue AGAINST it, test its key word (here, 'must', and gap vs floor), and reach a reasoned conclusion. A name earns nothing without its argument, and a top answer never ends on 'it's all subjective'.
✅ Check yourself
If you can answer these six, you have the spine of the whole topic.
Thrasymachus vs Plato on justice? Thrasymachus: justice is just the interest of the stronger — a mask for power. Plato: justice is a real standard, an order in the soul and the city, not merely what the powerful decree.
What is Rawls's 'veil of ignorance'? A thought experiment: choose society's rules not knowing who you'll be. Not knowing your place, you'd pick fair rules that protect the worst off.
Patterned vs historical justice? Patterned (Rawls): judge a distribution by its shape — equal, needs-based, helps the worst off. Historical (Nozick): judge it by its story — was each holding justly acquired and freely transferred?
Kant vs the forward-looking view of punishment? Kant: punish because it is DESERVED (backward-looking retribution). Forward-looking: punish because it's USEFUL — deterrence, reform, protecting the public.
Why does Nozick say forced equality tramples freedom? Free choices constantly upset any equal pattern (his Wilt Chamberlain case), so keeping the pattern means endlessly interfering with people's voluntary exchanges.
Why does Hayek call 'social justice' empty? Market outcomes have no author who intended them, so calling them 'unjust' misfires — only a chooser can act unjustly, and no one chose the overall pattern.
Exam Tips
- Political Philosophy is optional → Paper 1 Section B: a 25-mark essay with NO stimulus. You're handed a claim and told to 'Evaluate' it.
- Find the load-bearing word in the claim ('must', 'only', 'always') and make evaluating it the spine of your essay.
- Name a thinker ONLY with their argument — Rawls, Nozick, Kant earn marks only when you use them to argue.
- Always argue both sides and end on a reasoned conclusion, never a list and never 'it's just opinion'.