Demand of the question:
Focus more on justification of relativist or contextual nature of ethics, explaining why justice varies with time, place, social conditions, and consequences, supported by suitable examples. Briefly touch on the significance of absolutist perspective of justice.
Introduction:
The statement reflects a relativist and contextual approach to ethics, as opposed to moral absolutism.Justice is shaped by various contexts like era, place and social conditions.
Why justice should be contextual? (# in real time can use 5 headings with some egs, even can trim down the length of examples into 4,5 words without losing essence)
- Time-Sensitivity of Justice: Moral legitimacy of actions changes with evolving circumstances and consequences. Eg: COVID-19 lockdowns were justified to protect public health but would be disproportionate if continued today.
- Inequality & Diverse Lived Realities: Uniform application of rules affects unequal societies differently; contextual judgment is needed for substantive justice. Eg: Same eligibility thresholds for welfare schemes exclude informal workers with irregular incomes.
- Limits of Weberian Bureaucracy: Rule-bound, impersonal administration may uphold legality but ignore empathy and discretion required for justice. Eg: Denial of welfare due to minor documentation gaps is procedurally correct but substantively unjust.
- Cultural Context of Justice: Ethical principles must align with civilisational values rather than blind imitation. Eg: Indian Sarva Dharma Sambhava differs from Western secularism, requiring contextual governance.
- Balancing Competing Values: Justice often lies in situational balancing of conflicting ethical claims. Eg: RTI and Official Secrets Act demand situational balancing- at times transparency must prevail, at others national security.
- Evolving Social Awareness & Moral Progress: What is considered just changes as societies evolve in their understanding of dignity and rights. Eg: Criminalisation of homosexuality, once accepted, is now seen as unjust due to evolving constitutional morality.
Why contextual justice can become unjust?
- Deontological Ethics: According to Kant’s Categorical Imperative and Gandhian view of Satyagraha, certain acts are intrinsically right or wrong, irrespective of context or consequences. Eg: Lying is unjust even if done for personal convenience or short-term gain.
- Private Morality vs Public Ethics: Contextual empathy in personal life cannot override impartiality in public office. Eg: Granting official favour to one’s own child amounts to corruption, not compassion.
- Rule of Law & Public Trust: Fixed moral principles ensure consistency and public trust in institutions. Eg: Selective enforcement of laws based on “context” undermines equality before law.
- Protection from Arbitrary Power: Without absolute ethical boundaries, contextual ethics may legitimise abuse of authority. Eg: Prolonged preventive detention without trial justified as “security necessity” erodes civil liberties.
Conclusion:
Like the Indian Constitution, which is a living yet principled document, justice must remain responsive to changing social contexts while staying firmly anchored in core constitutional values.