Introduction
Social justice is a fundamental concept in political philosophy and governance that addresses the fair distribution of resources, rights, and opportunities within a society. This concept has gained increasing importance in the contemporary world and significantly influences social development and policymaking. In this context, two prominent thinkers, Martyr Motahhari and John Rawls, have analyzed and articulated the concept of social justice from different perspectives. This article examines and analyzes governance and the establishment of a global government based on social justice, emphasizing these two intellectuals.
Research Methodology
This research employs a descriptive-analytical and comparative approach. The data used in this study were collected through library research and an examination of scientific and philosophical texts. The aim of this research is to investigate and compare the viewpoints of Martyr Motahhari and John Rawls regarding social justice and governance.
Research Findings
Martyr Motahhari, as an Islamic thinker, views justice as an inherent principle rooted in human nature. He believes that justice exists naturally in the world and that its realization requires the integration of human law with divine law. Motahhari emphasizes that justice can only be achieved through adherence to divine and ethical principles in society and must be shaped according to religious teachings and Islamic values. He refers to the existential and creative realities established by the creation system, asserting that justice as a truth in society should aim to meet the basic needs of individuals and alleviate social and economic inequalities.
On the other hand, John Rawls, with a liberal approach, considers justice as a civil matter that can be attained through human consensus under fair conditions. Rawls' theory particularly hinges on two foundational principles: first, every individual should have equal rights to fundamental liberties, and second, social and economic inequalities are only permissible if they benefit the least advantaged members of society. Rawls believes that achieving social justice requires individuals to engage in discussions from a position of neutrality and fairness, and laws must be designed to establish justice in society.
Comparative Analysis
While Martyr Motahhari addresses justice from a theological and ethical perspective, emphasizing its inherent nature, Rawls approaches the concept from a humanistic and rational viewpoint. These two approaches differ not only in their foundations but also in their methodologies. Motahhari refers to Islamic and ethical principles and perceives justice as an existential reality, while Rawls emphasizes social and civil consensus and views justice from a contractual perspective.
Both theories strive to create a just government and ensure social justice. However, while Motahhari sees justice as a divine and existential reality that must manifest in societal legal structures, Rawls argues that justice must be established through social and political processes with individuals' consensus under fair conditions.
Regarding practical solutions for achieving justice, Motahhari emphasizes legislation based on Islamic and ethical principles, believing that laws must be designed to establish justice in society. In contrast, Rawls stresses the importance of creating social and political institutions as frameworks for achieving justice, asserting that social institutions should be designed to provide freedom and equality for all individuals.
Conclusion
Ultimately, both theories illustrate the significance of justice in governance and policymaking. Martyr Motahhari, from an Islamic perspective and with a focus on the inherent nature of justice, emphasizes the connection between human law and divine principles. Meanwhile, John Rawls, from a liberal standpoint and with an emphasis on human consensus, seeks a pathway to justice through social and political processes. Despite their fundamental differences in foundations and methodologies, these two viewpoints converge on a common point: the necessity for fundamental reforms and the effort to establish just governance, where justice is presented as an indicator of progress and development.