In the provided article we have been focusing on the injust with a family, dude a gender structure

oriented outlook. Antifeminist books like liberalism and the limits of justice and the closing of the
America minds, have ushered arguments that claim, family as “beyond” justice.

JUSTICE AND THE IDEALIZED FAMILY

The ideation of justice was assumed to be inappropriate virtue for families as stated by Hume and
Rousseau.

Rousseau on drawing a comparison between a political society and family propounded that not all
its members are accountable or regulated by principles of justice because its founded upon love, and
a the decisions are taken after consulting the heart. He concludes that women can, without
prejudice to their well being, be both ruled with a family and dined the right to participate
politically.

Similarly, Hume states that circumstances in a family aren’t appropriate to standards of justice. For
the affection and unity of interest prevailing in the families makes the standards of justice stand
irrelevant in their context. Sandel, the author of liberalism and the limits of justice constructs
arguments upon Hume's vision of family life, to create a picture of justice as an Inappropriate virtue
for some social spheres. A central piece of his argument against Rawls theory of justice, was based
on a denial of Rawls's claim that justice is the primary moral virtue. Rawl also explains the
‘circumstances of justice’ as:

1. Scarcity of resources
2. Difference in goals and purpose

According to Rawls these lead to conflicts for social and natural resources available. Rawls’s claim for
this primacy of justice is refuted by Sandel, by the existence of numerous social groups that lack the
presence of circumstances of justice. Sandal argues that such groups discard the theory of justice in
two respects in accepting justice as a primary virtue of social institutions. Firstly, agreeing with Hume
he says in intimate associations such as family, the values and aims coincides closely enough to
regard justice as a virtue to a relatively smaller degree. Secondly, if such associations begin to
operate in accordance with principles of justice there wouldn’t me any moral Improvement
necessarily, rather loss of other nobler virtues lies at bar.

PROBLEMS WITH SANDEL’S ARGUMENTS:

Rawls refers to moral virtues that are higher and nobler than justice(i.e. an essential virtue) as
supererogatory actions, in his view don’t require norms of rights and justice, but aren’t
contradictory. Yet when they claim for good seeks conflict even if influenced by such moralities, shall
comply to the principles of justice. Thus, justice is needed as primary and the most fundamental,
moral virtue even for social groupings in which aims are largely common and affection frequently
persists.

Secondly, Sandel relies on an idealized and mythical account of family. Discarding his examples of
saints agreeing to something unanimously, perhaps not taking in account the realistic concerns and
placing arguments on idealistic ones. Rawls himself declares justice as superfluous. And if situations
of disagreement that are much likely to take place in this ideal sphere as claimed my Hume and
Sandel, declines the idea of families not needing principles of justice.

The ancient ideologies of oneness in a marriage comes from the legal fiction of coverture, where
what belongs to her becomes his. But the parallel is never drawn, and therefore all the theories
describing coverture as enlarged affection is a subjective view propagated on a population scale.
Which is why in late 20th century such ideologies served a veil for injust of coverture.

The writer explains how lack of choice offered to women to choose such a life can not be read as
justified. She also explains how, those who perceive justice differently from him criticize that justice
takes away intimacy and the higher nobel values from such social groups, when there is an absolute
possibility of there coexistence. But a family that doesn’t provide justice when their members have a
reason to ask for them, then despite their generosity and affection, it the worst.

Thus, a family that ideal and sentimentalized it can be perceived to undermine the primacy of
justice. But when we recognize family as a member of discrete people with individual aims and
hopes, conflicts will surface over time and hence justice is a crucial virtue for family. Also, some
resources to name a few like- leisure, money, time and attendance are likely to run out at times,
justice here again has a significant role to play in family. Moreover, the lack of permanency of these
families over time, without one’s consent and to a great detriment to those who care, would be
entitled as lack of foresight to accept a justice system with the family, rather than referring to it as
nobility.