Ethics

If by any means the society eliminated discrimination, then the most poor can be thought to deserve their situation since they chose not to do much with their standardized talents. However if people vary in ability, they may get themselves surviving in poverty and in a non prejudiced society even when they tried their level best. This is an example of an injustice which according to Rawls should be rectified and could be neglected if it was assumed that people have the same equal talents and abilities (Linda  Baldwin, 1996). In the society however, there exists great disparities in the talents among the members which create a need for justice in the way that the benefits and the burdens of the society are allocated. The modern views of justice emphasize social qualities of fairness and equity. On the other hand, ideas of acceptable rational behavior emphasize self serving, individual choices which are not by any means concerned with equity. In such forms, rationality and justice conflict since it appears that rationality cannot manage a balanced social approach to justice and fairness. Various forms of justice are thus used to facilitate social fairness and equality three of which present the most compelling versions of social fairness. The distributive, procedural and restorative forms of justice are the basic forms of ensuring social fairness (Linda  Baldwin, 1996). This paper aims at discussing the relationships among these forms of justice as the most effective methods of enhancing social fairness in organizations and the society at large.

Forms of justice
Generally, justice refers to the fair and reasonable treatment of all persons regardless of their status, stature or backgrounds. It is often argued that justice is a good idea that does not apply in the present generation. This assumption is as a result of an ignorant approach to justice and a misconception of the purpose and foundation of justice in the society. There are many different forms of justice used to enhance social fairness and to promote peace and understanding amongst the members of the society.  Examples of those used in the modern society include retributive justice, restorative, distributive and procedural justice (Linda  Baldwin, 1996).

Distributive justice
Distributive justice is also referred to as economic justice. It involves fairness regarding what people obtain from goods, services and intentions. Distributive justice has its roots in social order and it forms the basic foundations of communism. In communism, equality is the fundamental principle. This form of justice argues that if people do not believe that what they are receiving is their fair share, they seek out first to achieve what they think is their fair share. The key principle in the distributive theory is the belief of the existence of a fair share to all people in the society. The principles of distributive justice are normative and are designed for guiding the allocation of both the benefits and the burdens of an economic activity. The fundamental principle of this justice is strict egalitarianism. Egalitarianism advocates for equal allocation of material benefits to each and every member in the society. This principle is often justified on the grounds that people are owed equal respect and that equality in material goods and services is the best way to give effect to this ideal (Plato, 1996).

Procedural justice
Procedural justice is based on making as well as implementing all decisions in accordance to the process of fairness. The proponents of this form of justice argue that when people are treated with dignity and respect, they are affirmed that the procedure followed is justified and hence they easily accept the consequences which they were not pleased with. The theory of fairness (by John Rawls) also applies in the thoughts of fair play. This is opposed to the fair share ideas of the distributive justice. In this form of justice, people believe that if a fair procedure was used to decide what was distributed to each person, they might allow a disparity in what they get, in contrast to others. However, if they tend to think that the distributive and the procedural forms of justice reflect any injustice, they seek for restorative justice (Plato, 1996).

Restorative justice
It is also referred to as corrective justice. Restorative justice is used as the justice of last resort if the distributive and procedural forms are seen to be unjust. In essence, the foremost thing that a betrayed person seeks from the traitor is restitution. Restitution entails taking back things were they were before the betrayal occurred. The easiest form of executing restitution is a direct and straightforward apology. Restoration may involve an act of contrition meant to demonstrate that the offender is sincerely sorry. As such, there may come into play an extra compensation to the party offended. Restorative justice is the best way of responding to criminal acts in the society because it emphasizes on the wrong committed to a party in addition to the wrong committed to the society at large. It recognizes the fact that crimes are a violation of the relationships existing between specific individuals and also an offence to everyone (Plato, 1996).

The relationship between distributive and procedural justice
In essence, procedural justice is the second phase of the theory of justice which starts off with distributive justice. In a fair society, people will seek to ensure that the benefits and the burdens of the society are distributed in an equitable manner and that every member of the society or a given group is allocated their fair portion. However, when there are questions concerning the distribution of such resources or other benefits, the members of the group automatically want to know what criteria was followed in arriving at the decisions-thus the procedural justice comes into play (Linda  Baldwin, 1996).

For about two decades ago, human resource managers have acknowledged the significance of the relationship justice and effectiveness in an organization. Two forms of justice are very important and applicable in organizational effectiveness procedural and distributive justice. Whereas distributive justice is concerned with achieving the ends and the substance of fairness, procedural justice deals with the means of achieving these ends and the process of exercising fairness. This being the case, procedural justice is therefore the process of facilitating distributive justice (Linda  Baldwin, 1996).

The two forms of justice have been mostly applicable in organizations while dealing with factors of performance appraisal in the workplaces. Performance appraisals are lately the main focus of procedural justice. Perceptions of fairness in performance evaluations have a relationship with managerial and employees chances of expressing their feelings. When performance appraisal procedure is carried out in a fair manner, the employees are satisfied that the benefits of the organization have been distributed equitably (although not necessarily equally) and this enables the company or any other organization in the society to achieve the intended goals (Tang, 1996).

The differences between procedural justice and distributive justice
In an attempt to separate the roles of the two forms of justice, the proponents of these theories have repeatedly argued that distributive justice usually predicts a level of satisfaction with the output or the outcome of the distribution while procedural justice exerts influence on the evaluation of an organization or the management. This implies that distributive justice results in satisfaction while procedural justice results in trust in the supervision as well as organizational commitment. Once procedural justice has been made fair, it becomes hard to question outcomes (distributive justice). Distributive justice has many times accounted for more exceptional variation in pay satisfaction and a personal degree of assessment than procedural justice (Maiese, 2004).

In an organizational setting, distributive justice usually predicts individual- level evaluations such as pay satisfaction while procedural justice predicts organizational-level assessments such as commitment to the organization. Without procedural justice, employees in an organization would work only because they want good compensation for the work they have done, but not for the success and development of the organization. Therefore, combined together, distributive and procedural justice aid in ensuring that employees are not only satisfied with their work but they are also committed to the organizational values and growth (Maiese, 2004).

The principles of distributive justice are basically normative principles which are designed for guiding the allocation and distribution of the benefits as well as burdens of the economic activity. However these distributive justice principles in real life vary in many dimensions relating to subject matter of distribution (welfare, utility, opportunities, jobs, wealth and income), nature of distribution subjects (groups of people, natural persons, and reference classes) and in terms of what distribution ought to address (maximization, equality, individual characteristics and free transactions (Linda  Baldwin, 1996). Procedural justice on the other hand has a precise and define course since it ensures justified process of conducting activities and transactions in any societal setting. As a result, people and organizations have developed a tendency to prefer procedural justice as the basic method of executing justice and addressing the complaints related to fairness and justice because it is simple and direct and can be understood easily by any member of the society (Linda  Baldwin, 1996).

The differences between procedural and restorative justice
What makes procedural justice fair is the element of consistency while what makes restorative justice is the restitution of the offended party back to the position they were before the wrong was committed. Consistency in procedural justice facilitates fairness because the process used to determine what is fair in one incidence must be similar to the process that will be applied in future to handle the same issue. For example, if a company uses employee turnover rates in appraising and promoting junior workers, the company must come up with a given criteria for determining the degree of turnover that will not be eligible for the promotion. This criteria need to be applied while assessing all the workers and all the time the same procedure need to be used, unless the company policies are deliberately changed or adjusted (Tang, 1996).

Restorative justice is used as a curative method in executing justice while procedural justice is a preventive method in executing justice. This is to mean that for the case of restorative justice, the harm or offence has already taken place and the only option available is in restituting the condition back to where it was (Braithwaite, 2008). In contrast, for the case of procedural justice, the no offence has taken place but there exists an element of the like hood of the occurrence of an offence in the future. As such, the procedural justice method generates questions on the processes being used to execute justice in the society as a means of mitigating or preventing the possibility of any offence to the parties involved. In the society, an excellent example of the procedural justice is peaceful demonstration by either the general public or by a certain group that is not satisfied by the situation they are in (say civil servants or company employees) (Braithwaite, 2008).

The application of the principles of John Rawls in promoting social fairness
John Rawls is regarded as being one among the key political philosophers during the twentieth century. Primarily, he is widely known for his famous theory of justice as fairness. The theory of justice as fairness demonstrates the principles of justice that govern the order in a modern society which presumes that justice no longer exists. His theory develops a framework which clearly explains the importance, within a society that is presumed to comprise of equal and free persons, of equal chances, of personal and political liberties, and cooperative provisions that promote the less and the more privileged members within a society (Byne, 1958). Although Rawls conception about justice is similar to any other philosophers conception on the same subject, his justice as fairness theory presents the most excellent picture of the relationship between different persons in the same association. He uses two main principles which are necessary in analyzing and determining the most excellent forms of justice that promote social fairness. To begin with is the first principle that states that each and every person has an equal right to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties which is compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for all (Byne, 1958). This principle supports distributive justice that will be discussed later is an essential form of justice that greatly promotes social fairness. The other principle by Rawls states that social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions they must be attached to offices and positions open to all under the conditions of fair equality of opportunity and the second, they must be to the greatest benefit to both the individual and the entire society (Byne, 1958). This second principle finds its application in the rest of the two forms of justice discussed earlier in this paper procedural and restorative justice respectively (Byne, 1958).

Conclusion
This three forms of justice forms the best combination of a societys justice system- simply because they exist as a series of actions taken to promote, implement and sustain justice in the society where there lacks justice (Tang, 1996). Distributive justice is applied to promote it, procedural justice to implement a process for promoting the justice and restorative justice as a means of restituting the society or its members to the position they were in before justice was violated. In a society where this forms of justice are applied by the authorities, there not only exists social order but also fairness and fulfillment among its members.