Multi-dimensionality is one of the main features of the contemporary understandings of social justice. It emphasizes the fact that whether
a society is just or not cannot be assessed based on one single variable or unit of evaluation.

Justice as criminal and justice and social.

“Justice as social” is frequently referred as “justice beyond the courtroom” and emphasizes the insufficiency of judicial justice in assessing if a society is a just
one or not.

Plato.

According to Hobbes, justice is to obey the rules of covenant.

According to Hume, public utility is considered as the primary point of focus for all societies that aim to be just. Hume’s emphasis on the public utility as the
essence of just society has led to the emergence of one of the most influential perspectives of social justice that is today known as the utilitarian model of social justice.

Utilitarianism

A just society is associated with the perspective that the common interest of the society is taken as the prevailing criteria in decision, actions, or policies of the ruling authority.

Hume considers on the possibility of an egalitarian society into two forms. The first one is the existence of a society without property, meaning that there is no one who holds a property on his own. Setting up such a society, according to Hume, could only be achieved under two conditions: (a) An abundance of goods satisfy to human demands and (b) Unlimited generosity that everyone is freely given what they need.

The difference between the utilitarian and libertarian accounts of social justice is
based on the priorities of each conception. Libertarianism highlights the importance of certain inalienable rights of individual whilst utilitarianism attaches priority to the aggregative interests of society with a perspective putting the individuals’ rights at the second row.

In Rawlsian perspective of social justice, just action is considered in terms of institutional arrangements of society, which differs from perspectives that point out justice as “virtue of individuals” that is originated in Plato’s work as well as libertarian account of justice that emphasizes individual’s responsibility in undesired outcomes, such as being poor, and deserved privileges, such as being a rich person.

Income and wealth.

John Rawls.

Sen asks, “why should we regard hunger, starvation and medical neglect to be invariably less important than the violation of any kind of personal liberty?”

Considering freedom as the focal point of justice means that the capability level of individuals to convert their possessions (rights, commodities, economic utilities, and so forth) into something they value requires a shift of attention from meansbased assessment of justice to the ends-based one.

According to him, liberation of individual depends on “replacing the domination of circumstances and chance over individuals by the domination of individuals
over chance and circumstances”

It illustrates an attack to commodity-centred assessment of standards of living.

Phillipe van Parijs’ criticism to the libertarian conception of freedom emphasizes the limits of the negative freedom that ignores the fact that individuals do not only need to be free from coercion to be and do that, but also to be supported in various ways to achieve normatively specified dimensions of good life such as being free from hunger/starvation or participation in free election

"Why society should keep compensating undesired outcomes emerging
due to individuals’ own choices?"

Those who suffer from injustices in a society experience a form of disadvantage that is not only associated with their economic status but also cultural
misrecognition of their identities.