This second sense of economic justice for the poor is not found in Cicero, and is expanded upon in Martha Nussbaum's philosophy of the state's role in expanding upon human capabilities, or the capabilities for maximizing one's individual potential. Rawls' most unique contribution to modern thought is assumed to be his concept of what he calls the veil of ignorance, or the fact that decisions about justice should be calculated by a perfectly objective person, who has no idea whom he or she is affecting when he or she is making decisions about justice in terms of the person's identity, sex, race, and the expansion of economic opportunities. Rationally, all people wish to advance their own interests, but if they no longer know the identity of whom they are advancing, they will act in a perfectly just fashion, including at times redistributing some wealth in the name of expanding opportunities for even a minority of citizens, like the poorest of society who need assistance to feed themselves, in addition to their income derived from labor.

However, while Martha Nussbaum also calls for a socially equitable system of justice, she might note that past historical circumstances mean that the impartial arbiter of Rawls' justice, operating behind the invisible veil cannot be blind to historical circumstances.

Like Rawls, Nussbaum stresses the need for social justice in economic terms. Like Rawls, Nussbaum argues that focusing on persons' functional capabilities are the legitimate social goals of a just society. Like Rawls, she redefines the ancient concept of the social contract and human equality in both economic as well as political terms, stressing that the state has a role in creating greater economic as well as political equality than exists in most nations. Like Rawls, Nussbaum's focus is also primarily individualistic, regardless of whether the person is in the majority or in the minority. The role of the state is to expand the happiness and the potential for every...

Individual women can chose to live in a traditional manner but this does not mean that the state can justify limiting gender equality because the majority of women might wish to do so. Thus, again like Rawls, she believes that strict utilitarianism or democracy is not feasible. But Nussbaum does not limit her discussion redistributing the economic resources of the nation like Rawls; she also focuses on the nation's political resources or human rights.
In short, Nussbaum says it is wrong to accord more rights to a conservative fundamentalist group at the expense of another group, that of all women in the society, if a minority of individual women chose to behave and believe differently should have the right to maximize their capabilities. Sometimes it may be necessary to be unjust to a majority faction of religious fundamentalists, to preserve the capabilities of a minority of women within the society who do not subscribe to such a belief structure. Thus, Nussbaum's philosophy is complementary to Rawls, but because of her specific focus on women in traditional societies, she adds to and slightly redefines his core concepts of what constitutes justice.

Works Cited

Cicero, Marcus Tullius. "The Defense of Injustice." From A World of Ideas. Edited by Lee A. Jacobus. 7th edition. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2006.

Rawls, John. "A Theory of Justice." From A World of Ideas. Edited by Lee A. Jacobus. 7th edition. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2006.

Nussbaum, Martha C. "The Central Human Functional Capabilities." From A World of Ideas. Edited by Lee A. Jacobus. 7th edition. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2006.