The concept of justice is complicated and nebulous, and its exact nature has been the subject of numerous debates throughout millennia. In general, it is considered to be an impartial decision-making agency that can make and enforce decisions that are regarded as virtuous. One of its most important aspects is that it is deliberate and reasoned rather than arbitrary so that people may understand it and use it to guide their decisions and overall life. The precise nature of this virtue is unclear, as that concept is also a target of considerable debate among philosophers.
Utilitarianism’s relationship with justice is complicated because its unclear nature conflicts with its intent to maximize utility in specific terms. In particular, its demand that each person receives what they are due conflicts with the utilitarian concept of distributing rewards and punishment in a way that benefits the whole. For this reason and many others, the two concepts are not entirely compatible, though they can still influence each other. In general, utilitarian theory suggests that when one considers justice, they should reflect on the results of the decision they will make, both immediate and otherwise, when deciding what course of action is right.
The libertarian concept of justice is minimized to accommodate the concept of liberty. A person has to be unconstrained by others in their actions and respect others’ entitlement to the same. From this concept, it is possible to derive a number of fundamental rights based on the maximization of individual liberty. As such, the role of justice is to prevent acts of coercion and, if unsuccessful in doing so, to exact punishment on the perpetrator. It does not provide those who have been wronged or disadvantaged with benefits because to do so is a function of voluntary charity rather than justice.