“A community is democratic only when the humblest and weakest person can enjoy the highest civil, economic, and social rights that the biggest and most powerful possess.

Equality is the heart and essence of democracy, freedom, and justice, equality of opportunity in industry, in labor unions, schools and colleges, government, politics, and before the law. There must be no dual standards of justice, no dual rights, privileges, duties, or responsibilities of citizenship. No dual forms of freedom.

Men often hate each other because they fear each other; they fear each other because they do not know each other; they do not know each other because they cannot communicate; they cannot communicate because they are separated.”

According to Plato, it would be an ideal state that "every member of the community must be assigned to the class for which he finds himself best fitted."  Aristotle believed rights existed only between free people, and the law should take "account in the first instance of relations of inequality in which individuals are treated in proportion to their worth and only secondarily of relations of equality."

John Rawls posits a theory of social justice commonly referred to as "justice as fairness." Rawls set out to sketch a theory of social justice that would answer the questions: "once we view a democratic society as a fair system of social cooperation between citizens regarded as free and equal, what principles are most appropriate to it?" and "...which principles are most appropriate for a democratic society that not only professes but wants to take seriously ... that citizens are free and equal, and tries to realize that idea in its main institutions?"

To Rawls, social justice is about assuring the protection of equal access to liberties, rights, and opportunities, as well as taking care of the least advantaged members of society. Therefore, whether something is just or unjust depends on whether it promotes or hinders equality of access to civil liberties, human rights, opportunities for healthy and fulfilling lives, as well as whether it allocates a fair share of benefits to the least advantaged members of society.

Rawls' conception of social justice is developed around the idea of a social contract, whereby people freely enter into an agreement to follow certain rules for the betterment of everyone, without considering the implications of these rules for their own selfish gain. He posits that rational, free people will agree to play by the rules under fair conditions and that this agreement is necessary to assure social justice because public support is critical to the acceptance of the rules of the game. These rules or principles "specify the basic rights and duties to be assigned by the main political and social institutions, and they regulate the division of benefits arising from social cooperation and allot the burdens necessary to sustain it"

Rawls does not suggest that everyone will agree with what justice requires in given situations, but rather that his conception of justice as fairness can fit into "conflicting doctrines" because of what he calls "overlapping consensus." That is, people agree enough about the basic principles of justice he offers that even when they disagree about larger moral, religious of philosophical issues they can still agree about issues of social justice.

David Miller focuses on the concepts of need, desert, and equality. Need is a claim that one is lacking is basic necessities and is being harmed or is in danger of being harmed and/or that one's capacity to function is being impeded. Desert is a claim that one has earned reward based on performance, that superior performance should attract superior recognition. Equality refers to the social ideal that society regards and treats its citizens as equals, and that benefits such as certain rights should be distributed equally.

It is important to note that need, desert, and equality all refer to outcomes. That is, this theory is not one of procedural justice, which is separate and distinct. Miller claims that procedural justice is important, however also points out that just procedures will not necessarily produce just outcomes. The good news is there are four procedures we can follow to increase the odds of a just outcome - formal equality, accuracy, publicity, and dignity

Miller holds that inequalities in society are at times just. There are at least two reasons for this. First, economic inequalities that motivate people to strive for more can sometimes be justified. Second, inequalities may result from differential claims on merit. That is, those individuals who are more meritorious because of their performances deserve more than those who are less meritorious because of their education, skills, and performances. Yet, Miller notes that today's economic disparities are not acceptable. Further, he asserts that citizens believe the gap between the rich and the poor today is too large; the bottom wage is not a living wage; and the amount of money being paid to those at the top have not earned it.

To call for a living wage is not to embrace a form of communism or socialism, rather it is based on the recognition that everyone who is working - regardless of job - deserves a salary to provide for basic necessities. Salaries can still be based on education level, skill level, degree of responsibility associated with the job, dangers faced, and so forth. This means social justice is not inconsistent with a market economy

Paul Farmer says, “But if you're asking my opinion, I would argue that a social justice approach should be central to medicine and utilized to be central to public health. This could be very simple: the well should take care of the sick.”