عبدالامیر جرفی

Social justice, as a concern of human society alongside concepts like freedom, security, democracy, and governance, has always received attention by justice-oriented thinkers. They have provided theo-ries on the concept of justice and how to achieve it. Among them are Morteza Motahari and John Rawls who regarded as influential in global thought. This article focuses on the concept of social jus-tice and its place in governance within the framework of the ideas of these two thinkers, utilizing a descriptive-comparative method by gathering primary data from related articles on social justice with-in a governance approach. For Martyr Motahari, justice is an innate matter, achievable only through the connection of human law to divine law. He sees justice as a fundamental reality created by natural order. In contrast, Rawls views justice as a civil matter, attainable through human consensus under conditions of fairness. This is why, they yield two different outcomes, while ultimately aim to shape reforms and essential concepts by emphasizing that governance cannot start without moving toward justice. Justice is presented as a marker, factor, and aspect essential for progress, development, and the attributes of fair and transcendental governance. Both theories assign duties to governments, as a principal pillar of public rights, in establishing social justice through legislation. However, their views diverge significantly in the origins and foundations of these perspectives, as Rawls approaches justice from a liberal viewpoint, Motahari articulates it in an Islamic context.0