If we do the detail study of the society then it includes the political studies as well, because in the broader sense, the social study includes the political, economic, religious, cultural, all the aspects. In this way, definitely political study is a part of social study.

But in restricted sense, the political study is confined only up to the political activities of the human beings. In addition, if we do the scientific study of the society then we will reach up to the sociology. But if we do the philosophical study of the society then it will be social philosophy. Similarly, if we do the scientific study of political facts then it is political science. And if we do the philosophical study of political facts then it will be political philosophy.

Altogether, we can say that the sociology and political science are descriptive, factual and natural sciences. But if we go through in the critical way or in normative sense or in evaluative manner, then it shall be called as socio - political philosophy, because where the different sciences are factual and descriptive are known as first order function, then on the other hand the philosophy is supposed to be a rational activity which is evaluative and normative and that's why it is second order function which also can be known as deep study of a subject. That's why sometimes in order to do the deep study of a subject we have to depend upon the methods and arguments which have been recognized by the philosophy. That's why after doing research in any subject the degree awarded is D. phil. or Ph. D. which means Doctor of philosophy.

As far as socio - political philosophy is concerned, then it is comparatively a new branch of the philosophy which developed in the last century. But after analysis, we can say that it is deeply rooted and in any way, it has been existing right from the early period or in other words, since then human existence and society is supposed to be started, the beginning of socio - political philosophy is supposed right from there. As a separate branch of philosophy it is mainly discussed by the European thinkers in western philosophy, but not in the Indian philosophy. But in the early Indian religious scripts, we may have the related thoughts.

To sum up the introduction, we can say that the socio - political philosophy is a normative science and that's why neither it shall be considered as sociology nor it shall be considered as political science, because both are factual, while the socio - political philosophy goes beyond the facts and discuss about the ideals, values, norms etc. that's why the social philosophy is defined as the study of social ideals, because the society is made of the human beings and the human beings not only influenced by the society but influence the society as well. We know that the state is a part of the society therefore in addition to the social conditions, if we look after the affects of political conditions as well then a new branch of philosophy would be highlighted and that is socio - political philosophy.

As far as socio political ideals is concerned, then the ideals like equality, freedom and justice are supposed to be most important.

As far as equality, as socio - political Ideal is concerned although, it is a modern political ideal, but is the subject matter of study right from very early period because even the Greek thinker Aristotle had said that the disparity is the cause of every revolt. But the reason behind the demand of equality as modern socio - political ideal was after the European renaissance when the religious suppositions of medieval period got weakened and era of liberals was highlighted, then they focused upon the free market economy, because it was the time of colonialism and commercialism. But the consequences were highlighted as the disparity or inequality, that's why the demand of equality was made.

But as a modern socio - political ideal, the equality is not simple one because in order to understand the real meaning of equality, we have to understand a few points -

First and foremost point is the equality is not a fact but a right, because we never say that all the human beings are equal but say that all the human beings must be treated equally. While in contrary, a few people say that since there is nothing equal in the nature and every where we can see the inequality such as Day and Night, Earth and Sky, River and Mountain, Male and Female etc. then in this condition, how we can support the equality? But these are the argument of those who are benefited by this condition of inequality. So, for their personal benefits, we can't reject the ideal of equality. Therefore the equality is definitely needed and desired as a socio - political ideal.

Secondly the equality always demands the social change and supports to eliminate the inequality, but only up to the extent where it is unjustified. The great thinker Rousseau in order to discuss over the inequality or disparity mentioned the natural and conventional inequalities, in which the first one is by birth and not created by the human beings, that's why it can't be eradicated by the human efforts as well, While the second one is not by birth and they are created by the human behaviours, that's why it can be eradicated by the efforts of human beings. That's why no rational being make demand to eradicate the natural inequality such as black and white, males and females etc. That's why demands are made to eliminate the conventional inequality and the social change is necessary for it. But today the area of natural inequality is supposed to be restricted and the area of conventional inequality is supposed to be extended.

t point is equality doesn't mean the absolute equality, because if we do any effort to establish the absolute equality, then the society will be deteriorated. In this reference, we can give the example of beauty, orchestra, notes etc.

Altogether, we can say that in order to accept the equality, we have to accept the discrimination and that's why in the philosophical meaning of the equality as a socio - political ideal we can say that it focused upon equal behaviour among the equals which means unequal behavior can be done among the unequal and even unequal behaviour may be done among the equals, if there is sufficient ground for it. That's why under equality, equal wages are supported for equal work but not the equal wages for every work, because if there is no special incentives for the skilled people then definitely, the human development will be stopped. That's why it has been said that as for the ideal of freedom, the restrictions are necessary. Like wise, for the ideal of equality, the discrimination is necessary. But it shall be positive discrimination, which is necessary to be made. While on the other hand, the negative discriminations shall not be made at all, for example, for the right to vote.

  1. The discrimination of age is positive.
  2. The discrimination of gender is negative.
  3. The discrimination of mental health is positive.
  4. The discrimination of property is negative.

That's why under the ideal of equality the relaxations of age and fee used to be given to the weaker section and here we can give the example of reservation as well, because when the equality has been defined as equal opportunity then it doesn't mean that equal number of opportunity will be given to all. But it means that equal opportunity will be given to the equals and unequal opportunity can be given to the unequal, not only in the beginning but throughout the life, so far the number of opportunities used by both the classes is not become equal. On this basis, by the 77th constitutional amendment 1995, the reservation in promotion was imposed in Indian system.

In the above conditions, sometimes it appears that in order to establish the socio - political ideal of equality, the equality disappears somewhere and what highlighted is the discrimination. But since it is positive discrimination, that's why it shall not supposed to be against the ideals of equality. Therefore, all these things are under the equality as well. Due to these conditions, it has been supposed that in order to give specific content to the ideal of equality it is necessary to be embedded within a broader theory of politics and society, because if we discuss about the equality in a restricted manner then also it will breach the ideal of freedom and deteriorate the society as well.

Altogether, we can say that there is no dispute over the ideal of equality and definitely it is desirable for any system, but the positive discriminations shall be practical as well. Since the equality as a socio - political ideal is a fundamental one, that's why it affects the different features of the human life and that's why we can see the various types of the equality as well such as -

  • Legal equality
  • Political equality,
  • Socio - Economic equality,
  • International equality etc.

As far as, legal Equality is concerned, then In order to do the struggle for equality, firstly demand of legal equality was made in which it has to be said that even all having number of difference, every person shall be equal before the law. Although today it has been accepted very simply but actually it had been achieved after a long struggle, because the legal disparity or inequality was existing everywhere, for example, in the Greek period there was provision of more punishment for the slaves and in Indian system also there was provision of different punishment for the different class and even in the France, only the Aristocrat class were enjoying the right to present the evidences in favour of them, while common people having no such right.

Altogether, we can say that the demand of legal equality was made due to the legal disparity and the meaning of legal quality is equality before the law and equal protection of laws. In order to elaborate it, we can say that there shall be no person who can't reach up to the law and there shall be no person as well that the law can't reach up to him. But this kind of legal equality is relevant only when the procedure of justice is neither too long nor too expensive as well. Otherwise, it will benefit only those people whose socio- economic conditions are better. Therefore without the socio-economic equality the discussion over the legal equality is just ornamental. Although, in this direction the provision of free legal advice is definitely a positive step but it is not absolute at all, because the judiciary will deliver its judgment on the basis of the fact that whose case is presented in the better way and it is obvious that the person having good socio-economic condition will present his case in the best way.

Therefore we can say that the concept of legal equality is:—

  1. Only formal but not actual.
  2. Only ornamental but not real or metaphysical.
  3. Only external but not internal.
  4. Only partial but not complete.

As far as political equality is concerned then, it means the equal political rights shall be given to every person or in other words, every person must have the right to participate in the legislative institutions either directly or indirectly. It can be expressed at its best in democracy in which the philosophy of one person one vote is practiced. Even then this political equality also doesn't express the metaphysical or real sense of equality because only the political intellect or adult franchise are not sufficient but those conditions are also necessary, in which a person can have use his political intellect here also, the socio-economic conditions becomes decisive. That's why it is supposed that there is no use or relevancy of political equality without socioeconomic equality. So we can say that the political equality is also -

  • Only formal but not actual.
  • Only ornamental but not real or metaphysical.
  • Only external but not internal.
  • Only partial but not complete.

As far as Socio-Economic equality is concerned, then it is also a dimension of equality because after the European renaissance, the human freedom assured by the liberals was disappeared somewhere in the darkness of capitalism. That's why the socio-economic disparities were increasing and consequently, the demand of socio- economic equality was made. Therefore as per expectation, the democratic revolution was political in its first phase and it became socio-economic in its second phase. That's why in contrary to the legal and political equalities, the socio-economic equality is supposed to be Actual, Real, Metaphysical, Internal, Complete and Philosophical as well. That's why it is supposed that where the legal and political equalities promote the capitalism, then the socio-economic equalities promote the socialism. Therefore, the socio-economic equality is supposed to be prompter of the social changes.

But here one important fact is in the above discussions of equality. The meaning of equality is not the same, because where the legal equality demands to treat every person as the same in respect of law and the political equality demands to provide the right of one person one vote, but in this way the socio-economic equality doesn't make the demand of equal shares. But it demands to eliminate the conditions which are not justified and for this the role of state is important. That's why it has been supposed that this socio-economic equality has originated the concept of modern welfare state.

Another dimension of equality is International equality, which is the approach of twentieth century and is relevant even today. Its meaning is every nation of the world shall be treated equally. This is the thought supported by Herald Laski who said that the first and fore most condition for international equality is to declare the invalidity of international wars. This concept of International equality is more relevant in the era of present globalization. This is the concept supported by the non-alignment movement as well.

In conclusion, we can say that regarding the ideal of equality, it is not absolute one or in other words, the discrimination will exist but it will be positive discrimination. Therefore in its extended and positive sense, the first and foremost demand of the equality is that on the basis of property or economic conditions one class shall not have the right to exploit the other class, because the equality is totally against the exploitation and if there is any such condition then the equality will make the demand to change it totally and completely.

As far as the Freedom as the socio-political ideal is concerned, then definitely, we can say that the freedom is most important among the rights given to the human beings, because in the absence of freedom no person can do holistic development. Therefore, we can say that as a socio-political ideal, the Freedom is a necessary condition of development of person or individuals.

Similar to the equality, the concept of Freedom is also a complex one, which is really difficult to be defined; but even then in general words the freedom can be defined as absence of restraints, which means if a rational agent wants to do something then there shall be no restriction on him. But this is just the negative sense of freedom, according to which, the rationality doesn't belong to all the human beings, while in contrary, who so ever thinkers or thoughts suppose that the rationality belongs to all the human beings, they want to provide the freedom to all the human beings and this is positive sense of freedom.

It is also important that the negative sense of freedom goes in the direction of Totalitarianism, where actually no guarantee of actual freedom or rights, while the positive sense of freedom carries in the direction of Democracy and Socialism and this sense is definitely relevant and acceptable. In this order, the thoughts of great German thinker Immanuel Kant is most impressive, who in his ethics said that the human beings shall always be treated as an end but not as a mean, because if a human being is treated like a mean, then immediately he lost his freedom. That's why Kant had said that all the members of the state must have the equal freedom. This approach is relevant even today because philosophically, there is no metaphysical difference among the human beings and whatever differences we look are just the outcome of socio-economic conditions.

Therefore, we can easily say that in its extended sense, the freedom can't be accepted only as the absence of restraints, but it shall be taken as liberty from compulsions. This is necessary because we have to be careful about the fact that human beings are also sensitive in addition to the rational. That's why even in the absence of formal restrictions a person can be restricted by numbers of negative conditions, Such as hunger, thirst, pain, poverty etc. which are actually the consequences of socio-economic conditions.

Altogether, we can say that In order to understand the socio-political ideal of freedom, we have to distinguish the negative and positive meanings of freedom. In order to elaborate these meaning, we can say that when the freedom is defined only as the absence of restraints, then it is negative sense of freedom, Because under this concept, whatever function a rational agent wants to do, he is free to do it. In this condition state neither cooperates nor opposes. So, state almost become neutral, inactive and controls itself. And the social order established has not been disturbed as well. But there is no relevancy and importance of this kind of negative freedom, because we know that the society is full of disparity, and that's why no actual freedom can be accepted even after the number, of external claims, Because it will just put a silicon cover over the exploitation, for example, if we say that the strong and the weak, the rich and poor, the lion and the goat, both are free then there is no need to say about the result.

Therefore, we can say that in order to establish the freedom in reality, restrictions over some classes are necessary and the special safety measures are also necessary for some classes, which is possible only through the socio-economic reforms and right from here the demand of positive freedom, started. In its positive meaning, freedom can be supposed as real, actual and metaphysical, for which efforts are used to be made to eliminate the socio - economic compulsions of weaker sections for which regulation of socio-economic life is necessary, irrespective of the fact that these regulations impose restrictions over some classes, even then restrictions can't supposed to be against the freedom, because the intention is to extend the freedom up to all.

Altogether, we can say that this positive concept of freedom is a social concept, which supports the liberty from compulsions, but here the important fact is all the compulsions can't be eliminated, because only those compulsions can be eliminated, which are the consequences of the socio-economic conditions and which elimination is relevant and practical. We also do complaints only where the compulsions originated due to the socio-economic conditions and can be eliminated by the socio-economic reforms. In other words, there are number of compulsions in different manners, but we never do any complaint, such as - we have no wings to fly.

Therefore, we can say that as a socio-economic ideal, the freedom doesn't mean the spontaneous behaviour or spontaneity, because the spontaneity of an individual may become compulsion for others. Here we can give the examples of thieves, despotic ruler and even the driver, because their behavior may restrict the freedom of others. That's why about freedom we can say that only that freedom is relevant which is available to all. Therefore, instead of giving unlimited freedom to the limited individuals, it is better to impose limited restrictions on the freedom of all the individuals to provide the socio-political ideal of freedom to all the individuals. These limited restrictions are necessary, because although all the human beings are rational but sometimes human being doesn't behave rationally and consequently, his behaviour become obstructions in the freedom of others. That's why the positive meaning of freedom demands the law and order in the society, but here we must be careful that the laws must be justified and the justice must be practiced according to the law.

As a socio-political ideal, freedom is also a broader concept that's why we can see the different dimensions of freedom, which mainly covers the civil freedom, political freedom and the economic freedom etc.

As far as civil freedom is concerned, then it covers mainly three types of freedom -

  1. Physical freedom, which means freedom from injury or threat to the life, health, and movement of the body.
  2. Intellectual freedom, which means the freedom for the expressions of thought and belief.
  3. Practical freedom, which means the freedom of the play of will and the exercise of choice in the general field of contractual actions and relations with other persons.
Altogether we can say that as a socio-political ideal the very first demand of the freedom is in the direction of civil freedom.

As far as political freedom is concerned, then it can be expressed in the best way in democracy, because only in democratic system there is freedom of -

  • Forming the government
  • Check and balance,
  • Evaluations of the functions of the government
  • Even changing the government, if it is not at par given to the people. But for all these things the political intellect and the adult franchise are necessary and there is necessity to originate those conditions as well, in which an individual can use his political freedom. Since, all these things are possible only in the democracy, that's why the freedom is also known as an important ideal of democracy as well.

But, if a state starts showing its complete authority or it become totalitarian state then the actual freedom doesn't exist because acceptance of complete authority of the state goes against the freedom. That's why thinkers like a Robert Paul wolf said that the acceptance of this authority of the state is inconsistent with highest duty of mankind, the duty to act autonomously. For example, in a totalitarian state or a state ruled by dictator although there is external assurance of freedom but the ground reality is totally against it. While in contrary, in a democratic or welfare state, the people are ultimate in forming or changing the government. That's why in these kind of states, policy making process is always practiced in the public interest and the execution of the policies is also having the objective of public interest as well. So, in such behaviour the concept of actual freedom can be accepted.

But, the intention of above statement of Robert Paul Wolf shall not be taken as to eliminate the state at all or to adopt anarchism, because only through a state the actual freedom can be provided to the people. But the state must be sovereign and independent, because a dependent state can't provide right of freedom to its citizens. That's why whenever we discuss over the essential part of a state then the sovereignty is necessarily placed, because only a sovereign state can characterize the concept of freedom. That's why it has been said that the state is the actuality of concrete freedom. In other words, if we reject the authority of the state completely then also the actual freedom can't be provided.

As far as Economic-freedom is concerned, then in the field of economy, when we discuss about freedom then here the freedom indicates towards both of its meanings, negative and positive. Because the negative meaning of the freedom in economy is, there is no restriction over the economic activities of human beings which means, an individual of the society can choose any means to manage his livelihood and there is no interference of state in it. While on the other hand, the positive meaning of freedom in economy is, if the disparity between rich and poor is increasing then such a change is needed in the social order which can reduce the disparity. Here also demand of ending the disparity can't be made. Here the best example can be given as income tax in which government used to define that if the personal income of an individual is more than a defined limit then a limited tax used to be imposed on his exceeding income and the revenue received will be used to increase the purchasing power of the individuals, whose economic condition is not satisfactory. Such kinds of laws are necessary for a healthy society; otherwise, a class will start exploitation of other class, which is not justified at all. So, as a socio-political ideal, the concept of freedom is also against the exploitation.

In order to discuss over the Ideal of freedom, the Marxist concept of freedom is also important, because it was Marx who straight away mentioned that although the freedom is necessary for man but nobody can enjoy the freedom alone, because to enjoy the freedom he has to be a member of society. But sometimes not all the member of the society can be able to fulfill their minimum requirement and consequently, a class of the society compelled to live the problematic life full of sufferings and start selling his skills at vary low cost. Such system created in the pressure of industrialists or capitalists was named by Marx as "World of necessity", in which the class struggle which started due to the lack of process of production is used to be continued, till the rational and reasonable process of production is not been established. It's one and only way is the violent revolution of the labor class and after this revolution, ultimately a classless, stateless and exploitationless society will be established which was named by Marx as the "World of freedom". It is the communistic pattern of society according to Marx and this is the ideal of freedom in Marxist philosophy.

Altogether, we can say that the socio-political ideal of freedom can be translated as the person must have the liberty from compulsions and also liberty to do something, because the compulsions imposed the irrelevant restrictions over the functions of the man. So, in this order we can say that the freedom from the state and the freedom of the individuals or in other words, freedom from the exploitations and freedom of doing something.

In this order, we can also say that the metaphysical and materialistic explanations of ideal of freedom is also relevant, because the metaphysical or spiritualistic explanation the freedom is considered as the liberation from the bondage of the world and to get rid from rebirth, while, the materialistic or physical explanation of the freedom is considered as the liberty from compulsions and to act as an independent agent of the society.

In conclusion, we can say that Ideal of freedom also can't be rejected because in the absence of freedom, an individual can't do his holistic development and that's why the ideal of freedom is known as necessary condition of the Human Development.

Similar to the equality and freedom, the Ideal of Justice is also a subject matter of socio - political philosophy. Although, this is a modern ideal, but right from the early period, the ideal of justice was discussed by prominent thinkers.

But we can see the changing approach of justice, because earlier, the virtue of justice was searched in an individual while in modern period, we want to search the ideal of justice in a system or social system. In other words, we can say that earlier the man with justice was discussed but in modern period, the social justice is the point of discussion; according to which, we have to see that the distribution or allocation of resources, opportunities, services, objects, profits etc. is justified or not? And if it is not justified, then the social justice demands the social change.

About the ideals of justice, the thoughts of two early Greek thinkers are relevant and they are Plato and Aristotle.

As far as, Plato is concerned, then in his ethics he has discussed over four virtues -Wisdom, Courage,Temperance, and Justice, in which the justice is ultimate one or we can say that it is the end virtue while the other three are the mean virtues, that's why according to Plato, the virtue of justice is nothing but the balance of remaining three. He explained it on the basis of both individual and the state. In order to explain it in the reference of individual, Plato said that the virtue of justice belong to those individuals who have the balance of Wisdom, Courage and Temperance, while in reference of state, Plato said that the ideal of justice can be supposed only in that state where -The Wisdom belongs to the ruler, on this basis Plato had presented the concept of philosopher ruler, which means either a philosopher shall become ruler or a ruler shall become philosopher, because the Wisdom is the dominant trait of philosophers which full of knowledge, while the solders protect the territory of the states on the basis of their courage and where the traders are having temperance or control, not in production but in consumption. This is the ideal state according to Plato, where no laws are necessary. Plato's four virtues can be compared with four purusharthas of Indian system or Indian tradition - Dharma, Artha, Kama,Moksha, in which the Moksha is ultimate or end purushartha, while, other three are mean purusharthas. That's why the Moksha is supposed as the balanced performance of Dharma, Artha and Kama.

As far as Aristotle is concerned then In order to discuss over the justice, he had discussed over two types of justice mainly:—

  • Distributive Justice,
  • Retributive Justice

And if we compare both these types of justice then the distributive justice:—

  • Related with legislature.
  • Distribution of posts or responsibilities.
  • Eligibility or skill is important.
  • Equal participation is not possible.
  • This is vertical

Then on the other hand the retributive justice:—

  • Related with judiciary.
  • Only the performance or action is considered not the post.
  • There is no importance of eligibility or skill.
  • Equal distribution takes place.
  • This is horizontal.

That's why, in order to discuss over the distributive justice, Aristotle said that here the discrimination is necessary because here the equal participation for all can't be assured. While, on the other hand, when he discussed over the retributive justice, then he presented his theory of 'Eyes for Eyes, Teeth for Teeth', which means a culprit must have the same punishment what pain he has given to others. This is the retributive theory of justice which is also known as the retributive theory of punishment as well.

But apart from these two Greek thinkers the thoughts of modern thinkers like Mill, John Rawls, David Hume are also important for the ideal of justice and according to them, when we discuss over the ideal of justice in the modern period, then the political, economic and social realities are important. So, in modern concept, the political justice, economic justice and social justice are important.

Altogether, we can say that modern ideal of justice is much extended, and it also has number of dimensions;

  • Legal justice and metaphysical justice,
  • Political, economic and social justice,
  • The procedural and substantive justice

As far as legal and metaphysical justice is concerned, then when the judiciary has to deliver its verdict between two opposite parties then the judiciary takes the help of legal justice, in which decision used to be made on the basis of prevailing laws. Although it not biased but even then it is only supposed to be formal, ornamental, external and partial, because here the only intension is to know that what the law is saying, but no effort is made to know that what the law is wanting to say. In addition if the procedure of justice is too long and expensive, then also not everyone can enjoy the justice, because the socio economic conditions will become decisive over here. In brief we can say that the legal justice is not the ultimate one, because it can't give the ultimate solution of the problem. In contrary when the decision used to be delivered on the basis of the end of the laws, then it is known as actual, metaphysical, internal, complete and philosophical justice, because here the efforts have been made to know that what the law wants to say or in other words it touches the silent features of the law. Today this is the ideal of justice and we examine the entire social system that is it justified or not and if it is not justified, the demand of change used to be made.

As far as political economic and social justice are concerned, then in order to express political justice we can say that everyone must have the opportunity to participate directly or indirectly in the process of making policies and the public powers shall be used in the public interest and even everyone must be free for thought, expression and forming the organization. Since all these things are possible only in the democracy, that's why the political justice supposed to be expressed only in democracy. Similarly in order to express the economic justice we can say that the social structure shall not allow any one to exploit the others, and if there is any such condition then the demand will be made to change the economic laws. While in order to express the social justice we can say that in restricted sense it means the life with dignity, but in broader sense it covers the entire political, economic and social justice. That's why in order to clarify social justice we can say that everyone shall have equal opportunity to consume the recourses, services etc. In the present era of globalization sometimes it appears that we can achieve the social justice through free market economy, because it gives the opportunity to show the skill, but this is not the correct approach.

But here the question is that what is the way to establish social justice? Here we have to options - firstly the procedural justice and secondly the substantive or distributive justice. In order to clarify the procedural justice we can say that the process of distribution of resources must be justified irrespective of the fact that how much is received by any one? While on the other hand in substantive or distributive justice we focus upon reality that even after the justified distribution how much is received by whom and if the distribution is not justified then necessary change will be made in the process of distribution, which will be known as the social change.

Altogether we can say that where the procedural justice fulfills only legal, formal, ornamental justice and encourages the liberalism and capitalism and even carries us in the direction of free market economy, which will definitely create the disparity. While on the other hand substantive or distributive justice can suppose to be the actual, metaphysical, internal, complete and philosophical justice, which carries us in the direction of democracy and socialism, in which possible efforts have been made to reduce the disparity and right from here we can see the concept of welfare state. Therefore we can say that that definitely the justice is the highest socio - political ideal, but there are so many necessary and sufficient conditions to achieve it. Sometimes necessary conditions have been considered such as formation of justified laws and justice according to the laws. But the sufficient conditions used to be ignored to achieve the justice such as socio and economic conditions.

Now if we compare the different socio political ideals then in order to establish the relation between equality and justice we can say that discrimination is necessary with equality, but it must be the positive discrimination, which is definitely justified, while in order to establish relation between freedom and justice we can say that only the positive sense of freedom is relevant and limited restrictions are justified. Similarly in order to establish relation between equality and freedom we can say that externally they appear as contradictory, because equality restricts the freedom and freedom restricts the equality; but in real sense they are complementary and are necessary together, that's why whenever we discuss over the freedom, equality is necessary and if we eliminate the equality from the freedom, then its relevancy will be ended.

Finally after looking all three socio - political ideal we can say that the justice is the ultimate and that's why the justice can be believed only in that system, which provides equal freedom to all.