The Greek perspective of justice, particularly as articulated by Plato and Aristotle, is fundamentally teleological and communitarian, contrasting sharply with John Rawls's deontological and individualistic approach. For Plato, justice in the individual and the state is achieved when each part performs its proper function in harmony, guided by reason. In the 'Republic,' a just society is hierarchical, with philosopher-kings ruling, auxiliaries defending, and producers providing, each fulfilling their natural role. Aristotle similarly linked justice to virtue and the common good, defining it as giving each person their due based on merit and contribution to the polis, aiming for human flourishing (eudaimonia) within a specific social order.

Rawls, in 'A Theory of Justice,' offers a procedural theory based on a hypothetical 'original position' behind a 'veil of ignorance.' Individuals, unaware of their own social status, talents, or beliefs, would rationally choose two principles of justice: first, equal basic liberties for all, and second, social and economic inequalities are permissible only if they benefit the least advantaged (the difference principle) and are attached to offices open to all under fair equality of opportunity.

The key differences are: Greek justice is rooted in natural order, virtue, and the organic community, often accepting inherent inequalities based on function or merit. Rawlsian justice, conversely, is constructed through rational agreement, prioritizes individual rights and liberties, and actively seeks to mitigate the effects of arbitrary social and natural contingencies on life chances, emphasizing fairness and equality as primary. While Greek thought focused on the 'good life' within a specific social structure, Rawls focused on establishing a 'just society' that allows individuals to pursue their own conception of the good, provided it respects the rights of others.