This study examines the concept of justice, one of the most vibrant topics of debate in the history of thought, from a philosophical perspective. To resolve the conceptual confusion arising from differing interpretations in the literature, justice is analyzed within the framework of two fundamental approaches, “ideal” and “pragmatic,” and the strengths and limitations of both are discussed comparatively. The ideal approach treats justice as a universal and immutable value independent of human beings and social conditions. This stance is functional for generating meaning and establishing normative stability; however, it makes adaptation to changing circumstances more difficult. By contrast, the pragmatic approach evaluates justice as a relative phenomenon shaped by social and political contexts, thereby providing flexibility in adapting to change; yet it falls short in producing fixed/enduring values. The study also addresses the etymological dimensions of “justice” by relating it to the notions of “equilibrium” and “order,” arguing that justice is a state of equilibrium made possible within order. It then illustrates, with examples, the importance of these justifications in resolving ambiguities in the literature and contends that, given the dynamism of contemporary conditions, the pragmatic approach offers a more accurate framework. Finally, the article indicates the ways in which the arguments presented can provide a foundation for subsequent academic studies.