Both terms mean many different issues. One might anticipate the parties to calculate how to weigh the first goods (which Rawls catalogues as ‘rights and liberties, alternatives and powers, revenue and wealth’) against one another, and then to decide on as their social principle ‘maximise the weighted sum of major goods, averaged across all individuals’.
Different theories offer totally different accounts of the relevant justice-generating feature: for example, Nagel has argued that ideas of distributive justice apply amongst individuals who by virtue of being citizens of the same state are required both to adjust to, and accept accountability for, the coercive laws that govern their lives (Nagel 2005).
Since discourses and sentiments of the system form it more than its mechanics, the function of artists and writers, for example, involves the fore; small acts of ethical braveness turn out to be extra highly effective than they appear in our standard ethical calculus.
It is a matter of justice, for example, that individuals needs to be paid the correct quantity for the roles that they do, but, particular circumstances apart, it’s no concern of justice that John derives more satisfaction from his fairly-earned earnings than Jane does from hers (but see Cohen 1989 for a different view).