Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) vary widely in complexity and underlying assumptions. There have been considerable efforts to increase the complexity of IAMs for improved representation of socioeconomic and environmental outcomes. However, less attention has been given to the foundational assumptions of these models and their distributional consequences. These assumptions are fraught with deep and normative uncertainty and can significantly impact IAM projections. If these assumptions are not explicit, IAMs can perpetuate existing mistakes and exacerbate inequalities due to their black-box nature. This paper introduces a novel IAM called JUSTICE (Justice Universality Spatial Temporal Integrated Climate Economy) to explore the influence on distributive justice outcomes due to underlying modelling assumptions across model components and functions: the economy and climate components, and the damage and social welfare functions. JUSTICE is a simple IAM inspired by the long-established RICE and is designed to be a surrogate for more complex IAMs for eliciting normative insights. As illustrated in Figure 1, JUSTICE contains two distinct economic and climate sub-models, three damage functions, and four social welfare functions (SWFs), each based on fundamentally different assumptions. This modular structure enables JUSTICE to uncover assumptions with nontrivial normative and distributional consequences. Also, the simplicity of JUSTICE makes it suitable for assessing the consequences of these modelling assumptions under deep and normative uncertainty using MS-MORDM and EMODPS frameworks, promoting a more equitable approach to decision-making. Using JUSTICE, we investigate the effects of three SWFs—Utilitarianism, Egalitarianism, and Prioritarianism—on global temperature rise, with two levels of aggregation. We also explore the sensitivity of distributional outcomes for two different climate models. Our findings reveal that different assumptions lead to significantly distinct optimal abatement pathways, underscoring the importance of explicating assumptions and exploring their uncertainties to facilitate deliberation and identify common ground among policymakers with diverse perspectives.