John Rawls Theory of Justice

(Summary)
Cons the classical utilitarianism of Bentham, Rawls offers a new solution to
combine social justice and liberalism in the Theory of Justice. Theorist of the
contract, this work is considered today in the United States as a classic of
political philosophy and often as the greatest book of the
contemporary philosophy.
John Rawls founded his thought on his readings : mostly Aristotle and the
classics of English political philosophy (Locke, Hume, Hobbes). His
contractualism is partly inspired by Rousseau but without a theory of the
state of nature. His conception of morality is rooted in Kants ethics. Rawls
criticizes utilitarianism of Bentham and Mill.

Rawls and utilitarianism the

veil of ignorance
Benthams utilitarianism believes that humanitys aim is the happiness, which
everyone seek to obtain what is good and avoid what is painful. Similarly, the
purpose of the government is to seek the ommon welfare, considered as the
sum of the utility of individuals. This is to get maximum satisfaction for
everyone.
Yet this argument is problematic. Consider to understand the following
situation: you have to organize a collective struggle against a fatal disease
highly contagious. But to make the serum necessary to protect general must
sacrifice two victims at random. According to the utilitarian criterion we face
the following choice: either all die or die and only two others survive. It is
therefore prefer the second solution. Utilitarianism goes even further: those
who will sacrifice the two less useful to society. But here is the moral
conscience is shocked and, in particular, the Kantian principles. Kant,
indeed, at least two reasons we should forbid such a choice:
Everyone is an individual and, as such, there is no individual who more or less
valuable than another. Discrimination is unethical. We must all have the same
rights.
One of the formulations of the categorical imperative tells us never to
humanity (in my person as in that of others) only as a means but always at the
same time as an end. Now it is clear that the two people killed are taken only
as a means and not at the same time as ends.
Should we then sacrifice the entire population, however, because morality
forbids the sacrifice of two of us? This is where the theory of Rawls who is
considering a purely hypothetical original situation in which individuals react
under a veil of ignorance. This hypothetical situation is not without thinking of
the Social Contract Rousseau or Locke. This is, indeed, to derive the
principles of political authority of a convention by which first isolated the

partners together to form a community of law. But Rawls believes that policy
so we are always tempted to try the theories based on the personal benefits
that their application would give us. Therefore a position where partners are
located behind a veil of ignorance so that they know nothing of what will be
their place in society (boss or worker, active or inactive), their natural abilities
(strong or weak , invalid or handicapped etc..) and without pre-conception of
the good (and therefore not under the influence of any religion). The
contractor does not even know what the circumstances of his own company
that is to say what its economic power, its political system, its cultural level. It
is in this context that people agree on what should be the principles of justice.
In our previous example, is more important then the result (save thousand
people at the expense of sacrificing two or all) because the ends do not justify
the means. Each person will decide according to his own conception of Good.
Imagine another example or fifty people living in a swamp with malaria. To
save the people, we must drain the swamp. The hard work will probably
victims (say two) and three not benefit individuals who are already immune. Is
it necessary or not to drain the swamp? Under the veil of ignorance it is not
known, nor whether it is one of those immunized, or if you are part of those
who die in the works. All we know is that it does not dry out if you have three
chances to survive in fifty (because you will be part of the immune), while if it
dries out the probability rises to forty-eight out of fifty. No doubt, under the veil
of ignorance, we will vote unanimously drying.

Rawls : The Justice as Fairness

Assuming, therefore, subjects placed behind the veil of ignorance, all selfish
reasons (they are concerned about their future) and endowed with reason, on
what general principles of division of property can they agree?
According to Rawls all citizens in this situation will agree on two principles:
The first principle (the principle of equal liberty), each person must have an
equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberty for all,
consistent with a single system for all. This means that everyone has the
same basic rights and duties. Everyone wants the same basic rights: freedom
of movement, expression, assembly, property etc.. The basic liberties may be
restricted in the name of freedom. Freedom is inalienable, and here is
revealed Rawls liberal and close to the Enlightenment.
The second principle (the principle of inequality) states that the inequalities
(economic and social) are justified only if: attached to positions, jobs available
to all under conditions of equal opportunity impartial (principle of equal
opportunities). This assumes that the company must reduce the maximum
possible natural differences.
These principles are hierarchical: the principle of equal liberty has priority over
the other two and the principle of equal opportunity has priority over the
difference principle.
A just society is not egalitarian but it is an equitable society where the position
giving the greatest benefits are available to all and the benefits obtained by

some also benefit left behind. For example, if some are rich enough to acquire
works of art, however, they place them in museums where the poorest can
admire them. Inequality does not advantage all are unfair.

Conclusion on Rawls Theory of

Justice :
The Rawlsian ideal is a democratic ideal. Dictatorial regimes can not be
accepted as members of law in a reasonable society of peoples.

A Theory of Justice Summary

In A Theory of Justice, Rawls argues that the concepts of freedom and

equality are not mutually exclusive. His assessment of the justice system
leads him to conclude that for justice to be truly just, everyone must be
afforded the same rights under the law.

In the first part of the book, Rawls asks: if everyone were stripped of
their privileges and social status and made entirely equal, what kind of justice
system would they want to be subject to? He includes that the only logical
choice is to pick a system that treats people equally, regardless of their race,
class, gender, etc.

In the second part, he discusses how his theory of justice would affect
institutions today. Without pointing fingers, he makes it clear that no one is
living up to his standards.

In the third part, he describes the good effects that a real justice system
can have on society.
SUMMERY
John Rawls, a philosopher who held the James Bryant Conant University
Professorship at Harvard University, published several books and many
articles. He is chiefly known, however, for his book A Theory of Justice, an
effort to define social justice. The work has greatly influenced modern political
thought.
Rawls was dissatisfied with the traditional philosophical arguments about what
makes a social institution just and about what justifies political or social
actions and policies. The utilitarian argument holds that societies should
pursue the greatest good for the greatest number. This argument has a
number of problems, including, especially, that it seems to be consistent with
the idea of the tyranny of majorities over minorities. The intuitionist argument
holds that humans intuit what is right or wrong by some innate moral sense.

This is also problematic because it simply explains away justice by saying that
people know it when they see it, and it fails to deal with the many conflicting
human intuitions.
Rawls attempts to establish a reasoned account of social justice through the
social contract approach. This approach holds that a society is in some sense
an agreement among all those within that society. If a society were an
agreement, Rawls asks, what kind of arrangement would everyone agree to?
He states that the contract is a purely hypothetical one: He does not argue
that people had existed outside the social state or had made agreements to
establish a particular type of society.
Rawls begins his work with the idea of justice as fairness. He identifies the
basic structure of society as the primary subject of justice and identifies justice
as the first virtue of social institutions. He considers justice a matter of the
organization and internal divisions of a society. The main idea of a theory of
justice asks, What kind of organization of society would rational persons
choose if they were in an initial position of independence and equality and
were setting up a system of cooperation? This is what Rawls sees as a
hypothetical original position: the state in which no one knows what place he
or she would occupy in the society to be created.
After considering the main characteristics of justice as fairness and the
theoretical superiority of this approach to utilitarianism, intuitionism, or other
perspectives, Rawls looks at the principles of justice. He identifies two
principles: One, that each person should have equal rights to the most
extensive liberties consistent with other people enjoying the same liberties;
and two, that inequalities should be arranged so that they would be to
everyones advantage and arranged so that no one person would be blocked
from occupying any position. From these two principles Rawls derives an
egalitarian conception of justice that would allow the inequality of conditions
implied by equality of opportunity but would also give more attention to those
born with fewer assets and into less favorable social positions.
Rawls concludes the first part of his book by looking at the idea of the original
position outside society. This hypothetical original position can be
approximated by using the thought experiment of the veil of ignorance. If no
one could know what place he or she would occupy in the society being
formed, what arrangement of the society would a rational person choose?
Rawls maintains that the choice would be for a social structure that would best
benefit the unknowing chooser if she or he happened to end up in the least
desirable position.
In the second part of the work, Rawls considers the implications of his view of
justice for social institutions. He discusses in detail equal liberty, economic
distribution, and duties and obligations as well as the main characteristics of
each that would make up a just society. He does not, however, identify any
particular type of social or political system that would be consistent with his
theory. He deals only with the demands that his version of justice places on
institutions.

In the third and final section, Rawls deals with ends or ultimate goals of
thinking about social justice. He argues for the need to have a theory of
goodness, and he makes a case for seeing goodness as rationality. Then, he
turns to moral psychology and considers how people acquire a sentiment of
justice. Finally, he examines the good of justice, or how justice is connected to
goodness. Rawls argues that in a well-ordered society, ideas of goodness and
justice must be consistent with each other.
A Theory of Justice is widely recognized as an essential contribution to
thought about the nature of justice. However, even supporters of Rawls
acknowledge that his work raises many questions. One of the earliest major
responses to the book came from his Harvard colleague, philosopher Robert
Nozick. In Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974) Nozick offers a libertarian
response to Rawls. The assumptions behind A Theory of Justice are
essentially redistributive: That is, Rawls posits equal distribution of resources
as the desirable state and then argues that inequality can be justified only by
benefits for the least advantaged. Nozick points out that resources are
produced by people and that people have rights to the things they produce.
Thus, attempts to improve the condition of the least advantaged through
redistribution are unjust because they make some people work involuntarily
for others and deprive people of the goods and opportunities they have
created through time and effort.
Other critics have focused on the idea of the original state and the veil of
ignorance used as a thought experiment to approximate the original state. The
claim that rational individuals behind a veil of ignorance would choose the
greatest possible equality has been challenged as arbitrary and unverifiable.
Rational individuals might well choose a social structure with large rewards for
the majority of people and small rewards for the minority on the grounds that
one is more likely to end up as part of a majority than a minority. Moreover, the
veil of ignorance of where one will be in a society also takes away all
knowledge of what one will do. Legal justice is generally considered a matter
of appropriate responses to actions: In the version offered by Rawls, justice is
detached from anything that anyone has done and thus may have nothing to
do with any idea of what people deserve.
The reluctance of Rawls to identify any particular type of society as just,
especially in the second part of the book dealing with institutions, may leave
Rawls open to the charge that he offers no guidance for the actual content of
justice. For example, proponents of a highly unequal and competitive market
economy may argue that the abundance of wealth produced by their preferred
system contributes to the absolute standard of living of the poorest people in
society. On the other hand, advocates of a highly redistributionist economy
can maintain that radical redistribution of wealth will provide the greatest
support for the poorest. Because no one can knowbehind a veil of
ignorancewhich system would lead to the best possible lives for the poor,
there can be no way of deciding what kind of society should be preferred.
The fundamental idea that justice is a matter of the basic structure of society
is also open to question. To say that the basic structure of society can be
made just or fair is to say that it can be designed both hypothetically and
actually. Some social thinkers argue that societies are not designed per se;

they are produced through history and by complex webs of interaction among
individuals and institutions. From this perspective, justice is a characteristic of
specific acts or processes within social systems, such as legal actions or
political mechanisms, and it is misleading to extend the concept of justice to a
society as a whole.
Supporters of Rawls often look to revise parts of his argument, while
opponents suggest alternatives. Still, most political thinkers acknowledge
that A Theory of Justice introduced a new conceptual basis for debates about
the core principles of social policy and action.

John Rawls Theory

Summary & Analysis

of

Justice:

Rawls theory of justice revolves around the adaptation of two fundamental principles of justice which
would, in turn, guarantee a just and morally acceptable society. The first principle guarantees the
right of each person to have the most extensive basic liberty compatible with the liberty of others.
The second principle states that social and economic positions are to be a) to everyones advantage
and b) open to all.
A key problem to Rawls is to show how such principles would be universally adopted and here the
work borders on general ethical issues. He introduces a theoretical veil of ignorance in which all
the players in the social game would be placed in a situation which is called the original position.
Having only a general knowledge of the facts of life and society, each player is to abide based on
their moral obligation. By denying the players any specific information about themselves it forces
them to adopt a generalized point of view that bears a strong resemblance to the moral point of view.
Moral conclusions can be reached without abandoning the prudential standpoint of positing, a moral
outlook merely by pursuing ones own prudential reasoning under certain procedural bargaining and
knowledge constraints.
Rawls proposes that the most reasonable principles of justice for a society are those that individuals
would themselves agree to behind the veil of ignorance, in circumstances in which each is
represented as a moral person, endowed with the basic moral powers. What this position supports is
that while each person has different ends and goals, different backgrounds and talents, each ought
to have a fair chance to develop his or her talents and to pursue those goals fair equality for
opportunity. It is not a race or contest where the talented or gifted prevail, it should be complete
cooperation among all so that there may be reasonable life for all.
What the veil of ignorance" brings out is that we can accept utilitarianism as a public conception of
justice only if we are prepared to let someone be subject to conditions we would not be prepared to
subject ourselves. However, it is not the responsibility of my actions to ensure the fulfillment of
another persons goals. These principles create an equal distribution of the pie, if you will, yet it is
not attainable unless pursued or strived for. There is no room for idle observation, meaning, that

while we all possess equal opportunity as we all are equally moral persons, the choice of what you
wish to possess materially as well as intellectually is the discretion and capability of the individual.
Why should we accept these principles as principles of justice? Primarily, these principles promote
equality among all. Each individual has the same basic liberties and opportunities. Each individual
has a moral obligation to accept the existence of every other human being. In doing so, all people
become equal in their position and desires. We are equal in that each has the basic powers of
choice and on acting on a sense of justice. The responsibility of procedure and growth relies on each
and every individual his/her self. By doing so we may create a level playing field. Is this a form of
pure competition? It would seem so. Competition in that what is desired must be achieved by one
and desired by many perhaps. A benefit of competitive circumstance is the betterment of all parties
involved as they must evolve in order to surpass one another.
Also, in fair equality for opportunity we may eliminate all forms of discrimination and discretion of
races, ethnic origin, social standards and religious intolerance and beliefs. All of these characteristics
are a component of the individual person thus making him/her individual. Justice is only
succumbed when the liberties of an individual are affected because of an external opinion of these
characteristics, and, in the oppression of these characteristics upon another. They are nothing more
than components of a people.

Does your position in society affect how you think about justice? This lesson looks at a thought
experiment proposed by John Rawls that involves imagining social justice from a new perspective.

Choices Based on Status

Let's say you are a wealthy business owner and there is a new tax structure that is about to be
established. You will see a 10% reduction in your after-tax income. You have an opportunity to vote
for or against this change. How do you think you will vote?
Now let's say that you have very little income, and the new tax structure will mean that there will be
funding for your child to receive a free college education, among other benefits. How do you think
you will vote in this case?
This lesson looks at how you might respond to this question if you didn't know whether you are the
wealthy business owner or the person with less income. We'll see how this question relates to the
philosophy of John Rawls and how he envisioned social justice.

Justice as Fairness
John Rawls was an American philosopher who focused his attention on the political domain of
society in his work, A Theory of Justice. Like other philosophers before him, he considers the
concept of a social contract, an agreement among people to live under a system of government. In
particular, Rawls emphasized justice as fairness.

But what is fair? To a wealthy business owner, what feels fair might be reward for your hard work to
achieve success and keeping more of the money you have earned. For a person of less means,
equal access to a good education for your children would feel fair.
What Rawls proposed was a thought experiment. A thought experiment is using your imagination
to consider a new way of thinking. In his thought experiment, you would imagine that you have a
representative that will meet with the representatives of every other citizen in a society to come up
with principles of justice.
This meeting is not a literal election or vote like in our example earlier about the tax structure. Rawls
meant these representatives in the thought experiment to be hypothetical only and not a situation
that would happen in real life.

The Original Position

There's something very unique about this particular imaginary gathering. Those who are involved in
this get-together are part of what Rawls describes as the original position, or an impartial point of
view used to establish the principles of justice.
What makes the original position of the participants so impartial and fair? Well, they've been given a
strange characteristic. Each citizen's representative knows nothing about the actual social or
economic standing of the person they are representing. They don't know your income, or whether
you are the wealthy business owner, or the lower-income parent, for instance.

http://study.com/academy/lesson/john-rawls-a-theory-of-justice.html

Justice as Fairness
In A Theory of Justice, Rawls begins with the statement that, "Justice is the first virtue of
social institution," meaning that a good society is one structured according to principals of
justice. Rawls asserts that existing theories of justice, developed in the field of philosophy,
are not adequate: "My guiding aim is to work out a theory of justice that is a viable
alternative to these doctrines which have long dominated our philosophical tradition." He
calls his theoryaimed at formulating a conception of the basic structure of society in
accordance with social justicejustice as fairness.
Rawls sets forth to determine the essential principles of justice on which a good society may
be based. He explains the importance of principles of justice for two key purposes: first, to
"provide a way of assigning rights and duties in the basic institutions of society"; and
secondly.