John Rawls Theories

John Rawls (1921-2002) was a Harvard philosopher who is best known for his 1971 book A Theory of Justice, which attempted to define what constitutes a just society. 

•    A Theory of Justice is mentioned in almost every contemporary scholarly discussion of justice.

 

•    Reasonable people frequently disagree about how to live, but we must structure society in such a way that reasonable people can accept it. 

 

•    Citizens could try to come to an agreement on basic rules as a group. We don't have to decide on every detail; instead, we can focus on rules governing major political and social institutions, such as the legal system and the economy, which make up society's 'basic structure.'

 

•    A common understanding of society's fundamental structure is a desirable goal. Some people, however, have more power than others: they may be wealthier or belong to a social majority. 

 

•    It is wrong if people can dominate negotiations because of qualities that are morally arbitrary, as Rawls puts it. These advantages are not earned; they are acquired by chance. It is unjust for anyone to take advantage of these undeserved advantages for their own gain, and it is the source of many injustices.

 

•    This is what motivates Rawls' central claim that justice should be conceived as "fairness." Rawls develops two key concepts to identify fairness: the original position and the veil of ignorance:

 

•    The original position is based on a hypothetical situation in which Rawls asks what social rules and institutions people would agree to if they were in a fair situation where no one knows if they are disadvantaged by chance. 

 

•    The veil of ignorance is an imagined device in which the people who choose the basic structure of society ('deliberators') have morally arbitrary features hidden from them: because they are unaware of these features, any decision they make cannot be biased in their favour.

•    Deliberators, on the other hand, aren't in the dark about everything. They are aware that they are self-interested, i.e., that they want as much of what Rawls refers to as primary goods as possible (things we want, no matter what our ideal life looks like). 

 

•    They are also driven by a rudimentary sense of justice: they will follow rules that appear to be fair if others do as well. They also have a basic understanding of science and human nature.

 

•    Rawls believes that a just society will follow rules that everyone would agree to in the first place.

 

•    People don't know their personal circumstances or even their view of the good life because they are deliberating behind the veil of ignorance. This influences the kinds of outcomes they will support.

 

•    For example, it would be irrational for deliberators to agree to a society in which only Christians have property rights because if they are discovered to be non-Christian after the veil is 'lifted,' their life prospects will be harmed. Similarly, deliberators are unlikely to choose a society with racist, sexist, or other unfairly discriminatory practises, because they may find themselves on the wrong side of these policies once the veil is lifted.

 

1.    As a result, Rawls' first principle of justice emerges: “All people have equal claims to as much freedom as is consistent with everyone else having the same level of freedom.”

 

•    Deliberators would be extremely cautious, according to Rawls, because their ignorance includes an ignorance of probabilities. They would follow what he calls a 'maximin' principle, aiming to ensure that the worst possible position they could end up in is as good as possible in terms of primary goods.

 

•    If we imagine ourselves as deliberators, the idea of total equality in primary goods may tempt us. At the very least, this ensures that no one will be better off than you for no reason.

 

However, some inequality may be beneficial: the prospect of earning more may motivate people to work harder, thereby growing the economy and increasing the total amount of wealth available.

 

2.    As Rawls' second principle, which addresses social and economic inequalities, makes clear, this isn't a wholehearted endorsement of capitalism. The second principle is divided into two parts:

 

A.    To begin with, people in the original position will tolerate inequalities if the higher-paying jobs aren't assigned unfairly. This gives us the ideal of fair equality of opportunity: inequalities are only permitted if they arise as a result of jobs that equally talented people have an equal chance of obtaining. 

 

•    For example, that young people have roughly equal educational opportunities; otherwise, a gifted individual may be hampered by a lack of fundamental knowledge, either about their own abilities or about the world.

 

B.    Second, because the 'maximin' principle governs their reasoning, deliberators will only tolerate inequalities that benefit the worst off because, as far as they know, they are the worst off; this maximises the quality of their worst possible outcome. This is known as the distinction principle.

 

•    These principles are arranged in a hierarchy that tells us what to do if they clash: equal liberty comes first, followed by fair opportunity, and finally the principle of difference. As a result, the difference principle has no bearing on either freedom or opportunity.