Quick Summary
The text provides a comprehensive commentary on John Rawls's A Theory of Justice, a seminal work in ethics and political philosophy. It explores Rawls's foundational concepts like "justice as fairness," the two principles of justice (equal basic liberties and the difference principle), and the "original position" with its "veil of ignorance" as a thought experiment for deriving just principles. The commentary critically examines Rawls's method of "reflective equilibrium," his fundamental objections to utilitarianism, and the challenges in applying his theory, particularly regarding intergenerational and ecological justice, and the congruence of the good and the just. It highlights revisions made by Rawls and discusses his views on democracy and the duty of justice, concluding with a critique from a globalized perspective.
Key Ideas
John Rawls's A Theory of Justice profoundly reshaped political ethics with its concept of "justice as fairness."
The "original position" and "veil of ignorance" serve as a thought experiment for deriving impartial principles of justice.
Rawls's two principles prioritize equal basic liberties and ensure that inequalities benefit the least advantaged.
The method of "reflective equilibrium" is used to achieve coherence between intuitive judgments and derived principles.
Rawls fundamentally opposes utilitarianism for disregarding the integrity and distinctness of individuals.
An Introduction to Rawls’s A Theory of Justice
Rawls initiated paradigm shifts by refocusing ethics on normative questions and replacing utilitarianism with "justice as fairness," drawing on Kant. He integrated economics, bridging liberal and Marxist thought. Rawls defines justice as society's first virtue, prior to efficiency, ensuring benefits are equally available. He emphasizes the inviolability of persons and social primary goods like rights, liberties, self-respect.
Rawls maintained that each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that cannot be overridden by the welfare of society as a whole.
The Method of A Theory of Justice
Rawls's non-linear, coherentist method aims to construct an alternative to utilitarianism, rejecting intuitionism. He uses the original position (OP), a hypothetical choice situation, where agents behind a "veil of ignorance" agree on justice principles. This process, which involves idealization, is justified through "reflective equilibrium," adjusting principles with considered judgments.
The Principles of Justice
Rawls's theory outlines two lexically ordered principles of justice. The First Principle guarantees each person equal basic liberties compatible with similar systems for all. The Second Principle states that social and economic inequalities must benefit the least advantaged (difference principle) and be attached to positions open under fair equality of opportunity. The first principle holds absolute priority.
The Original Position
The Original Position (OP) is a thought experiment resurrecting social contract doctrines to determine just principles. Choosers operate behind a "veil of ignorance," lacking knowledge of their individual status, talents, or propensities, ensuring impartiality. This leads to decision-making akin to a single person, resulting in the risk-averse maximin rule and justifying the difference principle.
In this original position, choosers operate behind a “veil of ignorance,” lacking specific knowledge about their individual status, natural talents, or psychological propensities, ensuring impartiality.
Rawls’s Critique of Utilitarianism
Rawls fundamentally objects to utilitarianism, arguing it fails to respect the "distinction between persons" by conflating individuals into a single entity to maximize collective utility. Utilitarianism exhibits "distributive indifference" and only conditionally supports individual rights. Rawls insists on the priority of individual rights and justice principles as constitutive elements of moral judgment, rejecting utilitarianism's teleological nature.
Utilitarianism, in seeking to maximize collective utility, mistakenly equated justifiable impartiality with problematic impersonality, which risked conflating all people into a single person and making the individual’s liberty subservient to the collective well-being.
Equal Liberty for All?
Thomas Pogge critiques Rawls’s priority of liberty, arguing it allows morally problematic restrictions. Rawls’s nonideal theory, by weighing risks from an ex ante perspective of the representative citizen, permits justifications like strict liability laws that could punish innocent people to enhance overall security. This recipient-directed approach, according to Pogge, aligns Rawls's theory with utilitarianism, leading to similar morally implausible outcomes.
On the Justice of Distributive Shares
Rawls applies his principles to legislative stages, defining background institutions compatible with private property or liberal socialism. He emphasizes a savings principle for future generations, rejecting "time preference." While his idea of preserving cultural gains and accumulating capital is convincing, Rawls largely omits ecological justice and the broader aspects of intergenerational justice.
The Duty of Justice
Rawls bases political obligation on the natural duty of justice, which is unconditional and universal, requiring support for and compliance with just institutions. He rejects consent theory as insufficient. In a nearly just society, citizens have a duty of civility, but civil disobedience is justified for substantial injustices after legal means are exhausted, or for conscientious refusal.
Justice Sets the Limits and the Good Determines the Ends
Rawls integrates justice and the good. His "thin theory of the good" (social primary goods) enables rational choices in the OP. The "full theory of the good" describes rational life plans, constrained by justice. The Aristotelian Principle suggests people enjoy exercising complex capacities, linking individual pursuits to social interdependency and the development of virtues essential for a just society.
The Sense of Justice
Rawls examines the sense of justice as a psychological mechanism to ensure the stability of a well-ordered society, where citizens are motivated to voluntarily comply with just institutions. He proposes three stages of moral development: morality of authority, association, and principles, the latter being the fully developed sense of justice driven by reciprocity.
The Good of Justice
Rawls argues for the congruence of the right and the good, asserting that acting justly is rational and aligns with an individual's personal well-being. This occurs through the realization of autonomy, objectivity, and social union, where just cooperation is valued intrinsically. The psychological cost of free-riding (loss of spontaneity, inability for genuine union) reinforces the rationality of cultivating a strong sense of justice.
Reflective Equilibrium in Times of Globalization? An Alternative to Rawls
Höffe critiques Rawls for not developing an interculturally valid theory of justice for globalization, arguing Rawls's later focus on "reasonableness" for liberal democracies is too modest. Höffe proposes a universal "heritage of justice" based on anthropological factors and mutual recognition, leading to principles derived from a "negative and transcendental exchange" of refraining from force, rather than distribution.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core concept of "justice as fairness"?
'Justice as fairness' is Rawls's central idea, proposing that principles of justice are those free and rational persons would agree to in an initial position of equality, thereby taking an impartial stance to ensure fairness in societal arrangements.
How does the "original position" function in Rawls's theory?
The "original position" is a hypothetical thought experiment where individuals choose principles of justice behind a "veil of ignorance," unaware of their personal attributes or societal status. This ensures impartiality and leads to fair principles.
Can you explain Rawls's two principles of justice?
The First Principle guarantees equal basic liberties for all. The Second Principle states that social and economic inequalities must benefit the least advantaged (difference principle) and be tied to positions open to everyone under fair equality of opportunity.
Why does Rawls reject utilitarianism?
Rawls rejects utilitarianism because it conflates individuals into a single entity, failing to respect the "distinction between persons." He argues it can sacrifice individual rights for collective utility, which is fundamentally unjust.
What is "reflective equilibrium"?
Reflective equilibrium is Rawls's method of justification where one works back and forth between considered moral judgments and proposed principles of justice, adjusting both until they cohere into a consistent and stable moral theory.