JOHN RAWLS – THEORY OF JUSTICE (Justice as Fairness)


JOHN RAWLS – THEORY OF JUSTICE (Justice as Fairness)


Contemporary Political Philosophy

→ Post-World War shift from European to American philosophy

→ American political philosophy = Liberalism

→ Rawls becomes central figure of modern liberalism


Significance of Rawls

→ His contribution in contemporary political theory comparable to Plato in classical tradition

→ Reference point of modern political philosophy

→ Robert Nozick: Either agree with Rawls or explain why you disagree


Background Context (1960s USA)

→ Decade of social upheavals

→ Black Rights Movement + Feminist Movement

→ Crisis of legitimacy in American society

→ People questioned whether system is just

→ Rawls examines problem on basis of data

→ Finds economic inequality as root cause

→ Question → How to address inequality?


Rawls’ School of Thought

→ Liberalism → Welfare State orientation

→ Egalitarian Liberal

→ Concerned with social and economic equality

→ Concept of “Democratic Equality”



---


CENTRAL QUESTION OF RAWLS


How to address inequality?

→ Option 1 → Remove / ignore inequality (Equality as natural & desirable)

→ Option 2 → Abolish inequalities completely (Marxist view)


Rawls rejects extremes

→ Not all inequalities are natural

→ Not all inequalities are social

→ Equality cannot be absolute

→ Inequality is inevitable

→ Task = Identify which inequality is just


Purpose of his theory

→ To discover formula of just inequality

→ To harmonise liberty and equality



---


WHAT IS JUSTICE?


Justice = Fairness

→ Fair equality

→ Should be fair to all

→ No one should be sacrificed for greater good


Foundational Principle

→ Inviolability of Human Dignity


Justice is first virtue of social institutions

→ Just like truth in systems of thought


Rawls’ theory = Institutional theory of justice

→ Just society through just institutions



---


CRITIQUE OF UTILITARIANISM


Utilitarianism

→ Bentham, Mill

→ Principle of utility

→ Greatest happiness of greatest number


Problem

→ Undermines human dignity

→ Does not treat everyone equally

→ Sacrifices few for happiness of many

→ Can justify slavery


Rawls’ response

→ “Right is prior to Good”

→ Public policy must prioritise right over aggregate good



---


DEONTOLOGICAL BASIS


Rawls calls his theory Deontological

→ Rule-based

→ Inspired by Immanuel Kant


Kantian Principle

→ Each person is an end in himself

→ No one should be used merely as means


Why deontology?

→ Consequentialism is contextual & relative

→ Utilitarianism example of consequentialism

→ Rawls wants universal, foundational, transcendental theory


Features

→ Universalist

→ Transcendental

→ Foundationalist

→ Based on Human Dignity



---


LIBERALISM – THREE TRADITIONS


Liberalism divided into

→ Libertarianism (John Locke, Market fundamentalism, absolute right to property)

→ Utilitarianism (Bentham, Mill)

→ Egalitarianism (Kant → Dignity)


Problem of Libertarianism

→ Ownership in gutter

→ Survival of the fittest

→ Complete market principle

→ Market efficient but not necessarily just


Rawls’ position

→ Egalitarian Liberal

→ Justice must regulate market outcomes



---


PRIMARY GOODS


Justice concerns distribution

→ Distributive Justice


Distribution of what?

→ Primary Goods


Primary Goods = Means for life goals

→ Liberty

→ Equality

→ Rights

→ Income

→ Wealth

→ Opportunities

→ Dignity


Secondary goods

→ Positions (Doctor, Engineer, Civil servant)


Goal

→ Fair distribution of primary goods



---


HUMAN NATURE


Rawls’ individual

→ Kantian individual (not Hobbesian)

→ Rational

→ Moral

→ Capable of reason


Moral Individualism

→ Sovereign dignity of labour

→ Sense of social responsibility


Morality originates from

→ Reason (in human soul)

→ Intuition



---


METHODOLOGY OF RAWLS


Most unique aspect = Method


Objective

→ To show theory is most rational, acceptable, universal


Based on

→ Rational Choice theory

→ Liberal rationality


Assumption

→ Individuals are rational

→ Self-interested

→ Independent


Method used

→ Social Contract tradition (inspired by John Locke)


Best way to arrive at rational principles

→ Social Contract

→ Because it is legitimate

→ Represents free will

→ Outcome accepted as rational



---


ORIGINAL POSITION & VEIL OF IGNORANCE


Conditions of Social Contract

→ Original Position (before contract)

→ Veil of Ignorance (after contract condition)


Original Position

→ Similar to State of Nature

→ Before society exists

→ People come together to determine principles of justice


Veil of Ignorance

→ Heuristic device

→ Thought experiment

→ People unaware of their particular facts

→ Do not know position, status, talent

→ Know general facts

→ Ensures fairness


Purpose

→ Remove bias

→ Ensure fair distribution principles



---


METHOD OF DELIBERATION


Idea of Justice exists in

→ Human soul


Method

→ Deliberation

→ Reflective Equilibrium


Goal : Determine principles of social (distributive) justice

→ Decide who gets what and why


Existing theories based on

→ Need

→ Desert (talent)

→ Merit (social utility)


Rawls attempts→ To go beyond these



VEIL OF IGNORANCE (Detailed)


People behind veil

→ Do not know particular facts about themselves

→ Do not know whether hardworking or not

→ Do not know social position, class, talent

→ Ignorant about particular facts of society


But they know

→ General principles

→ How economy works

→ How society normally functions

→ Basic human psychology


Purpose

→ To make people unbiased

→ Decisions based on reason

→ Ensure universal acceptability


Rawls calls his theory

→ Purely Procedural



---


TYPES OF PROCEDURAL THEORIES


3 types


1. Perfectly Procedural

→ Goal clear + procedure clear

→ eg. Marxism

→ Goal = Communism

→ Procedure = Revolution



2. Imperfectly Procedural

→ Goal clear but procedure not clear



3. Purely Procedural

→ Goal not predefined

→ Only procedure defined




Rawls supports Purely Procedural

→ Because no consensus on goals/values

→ Consensus possible only on right procedure

→ If procedure is right → outcome automatically right

→ Universal acceptability


Example

→ Ram Janmabhoomi dispute

→ No agreement on end result

→ Go to court

→ Accept judicial procedure

→ Both sides accept outcome

→ Because both are rational



---


NATURE OF PERSONS IN ORIGINAL POSITION


People are

→ Rational

→ Moral

→ Mutually disinterested (not anti-social)

→ Liberal rationality (primary to self-interest)


They come with own notion of justice

→ But agree on fair procedure instead of imposing values


Utilitarianism

→ End-state theory

→ Based on result


Rawls

→ Deontological

→ Rule-based

→ Procedure-based



---


HOW RATIONAL PERSON THINKS


MAXIMIN Principle

→ Maximise minimum

→ Minimise risk

→ Insurance logic


Any person would

→ Try to reduce worst possible outcome

→ Ensure system gives max return if he is least advantaged


Rejection of alternatives


Utilitarianism

→ Rejected on dignity grounds


Socialism

→ Highly risk-averse system

→ No incentive for talented

→ No scope to increase size of pie

→ Unfair to advantaged

→ Irrational


Market Fundamentalism / Libertarianism

→ Extreme risk

→ No insurance

→ Survival of fittest

→ Unfair to least advantaged

→ Undermines dignity


Poor people will not opt for socialism

→ Because not situation of maximum advantage


Thus

→ Rational choice = Justice as Fairness



---


MAXIMIN AND PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE


Person will think

→ What if I am most advantaged?

→ Prefer liberty to maximise talent


But

→ Behind veil, cannot assume position

→ So prefer system securing least advantaged


Hence → 2 Principles of Justice



---


FIRST PRINCIPLE → LIBERTY PRINCIPLE


Maximum Equal Liberty

→ Everyone has equal basic liberties

→ Equal opportunity to pursue goals


Liberty is Primary Good


Distribution Principle

→ Maximum & Equal


Reference

→ Article 19 (reasonable restrictions)

→ Article 16 (equality of opportunity)


All agree

→ Society must give maximum equal liberty to all


Outcome of liberty

→ Inequality

→ Because people differ in talents

→ Inequality is natural



---


SECOND PRINCIPLE


Why needed?

→ Because liberty produces inequality


Cannot

→ Kill talented (not option)

→ Allow inequality to flourish unchecked (creates disharmony, envy)


Solution

→ Make inequality just


Second Principle divided into:


2A → Difference Principle

→ Inequality justified only if

→ Results in maximum advantage to least advantaged

→ “Maximum advantage to least advantage”


Person behind veil

→ Places himself in position of most disadvantaged

→ Prefers system ensuring dignity

→ Ensures basic minimum amenities

→ Ensures ability to live with dignity


Merit is flawed

→ Never pure merit

→ Also product of luck


Luck

→ Advantage without effort


Example

→ Educated parents

→ Better schools

→ Social background


Hence

→ Need compensation

→ To make competition fair

→ Justice demands no one punished for no fault



2B → Fair Equality of Opportunity


Public offices open to all

→ Not just formal equality

→ Real level playing field

→ May require affirmative action

→ Scaling mechanisms


Equal liberty

→ Then fair equality of opportunity

→ Then difference principle


LEXICAL ORDER (Priority Order)


Principles in definite order


1st → Liberty Principle

2nd → Fair Equality of Opportunity

3rd → Difference Principle


Cannot sacrifice liberty for equality

Cannot violate first principle for second


Social Order structure

→ Equal liberty

→ Fair equality of opportunity

→ Then justify inequality


WHY USE “ADVANTAGED / DISADVANTAGED”?


Because

→ Merit not purely individual

→ Social + natural lottery

→ Society must compensate for bad luck

→ Ensure fairness


Goal→ Increase size of pie

→ Then distribute justly




FINAL CORE IDEA


Justice = Fairness

→ Right prior to Good

→ Inviolability of human dignity

→ Rational persons choose fair principles

→ Through original position + veil of ignorance

→ Adopt Maximin

→ Establish 2 principles

→ Ensure just inequality

Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post

Contact Form