Reading for Thursday: John Rawls on Justice November 16, 2010
Posted by Professor Baker in Uncategorized.trackback
John Rawls presented his basic views on justice first in several early papers and then more comprehensively in A Theory of Justice (1971). The following very short excerpt is taken from that book.
Many different kinds of things are said to be just and unjust: not only laws, institutions, and social systems, but also particular actions of many kinds, including decisions, judgments, and imputations….Our topic, however, is that of social justice. For us the primary subject of justice is the basic structure of society, or more exactly, the way in which the major social institutions distribute fundamental rights and duties and determine the division of advantages from social cooperation. By major institutions I understand the political constitution and the principal economic and social arrangements….
My aim is to present a conception of justice which generalizes and carries to a higher level of abstraction the familiar theory of the social contract as found, say, in Locke, Rousseau, and Kant. In order to do this we are not to think of the original contract as one to enter a particular society or to set up a particular form of government. Rather, the guiding idea is that the principles of justice for the basic structure of society are the object of the original agreement. They are the principles that free and rational persons concerned to further their own interests would accept in an initial position of equality as defining the fundamental terms of their association. These principles are to regulate all further agreements; they specify the kinds of social cooperation that can be entered into and the forms of government that can be established. This way of regarding the principles of justice I shall call justice as fairness.
Thus we are to imagine that those who engage in social cooperation choose together, in one joint act, the principles which are to assign basic rights and duties and to determine the division of social benefits. Men are to decide in advance how they are to regulate their claims against one another and what is to be the foundation charter of their society. Just as each person must decide by rational reflection what constitutes his good, that is, the system of ends which it is rational for him to pursue, so a group of persons must decide once and for all what is to count among them as just and unjust. The choice which rational men would make in this hypothetical situation of equal liberty, assuming for the present that this choice problem has a solution, determines the principles of justice.
In justice as fairness the original position of equality corresponds to the state of nature in the traditional theory of the social contract. This original position is not, of course, thought of as an actual historical state of affairs, much less as a primitive condition of culture. It is understood as a purely hypothetical situation characterized so as to lead to a certain conception of justice. Among the essential features of this situation is that no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does any one know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like. I shall even assume that the parties do not know their conceptions of the good or their special psychological propensities. The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance. This ensures that no one is advantaged or disadvantaged in the choice of principles by the outcome of natural chance or the contingency of social circumstances. Since all are similarly situated and no one is able to design principles to favor his particular condition, the principles of justice are the result of a fair agreement or bargain….
I shall maintain…that the persons in the initial situation would choose two…principles: the first requires equality in the assignment of basic rights and duties, while the second holds that social and economic inequalities, for example inequalities of wealth and authority, are just only if they result in compensating benefits for everyone, and in particular for the least advantaged members of society. [from John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, Sections 2 and 3, p. 7-15.]
I’m curious as to how clear this is from reading it.
I found his last sentence, “inequalities of wealth and authority, are just only if they result in compensating benefits for everyone” to be vague… It kind of threw me at the end.
Didn’t think the article was clear.
I think the following passage: “Just as each person must decide by rational reflection what constitutes his good, that is, the system of ends which it is rational for him to pursue, so a group of persons must decide once and for all what is to count among them as just and unjust. The choice which rational men would make in this hypothetical situation of equal liberty, assuming for the present that this choice problem has a solution, determines the principles of justice.” is similar to Rousseau’s theories regarding justice in the social contract, which says that the general will of the people is what should govern the people. I think what Rawls is trying to say is that a group of rational, reasonable men can make just decisions regarding law and justice so that it is best for everyone.
I agree the article was difficult to understand. It does make one think of the reasoning behind what governs us today. Why is it “wrong” to do certain things?
I didn’t think the article was very clear. “This way of regarding the principles of justice I shall call justice as fairness.” But what is fair?
I think the article unclear simply because it is so objective. He sums it up when he says “Rather, the guiding idea is that the principles of justice for the basic structure of society are the object of the original agreement” What is just depends on your definition of just and it is so variable from culture to culture. I find it difficult to discuss topics such as these and even last class because what one person thinks is beautiful the person sitting next to them may think is ugly. Even within a society it is highly variable- my entire neighborhood at home isn’t going to agree entirely on what is just and what isn’t, or what is beautiful and what is ugly.
Neat point.
Dr. Jennifer Baker College of Charleston
I disagree with Rawl’s on his topic of social justice. He say’s men agree on the implications of justice much like a bargain, but I think the higher level of society ultimately decides what is fair in their eyes on the level of justice. If a lawyer and a gang member both committed the same crime, I think a punishment fair to the lawyer would be different than what society thinks ought to be a fair punishment for the gang member.
I think that I understood most of what he is saying here.
People who are free, rational, and have nothing to lose or gain from deciding what is just will inevitably come up with the belief that there should be equality when assigning rights, and any inequalities should only be permitted if they are good for everyone, especially the less fortunate.
I have conflicting thoughts aboutthe ‘social contract’ and that ‘the principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance’ so that no one has advantage over another person in receiving justice. No one’s situation will be biased as being more just than another’s. But would this mean that if laws of justice were chosen out of ignorance, than a criminals life could be considered just? Also, at the end, he says that social and economic inequalities are just if everyone is benefited…but we know this is not close to reality.
This article is very abstract and difficult to understand…his wording alone confuses me to the point where I completely lose track of what he’s trying to say.
I find self interest to play a very large role when it comes to justice and the philosophy of justice. As Rawl states “The guiding idea is that the principles of justice for the basic structure of society are the object of the original agreement. They are the principles that free and rational persons concerned to further their own interests would accept in an initial position of equality as defining the fundamental terms of their association.” The fact that individuals agree to enter into a just society or social contract that displays justice only to “further their own interests” is very significant to me. In my opinion it means that the actual want for justice in a society is not because it is the morally right thing to do, but because it may protect or prove to be beneficial to you at a certain point in time. Since self interest seems to be the motivation for justice, there is no mystery to me of why true justice is rare in most societies.
Wow, these are getting better and better!
Dr. Jennifer Baker College of Charleston
The reading was a bit wordy and lacked needed definitions, but was intresting none the less. Looking at justice as a “bargain” is intreging. When we give up some “rights” to balance out what “society” believes should be the law. Which in the end makes justice where “no one is advantaged or disadvantaged in the choice of principles by the outcome of natural chance”
interesting*, intriguing*
I had a hard time following this article. The more I read it the less it seemed to make sense. I couldn’t grasp a clear overall point he was trying to get across. However it did provoke me to think about the idea behind justice. As basic as it is I’ve never thought of where justice comes from. It always has seemed as though these laws are just in place and the punishment for breaking them is standard. But us as a society have decided on what is just and what isn’t. Everything was decided at some point. Not sure if that has anything to do with what he is saying though.
I believe that the article is trying to say that equality and true justice begins with the construction of social norms fairly in some kind of bargaining or debate. Also, the article states that the only inequalities that are justifiable are those that benefit for the greater good of society. ex. welfare
I thought that his way of writing was not very clear, but when youthink about the points he is trying to make, he has some very good ones. I agree with some of his points, like it is unjust to give to the wealthy when your hurting the poor type of thing, but I also think that their are many other injustices in this category that he thinks would qualify as just, because they are not nationally annouonced
in this clip, Rawls’ political theory of justice is broadly outlined. He views a just political system as a procedural republic where we come together in the original position (i.e. where our histories and experiences cannot define us (i.e. we are under the veil of ignorance) so that we will make choices about how our system of government is going to work without any form of bias)to decide what rules will govern us as a whole. Rawls also wants these rules (or principles) that we decide upon in the original position to be agreed upon under a system of justice as fairness, in which the principles of justice are fair because we have all agreed upon what those principles should be (it is not a majority vote, it is a unanimous one). Rawls understands that everyone is different, but that when it comes to justice, in order for the political system to be fair, we all need to agree upon what justice is and how to distribute it regardless of our respective differences (Rawls calls this reasonable pluralism).
In this last paragraph, Rawls outlines the two principles of justice that he envisions society agreeing upon. One – that everyone is treated equally under the political system. Two – that advantages can only exist in society (such as having more money) if, and only if, that advantage ALSO benefits those who are least advantaged (i.e. the poor). Only if these two principles are fulfilled will the political system/government we have created be just and fair.
if anyone reads this before the exam, i hope it helped a little bit.
Good job!