Easy to use this website
Rawls’s theory of justice
Rawls described his theory of justice called “Justice as Fairness” in his book A Theory of Justice. Rawls agrees with Nozick that justice is quite separate from morality and he too rejects utilitarian forms of justice. He first suggests a new way to learn about principles of justice—the original position. The original position asks us to imagine that a group of people will get to decide the principles of justice. These people don’t know who they are (what he calls a ‘veil of ignorance’), they are self-interested, and they know everything science has to offer. He argues that in a veil of ignorance they couldn’t be as biased towards their profession, race, gender, age, or social status because they wouldn’t know which categories they belong. As far as self-interest is concerned, Rawls argues that they will want principles of justice that will “fairly distribute” certain goods that everyone will value—what Rawls calls “primary social goods”. Rawls argues that the people in the original position will discuss which principles of justice are best before voting on them and the best principles worth having will reach a “reflective equilibrium”—the most intuitive principles will be favoured and incompatible less intuitive principles will have to be rejected in order to maintain coherence. He argues that two intuitive principles of justice in particular will reach reflective equilibrium:
1. Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all.
2. Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: first, they are to be attached to positions and offices open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; and second, they are to be the greatest expected benefit of the least advantaged members of society.
Objections
1. Basic liberties aren’t good enough – The first principle of justice equates freedom with some list of
Rawls described his theory of justice called “Justice as Fairness” in his book A Theory of Justice. Rawls agrees with Nozick that justice is quite separate from morality and he too rejects utilitarian forms of justice. He first suggests a new way to learn about principles of justice—the original position. The original position asks us to imagine that a group of people will get to decide the principles of justice. These people don’t know who they are (what he calls a ‘veil of ignorance’), they are self-interested, and they know everything science has to offer. He argues that in a veil of ignorance they couldn’t be as biased towards their profession, race, gender, age, or social status because they wouldn’t know which categories they belong. As far as self-interest is concerned, Rawls argues that they will want principles of justice that will “fairly distribute” certain goods that everyone will value—what Rawls calls “primary social goods”. Rawls argues that the people in the original position will discuss which principles of justice are best before voting on them and the best principles worth having will reach a “reflective equilibrium”—the most intuitive principles will be favoured and incompatible less intuitive principles will have to be rejected in order to maintain coherence. He argues that two intuitive principles of justice in particular will reach reflective equilibrium:
1. Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all.
2. Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: first, they are to be attached to positions and offices open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; and second, they are to be the greatest expected benefit of the least advantaged members of society.
Objections
1. Basic liberties aren’t good enough – The first principle of justice equates freedom with some list of