Is the principle of fairness a sound moral principle? Reflection on John Rawls’ theory.
Is the principle of fairness a sound moral principle?
Reflection on John Rawls’ theory.
The theory of justice as fairness was one of the most important elements of John Rawls’s philosophy, the one frequently discussed and significant for the twentieth-century political philosophy. To answer the question stated in the topic I would like to divide my dissertation into two major consecutive parts. First, I will examine what the principle of fairness implies and what are, in accordance to Rawls, the prerequisites to realize it. Then I would try to examine what the term ‘sound moral principle’ means, and see if the principle of fairness meets the description of a ‘moral principle’.
John Rawls’s theory of justice was an answer to the twentieth-century liberal philosophy. Criticising the liberal approach Rawls decided to reconstruct the idea of social contract1 and use it as a starting point for studying the concept of justice. He did not aim to propose the best political system possible. He rather asked about the rules, the basis for the human activities which could guarantee the existence of justice. Therefore, he developed the principle of fairness. Its major aim was to constitute the necessary conditions for providing ‘an acceptable philosophical and moral basis for democratic institutions’2 and in this way to enable the achievement and maintenance of justice. However, it will not be the Rawls’s principles of justice forming the interest of this work. I will concentrate on the pure concept of fairness, try to reconstruct its major components, examine its characteristics and finally decide if the principle of fairness can be treated as a sound moral principle.
The principle of fairness is often called the bridge principle, because it forms a conceptual link between the obligations of individuals and the political principles of justice. The way Rawls describes it is highly theoretical and takes on the form of a mental experiment rather than realistic analysis.
Reflection on John Rawls’ theory.
The theory of justice as fairness was one of the most important elements of John Rawls’s philosophy, the one frequently discussed and significant for the twentieth-century political philosophy. To answer the question stated in the topic I would like to divide my dissertation into two major consecutive parts. First, I will examine what the principle of fairness implies and what are, in accordance to Rawls, the prerequisites to realize it. Then I would try to examine what the term ‘sound moral principle’ means, and see if the principle of fairness meets the description of a ‘moral principle’.
John Rawls’s theory of justice was an answer to the twentieth-century liberal philosophy. Criticising the liberal approach Rawls decided to reconstruct the idea of social contract1 and use it as a starting point for studying the concept of justice. He did not aim to propose the best political system possible. He rather asked about the rules, the basis for the human activities which could guarantee the existence of justice. Therefore, he developed the principle of fairness. Its major aim was to constitute the necessary conditions for providing ‘an acceptable philosophical and moral basis for democratic institutions’2 and in this way to enable the achievement and maintenance of justice. However, it will not be the Rawls’s principles of justice forming the interest of this work. I will concentrate on the pure concept of fairness, try to reconstruct its major components, examine its characteristics and finally decide if the principle of fairness can be treated as a sound moral principle.
The principle of fairness is often called the bridge principle, because it forms a conceptual link between the obligations of individuals and the political principles of justice. The way Rawls describes it is highly theoretical and takes on the form of a mental experiment rather than realistic analysis.