Book Review of John Rawls “A Theory of Justice”

 Book Review of John Rawls “A Theory of Justice” – House of Intellectual (wordpress.com)

Background:

John Rawls (1921-2002) wrote “A Theory of Justice” in 1971, a work of political philosophy and ethics that offers a moral theory distinct from utilitarianism while addressing the issue of distributive justice. The thesis draws on an updated version of Kantian philosophy and a modified form of conventional social contract theory. Rawls’s theory of justice focuses on political justice and differs from other types of justice discussed in various fields and situations.

Since it was first published in 1971, the theory has undergone several challenges and refinements over the decades. In 1985, a significant reappraisal was published in the essay “Justice as Fairness,” followed by the 2001 book Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, in which Rawls further developed his two central principles for his justice discussion. These principles dictate that society should prioritize giving its members the maximum possible amount of liberty, with the caveat that no member’s freedom should infringe upon any other member’s. Additionally, social or economic inequalities are only acceptable if they benefit the worst off, and this inequality should not limit those without resources from occupying positions of power, such as a public office.

Abstract:

In “A Theory of Justice,” Rawls proposes balancing liberty and equality in a well-ordered society. He bases this on the circumstances of justice, inspired by David Hume, and a fair choice situation for parties, similar to some of Immanuel Kant’s views. The parties involved are not purely altruistic or egoistic but instead have their own goals, which they prefer to achieve through cooperation with others on mutually acceptable terms. Rawls presents a model of a fair choice situation (the original position with its veil of ignorance) in which parties would hypothetically choose mutually acceptable principles of justice. Rawls believes that under such constraints, parties would choose his favoured principles of justice over other alternatives, such as utilitarian and right-wing libertarian accounts.

Traditional Social Contract:

Rawls is part of the social contract tradition, but his perspective differs from previous philosophers. He creates principles of justice using a tool called the Original Position, which involves everyone deciding on these principles while unaware of their circumstances. Rawls refers to this as a “veil of ignorance” that prevents people from tailoring the principles to their advantage.

The concept of justice is determined without knowing an individual’s social status, assets, intelligence, or personal values. This is done through a hypothetical veil of ignorance where individuals do not even know their place in society or biased tendencies. Only after this veil is lifted are the principles of justice chosen.

Rawls suggests that not knowing specific details about oneself can result in fair principles for all. To avoid favouring any particular group, individuals must understand how they fit into society and create a system of justice that treats everyone equally. Rawls proposes that everyone in the Original Position adopt a maximin strategy to ensure the best possible outcome for the least advantaged.

Rawls’ Original Position is founded on the principles that reasonable and independent individuals would agree upon in a situation of equality, defining the essentials of their social agreement. Rawls suggests a “thin theory of the good,” clarifying the reasoning behind the principles chosen in the Original Position. A comprehensive theory of the good is established after principles are derived from the original position. Rawls proposes that two regulations would be adopted by the parties in the original position, governing the allocation of rights and duties and dictating the distribution of social and economic benefits throughout society. Under the difference principle, unequal distribution of resources is only permissible if it benefits the most disadvantaged members of society. Rawls argues that this principle would be a rational choice for representatives in the original position because each individual has an equal right to their society’s resources, regardless of their natural abilities. Therefore, the fundamental right of any individual is to possess an equal share in material wealth. Rawls maintains that unequal distribution is only justifiable if it benefits the worst-off members of society.

The agreement resulting from the original position is hypothetical and not based on historical events. Rawls argues that the principles of justice should be determined based on what parties agree to under certain legitimating conditions rather than what they have previously decided. He believes these principles would have moral weight if they were agreed upon in the hypothetical situation of the original position. However, it is essential to note that this agreement has never been derived in the real world outside of carefully limited experimental exercises.

Define Justice:

Throughout his book, Rawls modifies and develops the principles of justice. In chapter forty-six, Rawls provides his final clarification on the two principles of justice. The first principle asserts that every person should have an equal right to a comprehensive system of fundamental liberties that align with similar privileges for all. The second principle outlines that social and economic inequalities should be arranged to benefit the least advantaged while adhering to the just savings principle. Additionally, these inequalities should be attached to positions and opportunities open to all with fair equality of opportunity.

There are three principles of justice, with the first being the greatest equal liberty principle. The second principle has two parts: the difference principle and the equal opportunity principle. Regarding priority, Rawls orders principles 1, 2b, and 2a. The greatest matching liberty principle comes first, followed by the equal opportunity and difference principles. Each guide must be met before moving on to the next, so the fundamental liberties protected in the first principle cannot be traded for social or economic advantages granted by the second principle. Rawls emphasizes that regulations must be met in order and must be followed.

Define Liberty:

According to Rawls, each individual should have equal access to the most comprehensive system of fundamental liberties possible, provided it does not interfere with the equal rights of others. This principle mainly concerns the distribution of rights and liberties. Rawls identifies several basic privileges, including political freedom, freedom of speech and assembly, freedom of thought and conscience, and freedom from physical and psychological harm. The right to personal property and protection from arbitrary arrest and seizure are also included. However, there is a debate over whether the freedom to make contracts should be considered a fundamental liberty. Rawls argues that it is not essential and, therefore, not protected by the priority given to the first principle.

Economic Inequality:

According to Rawls, social and economic inequalities should be structured to benefit the least advantaged members of society as long as it is consistent with the just savings principle. Rawls believes that deviations from equality should only be permitted if they improve the situation of the worst off compared to the original equal distribution. This means that inequalities can be justifiable if they benefit the least well-off. Rawls argues that arbitrary factors like family background should not determine one’s life chances or opportunities. He also believes that individuals do not morally deserve their innate talents; therefore, they are not entitled to all the benefits that come with them. As a result, one of the criteria that could be used to assess the fairness of distributions in place of equality is eliminated.

In addition, according to the just savings principle, we must consider the needs of future generations and ensure that they have the necessary resources. While Rawls doesn’t provide a clear definition, it can be interpreted as positively impacting those who will come after us.

Equal Opportunity:

To ensure fairness, social and economic inequalities should only be attached to offices and positions open to everyone with equal opportunities (as stated in 2b). This principle takes precedence over 2a since equal opportunity means that skills should be valued over material resources, and everyone should have the chance to acquire those skills. Even though the difference principle may allow some inequality to benefit the worst off, it’s essential to consider that significant inequalities could undermine the value of political liberties and measures toward equal opportunities. Therefore, the first principle of justice and 2b may require greater equality than the difference principle.

Outlook:

1972 Marshall Cohen reviewed A Theory of Justice in The New York Times Book Review. He praised Rawls’ analytic philosophy techniques, making the book the most effective defence of the social contract tradition. Cohen credited Rawls with providing a bold and rigorous account of the principles upon which our public life is committed. Scholars compared Rawls’ accomplishments to John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant. However, Cohen criticized Rawls for being loose in understanding some fundamental political concepts. Cohen believed it might take years before scholars could make a satisfactory appraisal of Rawls’ work.

“A Theory of Justice,” a work by Rawls, was heavily criticized by various philosophers. In his book Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974), Robert Nozick criticized Rawls’ account of distributive justice. In his review of the book for the American Political Science Review in 1975, Allan Bloom noted that “A Theory of Justice” received significant attention in the Anglo-Saxon world and attributed its popularity to Rawls’ “radical egalitarian interpretation of liberal democracy.” Bloom criticized Rawls for not accounting for natural rights in his theory of justice and for absolutizing social union as the ultimate goal. Robert Paul Wolff criticized Rawls from a Marxist perspective in his book Understanding Rawls: A Critique and Reconstruction of A Theory of Justice (1977), arguing that Rawls constructs justice from existing practice and forecloses the possibility of problems of injustice embedded in capitalist social relations, private property, or the market economy.

In his book “Liberalism and the Limits of Justice” (1982), Michael Sandel criticized Rawls’ approach to justice. Sandel argued that Rawls’ focus on justice disconnected it from people’s values and personal identities, leading to a flawed understanding of justice. Similarly, Susan Moller Okin praised Rawls’ “most influential” theory in her book “Justice, Gender, and the Family” (1989) but also criticized Rawls for neglecting to address the injustices inherent in familial relationships. Meanwhile, economists Kenneth Arrow and John Harsanyi took issue with Rawls’ use of maximin reasoning in the original position. They accused Rawls of manipulating his parameters to support his desired principles. In his argument, Rawls defended the original position as a tool for understanding fairness in decision-making and downplaying the importance of maximin reasoning.

Philosopher Charles W. Mills, in his book Black Rights / White Wrongs, criticizes the assumptions underlying Rawls’s work as being inherently white, resulting in significant blind spots. Mills contrasts Rawls’s “ideal theory” and the “white fantasy world of Rawlsianism” with the history of racialized oppression and argues that non-ideal theory is necessary to address racial inequality and potential solutions. Mills points out that Rawls’s extensive work on social justice neglects to address racial justice, a critical issue today. Mills uses Radical Black Kantianism to contextualize Rawls’s silence on race within a broader tradition of white political philosophers who are either explicitly racist or ignore race when discussing justice.

Amartya Sen, an economist, has expressed concerns about Rawls’ focus on primary social goods. In his book “Inequality Reexamined” (1992), he argues that we should instead pay attention to the distribution of direct goods and how effectively people can use them to achieve their goals. Norman Daniels has also questioned why healthcare isn’t considered a primary good, and his subsequent work has explored this issue, advocating for a right to healthcare within a Rawlsian framework. Meanwhile, philosopher G. A. Cohen has criticized Rawls’ acceptance of inequality under the difference principle, his use of the principle solely for social institutions, and his excessive emphasis on using primary goods as the basis for equality. Cohen’s critiques can be found in his books “If You’re An Egalitarian, How Come You’re So Rich?” (2000) and “Rescuing Justice and Equality” (2008).

In “The Idea of Justice” (2009), Sen criticizes and attempts to revive Rawls’ “A Theory of Justice.” Sen appreciates Rawls’ emphasis on fairness, objectivity, equality of opportunity, removal of poverty, and freedom, which revived interest in the meaning of justice. However, Sen critiques Rawls for not addressing the impact of human behaviour on institutions’ ability to maintain a just society. He also argues that Rawls’ idea of a perfectly fitting world does not help to address current inequality. Sen believes that multiple conflicting yet appropriate principles may arise, undermining Rawls’ approach of a multistep process leading to a perfectly just society. Sen thinks that Rawls’ position that there be only one possible outcome of the reflective equilibrium behind the veil of ignorance is misguided.

Share this: