John Rawls

a theory of justice

Rawls goal

rawl wants a fair structure society. instead of asking what benefits the most people overall, he asked: what rules would free and equal people choose if they didn’t know their place in society?

original position + veil of ignorance

imagine you’re designing the basic rules of society, but you do not know: gender, race, income, abilities, region, health, etc. this ignorance forces you to choose rules that protect everyone, because you might end up as the person at the bottom. this is how Rawls defines fairness

two principles of justice

principle 1: equal basic liberties. everyone gets the same set of fundamental freedoms: speech, religion, political participation, due process, personal freedom - these liberties cannot be sacrificed for economic gain. principle 2: social and economic inequalities must be arranged so that: fair equality of opportunity, the difference principle (inequalities are allowed only if they benefit the least advantaged members of society). so higher incomes, wealth, or status are fine IF they raise the floor for everyone, especially the worst off.

why rawl rejects utilitarianism

utilitarianism asks “what produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number”. rawl says that approach allows sacrificing the minority for the majority. the veil of ignorance makes that impossible, because you might be part of the minority.

justice as fairness

rawl calls his theory “justice as fairness” because: it is about choosing rules under conditions where unfair advantages are removed. it treats people as free, equal, and deserving of respect. and it protects the most vulnerable.

big takeaways

fairness comes from imagining yourself without privilege. basic liberties are non-negotiable. opportunities must be genuinely open to all. inequality is only justified if it helps those at the bottom. the theory blends liberal rights with social-democratic redistribution.