John Rawls' Theory of Justice: Exhaustive Course Notes

Chapter Objectives and Introduction to John Rawls' Moral Philosophy

• By the end of this study, students should be able to:

  • Explain the reaction of John Rawls to Utilitarian and Kantian ethics.
  • Distinguish Rawls’ theory of justice from the theories of Immanuel Kant and William David Ross.
  • Apply Rawls’ ethics to analyze various moral situations.
  • Provide a critical evaluation of Rawls’ ethics.

• Context for Rawls’ Theory: John Rawls sought to provide an alternative to the dominant moral system of his time, which was utilitarianism. This system, prevalent in the Anglo-Saxon tradition of political thought, emphasizes the "Principle of the Happiness of the Greatest Number."

• Critique of Utilitarianism: Rawls (1999) argued that utilitarianism fails to provide an adequate account of the fundamental rights and liberties of citizens as free and equal individuals. Similar to William David Ross, Rawls contended that utilitarianism falls short of upholding the concept of justice, which he believed must be the foundation of all moral actions and decisions.

The Life of John Bordley Rawls

• Personal Background:

  • John Bordley Rawls was an American political and ethical philosopher born on February $21$, $1921$, in Baltimore.
  • Family: He was the second of $5$ sons. His father, William Lee, was a prominent lawyer, and his mother, Anna Rawls, served as a chapter president of the League of Women Voters. His maternal grandparents were from an affluent family living in an exclusive Baltimore suburb.

• Education and Military Service:

  • He attended an Episcopalian preparatory school in Connecticut before entering Princeton University, where he earned a bachelor's degree in $1943$.
  • Loss of Faith: During his senior year, he wrote an intensely religious thesis and considered the priesthood. However, he lost his Christian faith while serving as an infantryman in World War II after witnessing the "capriciousness of death in combat" and learning of the horrors of the Holocaust.
  • He returned to Princeton in $1946$ and earned his PhD in moral philosophy in $1950$.

• Political Activism:

  • In the $1960$s, Rawls spoke against America's military intervention in Vietnam, which he considered an unjust war. This conflict prompted him to analyze flaws in the American political system and contemplate how citizens could conscientiously resist aggressive government policies.

• Academic Life and Later Works:

  • Despite his fame, Rawls lived a withdrawn academic life focused on his family and work.
  • He suffered a stroke in $1995$ that restricted his work, but he still managed to produce three major books: The Law of Peoples, Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy, and Justice as Fairness.
  • Rawls died in $2002$ at the age of $81$.

John Rawls' Ethical Principle: Justice as Fairness

• Core Philosophy: In his seminal work, A Theory of Justice, Rawls proposed that justice is fairness. This concept serves as the basis for social institutions that avoid conferring "morally arbitrary lifelong advantages" on some people at the expense of others.

• Synthesis of Traditions: Rawls attempted to combine the strengths of utilitarianism with the deontological views of Immanuel Kant and William David Ross while avoiding their respective weaknesses.

  • He sought to rectify the lack of justice in utilitarianism.
  • He utilized the Kantian and Rossian notion of the ultimate dignity of human beings to formulate a basis for social morality and social justice.

• Justice as the First Virtue: Rawls stated that justice is "the first virtue of social institutions as truth is of systems of thought." He argued that no matter how efficient, elegant, or well-arranged laws and institutions are, they must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust.

The Hypothetical Situation: The Original Position and the Veil of Ignorance

• The Original Position: Rawls invites individuals to imagine themselves in an "original position of equality."

• The Veil of Ignorance: In this hypothetical state, a "veil of ignorance" hangs over the community. Individuals are unaware of socially significant facts about themselves, including:

  • Race, sex, and religion.
  • Economic status and social standing.
  • Natural abilities and their personal conception of a "good life."

• Rationale for the Veil: Under this veil, a person must decide on principles that further their own aims and interests without knowing their specific position in society. This ensures that no one can take advantage of others, forcing a concern for the fate of everyone.

• Conclusion of Fairness: Because rational beings in this position seek their common welfare, their choices will be fair to everyone. This led to Rawls’ definition of justice as fairness.

The Two Principles of Justice

• First Principle (The Liberty Principle): "Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal fundamental liberties compatible with a similar system of freedom for all."

  • This includes the right to vote, eligibility for public office, freedom of speech, peaceable assembly, liberty of conscience, and freedom of thought.
  • It also protects rights to ownership and freedom from arbitrary arrest and seizure as defined by the rule of law.

• Second Principle (Social and Economic Inequalities): Social and economic inequalities must be arranged so that they are both:

  • The Difference Principle: To the supreme benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just savings principle.
  • Equality of Opportunity: Attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.

• Priority Rule: The first principle (liberties) has priority over the second. These principles govern the basic structure of society (political, economic, and social arrangements) which determine life chances.

• Legitimacy of Inequality: Rawls clarified that a just society is not one where everyone is equal—which he deemed unrealistic—but one where inequalities are only allowed if they provide differential rewards to make workers more productive or provide incentives that benefit everyone, especially the least fortunate.

Categories of Justice and Fairness

• The foundation of justice is the fair treatment of all. This results in five distinct categories:

• Distributive Justice (Economic Justice): Concerns the equal distribution of benefits (resources) and burdens (responsibilities). It dictates that individuals who are equal in relevant respects receive equal treatment, while those who are unequal receive unequal treatment based on those differences.

• Procedural Justice: Focused on the impartiality and consistency of decision-making processes. Rules must be followed perfectly to reach an unbiased decision. Neutrality in law-carrying and legal representation for the affected are vital.

• Retributive Justice: Asserts that people should be treated as they treat others. It justifies punishment as a response to wrongdoing to uphold fairness. Punishment must be heavy enough to deter immoral acts.

• Restorative Justice: Focuses on recompense for victims rather than just punishment. It encourages offenders to understand the harm caused, take responsibility, and be restored as law-abiding citizens. It requires victims to learn to forgive to strengthen the community.

• Compensatory Justice: Specifically concerns the just way of compensating someone for a past injustice or for what was lost when they were wronged by others.

Theories of Distributive Justice

• $1$. Justice as Equality (Egalitarianism): Presumes people must receive equal treatment and share equally in society's benefits and burdens. Rawls argued that better-off individuals shouldn't display their higher status if it demeans the less fortunate. Criticism: People differ in ability; however, Rawls defended the need for political equality and a minimum standard of living (economic equality).

• $2$. Justice Based on Contribution (Capitalist Justice): Benefits are distributed based on the value of the contribution made to society. Contribution is measured by work effort or quantity of output (e.g., a salesperson's incentives). Criticism: It ignores people's needs and relies on market forces (supply/demand) which can overvalue athletes/entertainers over doctors/teachers.

• $3$. Justice Based on Needs and Abilities (Socialism): Based on the maxim from Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels ($1888$): "from each according to his ability; to each according to his needs." Burdens are distributed by ability; benefits by need. Criticism: It provides no incentives for harder work, as additional effort brings no additional remuneration; it may be unrealistic due to humans' self-centered nature.

• $4$. Justice as Freedom (Libertarianism): Based on Robert Nozick ($1974$): "From each according to what he chooses to do, to each according to what he makes for himself… and what others choose to do for him." It emphasizes freedom from coercion. Criticism: It may enshrine freedom at the expense of other values and lead to the unjust treatment of the less privileged.

Rawls' Duties and Rules of Inviolability

• Inviolability Theory: Rawls disagreed with the utilitarian "maximum happiness" if it disadvantageous to minorities. He held that individual life is so sacred that even general welfare cannot override it. Sacrifices for a few cannot be justified by the happiness of the many.

• Dealing with Erroneous Laws: If two laws are faulty, people should choose the less erroneous one. Injustice can be tolerated only if it is necessary to avoid an even greater injustice (e.g., attacking terrorists to save hostages).

• Types of Duties:

  • The Duty of Fairness: The core principle in dealing with others.
  • The Duty of Fidelity: Remaining faithful to promises, vows, and responsibilities.
  • The Duty of Respect for Others: Justice in concrete action.
  • The Duty of Beneficence: Doing good and thinking of others' welfare.

• Natural Duties:

  • $1$. The Duty of Justice.
  • $2$. The Duty of Helping Others in Need or Jeopardy.
  • $3$. The Duty Not to Harm or Injure Others.
  • $4$. The Duty to Keep Our Promises.

Critique of John Rawls' Ethical Principle

• Problem with the Veil of Ignorance: Rawls did not allow those in the original position to know their goals or interests, which contradicts his own definition of rationality. Critics argue it is unthinkable that a person wouldn't know their sex, race, or status.

• Human Nature: Rational beings naturally seek meaning and their purpose in life; a complete "veil of ignorance" would lead to restlessness. Without knowing one’s social position, one cannot know the responsibilities attached to it.

• Contradiction on Liberty: Rawls criticized utilitarianism for lacking justice, yet he suggested that individual liberties could be restricted if it benefits everyone. This seems to mirror the "Principle of the Greatest Number" he initially rejected, potentially violating his stance on the inviolability of the individual.