Comprehensive Thesis Notes on Liberal Justice according to John Rawls
CONTEXTUAL FRAMEWORK OF JUSTICE: LINGUISTIC AND HISTORICAL EVALUATION
Linguistic Roots of Justice
Arabic Context: Justice (‘Adl) is derived from the root signifying the opposite of injustice (Jawr). It denotes uprightness, giving each their due, and a sense of certainty found in the intuition of both the just and the unjust. It is a stable faculty in the soul that prevents vice by seeking the middle ground between excess and deficiency.
French and Latin Context: The term Justice stems from Latin Justitia, derived from Justus (matching the right or fair). Originally, it carried a religious connotation—obedience to divine will—but transitioned in the late 13th century (approximately 1225 AD) to a legal value signifying conformity to established rules or laws (Jus).
Ancient Philosophical Views on Justice
Sophists: Generally followed relative and individualistic views. Thrasymachus famously defined justice as the "interest of the stronger," where rulers impose their will on the ruled. Glaucon viewed justice as a social convention (positivism), while Antiphon linked it to biological natural law.
Socrates: Descended philosophy to human affairs, linking justice to virtue (Aretē) and law. He argued justice exists in both the individual as a soul-virtue and the state as a structural virtue. Even when the law was unjust in his own execution, he maintained a sacred loyalty to the legal order of the state.
Plato (The Republic):
Internal State: Justice is an internal, rational, moral state where the divine part of the soul controls physical desires.
The Tripartite Soul/State: Plato drew a parallel between the individual soul and the city-state. Just as the soul has three parts (Reason, Spirit, Appetite), the state has three classes:
Philosopher-Kings (Gold/Wisdom): The rulers.
Soldiers (Silver/Courage): The protectors.
Workers/Producers (Copper/Temperance): The economic base.
Functionality: Justice is achieved when each individual performs the specific function for which nature best suited them without interfering in others' tasks.
Social Justice Mechanisms: Plato proposed radical mechanisms including the abolition of private property for the ruling class and the "community of women and children" to prevent familial allegiances from corrupting civic duty.
Aristotle (Nicomachean Ethics):
The Golden Mean: Virtue is the mean between the excess and the deficiency.
Complete vs. Partial Justice: Aristotle distinguished between general justice (legality/virtue) and particular justice (fairness/equality).
Distributive Justice (dikaiosynē dianemetikē): Deals with the distribution of honors, wealth, and other social goods. It follows Geometric Proportion: ( ext{A's merit} / ext{B's merit}) = ( ext{Goods for A} / ext{Goods for B}). Giving equal goods to unequal people is an injustice (Jawr).
Corrective Justice: Regulates private transactions (voluntary like sales, or involuntary like theft/assault) by restoring parity and balancing gains and losses through judicial intervention.
MODERN PRECURSORS TO RAWLSIAN JUSTICE
The Social Contract Tradition
Jean-Jacques Rousseau: Proposed that people are naturally free and equal but trapped by civilization's property inequalities. The Social Contract involves individuals giving themselves to the "General Will" (Volonté Générale), which always aims for the public utility. By obeying the law one helped create, the individual remains free.
Immanuel Kant: Formulated justice through the Categorical Imperative: "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end." Justice is the condition where one's free choice can coexist with everyone else's choice under a universal law of freedom.
The Utilitarian Challenge
Rawls constructed his theory as a direct alternative to Utilitarianism (Bentham, Mill, Sidgwick).
Utilitarianism's Flaw: It seeks the "greatest happiness for the greatest number." Rawls argues this allows the sacrifices of the few/minorities for the sake of the many, violating the distinctness of persons.
The Teleological vs. Deontological Conflict: Utilitarianism is teleological (defining the Right in terms of the Good/Outcome), whereas Rawlsian justice is deontological (defining the Right independently of and prior to the Good).
JOHN RAWLS: JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS
Core Principles
Original Position (Position Originale): An initial hypothetical scenario of equality where rational parties select principles for the basic structure of society.
Veil of Ignorance (Voile d'ignorance): A cognitive constraint where parties do not know their place in society, class, race, gender, intelligence, or specific conception of the good. This ensures any agreed-upon principles are impartial.
Rationality vs. Reasonableness:
Rationality (Rationalité): The ability to pursue a personal plan of life and the means to achieve it.
Reasonableness (Raisonnabilité): The willingness to propose and abide by fair terms of cooperation, provided others do so.
The Two Principles of Justice
Liberty Principle: Each person has an equal right to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties (speech, conscience, political participation), which are compatible with a similar scheme for all.
Difference Principle and Fair Equality of Opportunity: Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions:
They must be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.
They must be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society (The Difference Principle).
Lexical Priority
Rawls establishes a Lexicographical Order: The first principle (Liberty) is absolutely prior to the second. One cannot trade basic liberties for economic gains.
THE COSMOPOLITAN PERSPECTIVE: THE LAW OF PEOPLES
Extension to Global Justice
Rawls extends his domestic theory to international relations in The Law of Peoples. He uses the term "Peoples" rather than "States" because states often pursue narrow national interests, whereas peoples can be reasonable.
The Society of Peoples: A "Realistic Utopia" depicting a world where liberal and "decent hierarchical" peoples coexist peacefully.
Types of Societies
Reasonable Liberal Peoples: Constitutional democracies.
Decent Hierarchical Peoples: Non-liberal societies with a "decent consultation hierarchy" and respect for basic human rights (e.g., the hypothetical "Kazanistan").
Outlaw States: Aggressive and non-compliant with international law.
Burdened Societies: Lacking the resources/traditions to become well-ordered; liberal peoples have a Duty of Assistance to help them.
Benevolent Absolutisms: Respect human rights but deny members a meaningful role in political decisions.
Principles of the Law of Peoples
Independence and freedom of peoples.
Observance of treaties.
Equality among peoples.
Non-intervention.
Right to self-defense (but not war for national interests).
Respect for Human Rights (acting as a limit on internal state sovereignty).
Duty of assistance to burdened societies.
POLITICAL LIBERALISM AND PUBLIC REASON
The Challenge of Pluralism
Fact of Reasonable Pluralism: In a free society, individuals will inevitably develop conflicting but reasonable religious, philosophical, and moral "comprehensive doctrines."
Overlapping Consensus (Consensus par recoupement): A political conception of justice is supported by various comprehensive doctrines for their own reasons, creating stability.
Public Reason (Raison Publique)
How can people agree on laws when they disagree on religion/morals? They rely on Public Reason—arguments based on political values that all citizens can reasonably be expected to endorse.
Ideal of Democratic Citizenship: Citizens should act as if they were legislators, asking which laws are supported by reasons that meet the criterion of reciprocity.
CRITIQUES OF RAWLSIAN JUSTICE
Libertarian Critique (Robert Nozick)
In Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Nozick argues Rawls’s Difference Principle violates self-ownership.
Entitlement Theory: If goods were acquired justly (Original Acquisition) and transferred justly (Transfer), the resulting distribution is just, no matter how unequal. Forced redistribution via taxes for the poor is essentially "forced labor."
Minimal State: The only justifiable state is one limited to protecting against theft, fraud, and breach of contract.
Communitarian Critique (Sandel and Kymlicka)
Michael Sandel: Criticizes the "Unencumbered Self." He argues we are "situated" or "embedded" in communities/traditions that constitute our identity; we cannot rationally choose principles behind a veil ignoring our constitutive loyalties.
Will Kymlicka: While sympathetic to liberalism, he argues for Multiculturalism. Justice requires acknowledging "group-differentiated rights" because belonging to a cultural community is a vital good that enables individual choice and self-respect.
Capability Approach (Amartya Sen)
Primary Goods vs. Capabilities: Sen argues Rawls focuses too much on resources (primary goods like money). However, different people (e.g., someone with a disability) need different amounts of resources to achieve the same "Capability" to function.
Transcendental vs. Comparative Justice: Rawls seeks the perfectly just institution (transcendental), while Sen argues we should focus on removing clear injustices (comparative), such as hunger and lack of healthcare.
Discourse Ethics (Jürgen Habermas)
Habermas critiques the "Veil of Ignorance" as a monological process. He proposes Communicative Action: justice principles should result from an actual, open dialogue between citizens (Deliberative Democracy).
He argues Rawls prioritizes "Private Autonomy" (individual rights) over "Public Autonomy" (political participation), whereas Habermas sees them as co-original and interdependent.