A Theory of Justice
|
|
A Theory of Justice is a book of political and moral philosophy by John Rawls. It was originally published in 1971 and revised in 1975 (for the translated editions) and in 1999. In A Theory of Justice, Rawls lays out his own moral theory, called "Justice as Fairness", and his two famous principles of justice, the liberty principle and the difference principle.
| Contents |
Objective
Rawls' primary objective in A Theory of Justice is to posit an alternative to utilitarianism, which had dominated ethical thought in the English-speaking world for over a hundred years. The main problem with utilitarianism, as Rawls sees it, is that it allows the rights of some people to be sacrificed for the greater benefit of others, as long as the total happiness is increased. Rawls (and many others) see this as unacceptable. Rawls called his alternative to utilitarianism Justice as Fairness.
The "Original Position"
Like Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and Kant, Rawls belongs to the social contract tradition. However, Rawls' social contract takes a slightly different form from that of previous thinkers. Specifically, Rawls posits that a just social contract is that which we would agree upon if we did not know in advance where we ourselves would end up in the society that we are agreeing to. This condition of ignorance is known as the original position. In the original position, each person would not know her financial situation, her race, her creed, her religion, or her state of health. From behind this veil of ignorance (to use Rawls' phrase), we can discern the form of a truly just society, since our judgment would not be clouded by knowledge of our own personal interests. Rawls' social contract is ratified in a condition of perfect equality.
It is important to keep in mind that Rawls is writing a book of philosophy, not history. The original position never occurred; it is simply a thought experiment to allow us to discover the nature of justice.
Rawls then deduces that a just society would be based on two principles.
The First Principle of Justice
First of all, each person would have the most extensive system of rights and freedoms which can be accorded equally to everyone. These include freedoms of speech, conscience, peaceful assembly, and so forth, as well as democratic rights. Rawls specifically excludes the freedom of contract from the list.
The first principle is absolute, and may never be violated, even for the sake of the second principle. However, various basic rights may be traded off against each other for the sake of obtaining the largest possible system of rights. Rawls falls squarely into the deontological (duty-based) school of ethics, in the tradition of Kant, as opposed to the consequentialist school exemplified by the utilitarians.
The Second Principle of Justice
Secondly, economic and social inequalities are only justified if they benefit all of society, especially its most disadvantaged members. Furthermore, all economically and socially privileged positions must be open to all people equally. For example, it is only justified that a doctor makes more money than a grocery clerk since if this were not the case, no one would study and train to be a doctor, and there would be no medical care. Therefore, the doctor's greater salary benefits not only him, but all of society, including the grocery clerk, since it permits the clerk to get medical care. This particular economic inequality benefits all of society, and leaves all its members better off. Note that one may disagree with the particular example of the doctor and the grocery clerk, but this is the type of reasoning which Rawls says must be used to justify inequalities. Unlike the utilitarians, Rawls does not allow some people to suffer for the greater benefit of others.
Relationship to Rawls's Later Work
Although Rawls never retreated from the core argument of A Theory of Justice, he modified his theory substantially in subsequent works. The discussion in this entry is limited to his views as they stood in A Theory of Justice, which stands on its own as an important (if controversial and much criticized) work of political philosophy. His subsequent work is discussed in the entry titled John Rawls.
Critics of A Theory of Justice
Rawls's work was contested by his libertarian Harvard colleague Robert Nozick, and today Rawls's A Theory of Justice and Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974) are often read in conjunction with each other to examine the points of disagreement between social liberals and libertarians.
Philosophers who have attempted to improve or clarify A Theory of Justice include Martha Nussbaum, who has reinterpreted Rawls's arguments in terms of capabilities or 'substantial freedoms', a concept borrowed from Amartya Sen.
Modern welfare economics has made substantial progress since the days of the Rawls' work. The key assumptions made in A Theory of Justice such as interpersonal comparison of utilities, max-min principle and the concept of the original point can be revised within a formal mathematical framework.
Bibliography
- John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Revised edition, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap Press, 1999), ISBN 0-674-00077-3.
- Reading Rawls: Critical Studies of A Theory of Justice, edited by Normal Daniels (New York: Basic Books, 1974), ISBN 465-06854-5.
- Chandran Kukathas & Philip Petit, Rawls: A Theory of Justice and its Critics (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1995), ISBN 1-8047-1768-0.
Related topics
- John Rawls
- Original position
- Political philosophy
- liberal egalitarian
- Political liberalism
- Maximin principle
External links
- John Rawls Bibliography (http://sun3.lib.uci.edu/indiv/scctr/philosophy/rawls.html)
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Entry on Original Position by Fred D'Agostino (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/original-position/)
- Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Entry on Reflective Equilibrium by Norman Daniels (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reflective-equilibrium/)
fi:Oikeudenmukaisuusteoria