Below is a brief overview of John Rawls’s book A Theory of Justice.<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n In A Theory of Justice<\/em>, 20th-century American<\/a> political philosopher John Rawls explores the best and most just way a society can distribute social goods like rights, opportunities, wealth, and power. He argues that people can and should determine the distribution of these goods entirely through reason and logic, rather than by appeals to one\u2019s identity\u2014sex, race, religion, and so on. This idea is the underpinning of Rawls\u2019s theory of \u201cjustice as fairness,\u201d which allows for basic human rights, some degree of social and economic equality, and a safety net for more vulnerable members of society. <\/strong>Released in 1971, John Rawls’s book A Theory of Justice<\/em> is a popular and influential modern defense of liberalism that continues to be cited, discussed, and debated by philosophers and politicians alike.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We\u2019ll explore Rawls\u2019s theory of justice as fairness in four parts:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Before we discuss the specific principles of Rawls\u2019s theory of justice, we first have to understand how he defines justice\u2014as well as his critique of the other dominant theory of justice at the time: utilitarianism.<\/strong> By outlining what Rawls means when he refers to \u201cjustice\u201d or \u201ca just society,\u201d we can fully understand the scope of Rawls\u2019s theory and how his philosophy applies to real political circumstances. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In Part 1 of our guide, we\u2019ll explain the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Rawls defines justice as the dominant ideology or goal underlying the rules of society<\/a><\/strong>\u2014in other words, why<\/em> people create and follow a society\u2019s rules. Under this definition, justice is a generally held idea of the best and most moral way of organizing society. Rawls says there\u2019s no universal sense of justice that all societies agree on; different societies have different theories<\/em> of what\u2019s just and unjust. Members of each society try to make specific political and economic rules that are just\u2014according to their own theory of justice. <\/p>\n\n\n\n These rules then determine how that society distributes \u201cprimary benefits\u201d: things that help people achieve their goals in life no matter what they might be.<\/strong> Rawls says the main primary benefits are rights, liberties, opportunities, wealth or income, and a sense of self-worth<\/a> (not being treated as inferior by society).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Here\u2019s an example of how a principle of justice<\/em> informs a rule<\/em>, which in turn informs the distribution<\/em> of a primary benefit:<\/p>\n\n\n After defining justice, Rawls then focuses on theories<\/em><\/strong> of justice\u2014in other words, the specific ideologies and goals that people believe are best for society.<\/strong> Before outlining his own theory of justice, Rawls critiques what he characterizes as the dominant theory of justice at the time: utilitarianism. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n A utilitarian theory of justice believes society should aim to provide the most social benefits or \u201cutility\u201d possible to the most people possible. <\/strong>Utilitarians quantify social benefits (rights, wealth, liberties, and so on) in terms of the pain or pleasure they provide. They then argue that society\u2019s rules for distribution should maximize pleasure and minimize pain for the largest number of people possible. For example, a utilitarian argument for speed-limit laws suggests the social benefits they give people (greater safety for all<\/em> drivers, minimizing the pain of potential car accidents) outweigh the social benefits they take away from people (the pleasure certain individuals gain from being free to drive as fast as they want) and are therefore just.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Rawls argues that utilitarian theories of justice are flawed because they allow for a majority of people to oppress a minority<\/strong>\u2014when social benefits, such as greater wealth or opportunities, provided to the majority outweigh the social benefits that the minority are deprived of, such as liberty, rights, and wealth. For example, if a utilitarian could prove that chattel slavery pleasured the enslavers more than it harmed the enslaved, then they would say that institution was just. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Rawls believes this kind of oppression is inherently immoral and that utilitarianism fails to acknowledge this. Even utilitarian theories that allow for equal rights and liberties only do so because they believe that equal rights create the most benefits possible\u2014and not because they believe people have an inherent<\/em> right to avoid oppression or that oppression is inherently<\/em> wrong.<\/p>\n\n\n\n After explaining what justice is and critiquing utilitarian theories of justice, Rawls then considers how to create an ideal theory of justice. <\/strong>\u201cIdeal\u201d in this case doesn\u2019t refer to rules that can create a perfect government or utopian society. Instead, Rawls says an ideal theory of justice is one that a group of equals could rationally agree is best, regardless of their own personal backgrounds or circumstances. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n To determine the ideal principles of justice, Rawls uses a thought experiment<\/a> he calls \u201cthe original position\u201d: a hypothetical situation where a group of equals must create a rational definition of justice. <\/strong>The members of this group act as representatives of real citizens in a society at a one-to-one ratio\u2014each citizen has their own representative. The representatives are all equally clearheaded and competent, they all have an equal say, and they all have to agree on a definition of justice before it\u2019s finalized. In addition, they must arrive at this definition <\/strong>entirely<\/em><\/strong> <\/strong>through rational debate<\/em><\/strong>\u2014they can\u2019t use any threats of violence, appeals to emotion, or attempts to persuade each other through rhetoric alone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Rawls outlines the three main circumstances that every representative is aware of in the original position:<\/p>\n\n\n\n 1) In this hypothetical society, there\u2019s a medium level of scarcity.<\/strong> This means that there are enough primary benefits to meet everyone\u2019s basic needs, but there aren\u2019t enough primary benefits for everyone to get everything they want. <\/p>\n\n\n\n 2) Each representative wants to ensure that their citizen receives enough primary benefits to live a fulfilling life.<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n 3) Whatever definition of justice the representatives come up with has to be fair to all <\/em>citizens.<\/strong> This is because all representatives are rational and on equal footing\u2014nobody will arbitrarily agree to a definition that gives their citizen fewer benefits than everyone else, and nobody can coerce a representative into accepting a definition that gives their citizen fewer benefits than everyone else.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While the representatives understand the above circumstances, Rawls also explains that there are some things that they don\u2019t know\u2014a lack of knowledge that he calls the \u201cveil of ignorance.\u201d Under the veil of ignorance, the representatives don\u2019t know the specific life circumstances of those they represent\u2014things like race, sex, gender, age, wealth, natural talents, and religious beliefs.<\/strong> Because the representatives don\u2019t know these circumstances, they\u2019ll only argue for a definition of justice that benefits a general <\/em>citizen, rather than a citizen with specific traits or qualities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For example, a representative speaks on behalf of Jolene, a wealthy Buddhist woman. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Rawls then explains how a group of representatives might negotiate in the original position. He acknowledges that while not every group will follow the exact process he outlines here, they\u2019d still arrive at many of the same conclusions. In addition, Rawls notes that in this process, groups of representatives wouldn\u2019t tend toward utilitarian theories of justice\u2014nobody would risk giving up their individual rights and freedoms to benefit others even if doing so led to the most utility collectively.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The process of negotiating in the original position consists of three steps:<\/p>\n\n\n\n As previously discussed, nobody will arbitrarily accept fewer primary benefits, nor will they accept others arbitrarily getting more primary benefits than they do. Therefore, the group will initially agree that everyone should get equal amounts of primary benefits. We\u2019ll call this a state of \u201ccomplete equality.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, according to Rawls, there are some instances where inequalities of wealth and power can actually leave everyone with <\/strong>more<\/em><\/strong> primary benefits than they\u2019d have in a state of complete equality.<\/strong> These inequalities can improve efficiency and leave everyone with more than they would have had otherwise. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For example, a group is building a dam that will provide benefits to everyone\u2014flood protection, water, hydroelectricity, and so on. In a state of complete equality, nobody has the authority to give orders or the resources to fully fund the project. But with some inequality of wealth and power, the group could have a leader to organize the project and a wealthy individual to provide the funding for it. In this case, some inequality would help the group build the dam much more efficiently (or at all) so everyone could benefit from it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Therefore, in the original position, people can accept inequalities of wealth and power (but not of basic rights and liberties) as long as these inequalities benefit everyone and are administered fairly.<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n To ensure that these inequalities are administered fairly, the group would attach them to positions or roles in society, then add the condition that everyone<\/em> has an equal opportunity to fill these roles\u2014this ensures that people with additional power and wealth are accountable to society as a whole and that those rules aren\u2019t arbitrarily limited to some people over others. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to Rawls, the group would also add the condition that unequal distributions of wealth or power should provide the greatest possible benefit to those with the least. <\/strong>Even when inequalities leave everyone better off than they were before, they\u2019ll still inevitably leave some people with less wealth and power than everybody else. This second condition prevents distributions where those with the most benefit at the expense of those with the least. Representatives don\u2019t know whether or not they\u2019re advocating for someone with very little, so they\u2019d want to ensure these benefits for the least fortunate just in case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For example: In a state of complete equality, everyone has $25,000. The society decides to build the dam mentioned above and has to choose among three unequal distributions:<\/p>\n\n\n\n While everyone is better off with the dam than they are without it, according to Rawls, the second scenario is the most just unequal distribution because it provides the greatest possible benefit to those with the least. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The result of the negotiations above is the theory of justice Rawls calls \u201cjustice as fairness.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice as fairness has two principles:<\/p>\n\n\n\n After discussing how he arrives at the two principles of justice as fairness, Rawls then goes into more detail on what these principles mean for society\u2014discussing how each principle might influence the rules and distribution systems of society. Specifically, Rawls outlines the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Rawls\u2019s first principle states that everyone in society should have basic equal rights, liberties, and duties.<\/strong> As previously discussed, this principle derives naturally from the original position, since everyone involved would want to guarantee they weren\u2019t oppressed. To further explore this first principle, we\u2019ll examine Rawls\u2019s definition of rights and liberties as well as how he says social institutions can resolve conflicts between different rights and liberties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Rawls frames rights, liberties, and duties in terms of limits on actions: what people are (or are not) allowed or able to do. He doesn\u2019t define every single right, liberty, and duty that he believes is just, suggesting instead that this is the job of social institutions. However, he does note several important examples: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to equal political participation, and property rights. In addition, Rawls\u2019s conception of political equality extends beyond detached formal rules to include the equal right to exercise political power<\/strong> (by holding office or voting in an election, for example). This right ensures that people who already have some degree of wealth and power don\u2019t get a greater say in political decisions<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For example, a formal <\/em>rule ensures that each citizen has one vote in an election. However, this doesn\u2019t guarantee equality by itself\u2014Prudence, who is wealthy, can spend far more money than the average citizen to organize people around her political platform and campaign for votes. In this situation, Prudence would, in practice<\/em>, be able to exercise more political power than most. Therefore, Rawls believes the state must place limits on the role of wealth in political organization or provide resources to those with less so they too can organize around issues.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sometimes, different rights and liberties will contradict each other, acknowledges Rawls\u2014for example, if someone randomly threatens to kill a stranger on the street, the threatener\u2019s right to free speech conflicts with the stranger\u2019s right to personal safety. To address this conflict, Rawls says representatives in the original position would attach two additional rules to the first principle:<\/p>\n\n\n\n 1) A society can restrict certain liberties but only if doing so creates greater liberty for everyone. <\/strong>For example, privacy laws restrict an individual\u2019s liberty to spy on their neighbors, but these laws create a broader right to privacy for everyone in society. In addition, Rawls suggests that this rule makes it unjust for a majority in society to oppress a minority. While that may limit the right of the majority to freely exercise political power, it preserves many more crucial rights and freedoms of the minority.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Rawls acknowledges that in a real society, social and historical circumstances interfere with perfect equality\u2014for example, a historically oppressed group might still struggle to obtain true equality even in a society that believes everyone should have equal rights. Or, a violent political faction might have fewer rights to express their views for the sake of public order. In these cases, Rawls suggests it\u2019s the duty of society to continuously work toward the greatest overall liberty<\/strong>\u2014addressing the largest injustices first and making decisions based on what makes everyone as equal and free as possible. <\/p>\n\n\n\n 2) Some people can have less liberty than others if they consent to it. <\/strong>There are circumstances where people need others to act on their behalf. In this case, it\u2019s just for an individual to entrust some of their liberty in a guardian\u2014so long as the guardian rationally considers what the individual would<\/em> want if they could act for themselves. For example, a coma patient needs (and presumably wants) someone to act on their behalf. Therefore, it’s just for someone they trust, like a doctor or family member, to temporarily act on their behalf, making decisions based on what they think the coma patient would want. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Rawls\u2019s second principle argues that inequalities of wealth and political power are just under certain circumstances.<\/strong> We discussed two of these circumstances in Part 2: <\/p>\n\n\n\n Rawls adds three rules to clarify his second principle: <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to rule #1, unequal distributions of power and wealth aren\u2019t just if they infringe upon people\u2019s basic rights and freedoms<\/strong>. Rawls says that if there\u2019s ever a time when universal rights and unequal wealth or power conflict, then society must prioritize rights. For example, an excellent leader has provided society with incredible benefits\u2014so much so that many people want to make their leader an absolute dictator for life. While this increased inequality of power might provide society with the benefits of a skilled leader, it\u2019s unjust because it would deprive everyone of their basic right to exercise political power. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Rule #2 states that to ensure equal opportunity, the state must account for differences in natural talent and social class. <\/strong>Rawls argues that society shouldn\u2019t limit opportunities necessary for obtaining wealth and power (education, jobs, and so on) to those who already have wealth or to those who are naturally talented. The class a person is born into and their natural talents are determined by chance<\/em>, and therefore shouldn\u2019t decide moral<\/em> questions of who gets what in society. <\/p>\n\n\n\n To account for differences in class, Rawls says the state must make education accessible to everyone\u2014both in a technical or academic sense (medical school, for example) as well as in a cultural and experiential sense (an opportunity to network with practicing doctors, for example). To account for differences in natural talent, Rawls believes the difference principle<\/a> must also apply to skilled versus unskilled labor<\/strong>\u2014skilled laborers shouldn\u2019t earn more than unskilled laborers, unless that would provide a greater benefit to those in the latter category. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Rule #3 states that unequal opportunity is just as long as it benefits those with fewer opportunities more<\/em> than it burdens everyone else. <\/strong>Society can provide additional opportunities to the less fortunate who otherwise struggle to gain wealth and power. This is just so long as the benefit to the unfortunate outweighs the burden on the fortunate. For example, New Zealand\u2019s parliament reserves specific seats for M\u0101ori citizens<\/a>\u2014a historically oppressed group indigenous to the island. Rawls might argue that this unequal opportunity is just since it benefits an underrepresented group (the M\u0101ori) more than it harms an overrepresented group (non-indigenous New Zealanders).<\/p>\n\n\n\n After outlining the full principles of justice as fairness, Rawls discusses citizenship under justice as fairness. Rawls argues a just society should allow people to live however they like.<\/strong> It shouldn\u2019t define an \u201cideal\u201d way to live or moral code\u2014justice as fairness purposely avoids<\/em> doing so by relying entirely on the rational and logical debate in the original position. Rawls\u2019s view on life in society is clear from his definition of primary benefits that we discussed in Part 1: benefits that allow someone to live whatever<\/em> kind of life they want. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n However, there are some exceptions to Rawls\u2019s rule of everyone living however they like\u2014areas where he believes society should enforce certain duties and values. Let\u2019s explore each of these exceptions in more detail:<\/p>\n\n\n\n While Rawls argues that societies must have duties that fit their specific circumstances, he does emphasize three in particular. Rawls believes that these duties promote the common good while still allowing citizens to pursue their own self-interest.<\/strong> Let\u2019s explore each and examine how they accomplish this goal: <\/p>\n\n\n\n The first duty is to follow existing rules and laws in society that are just.<\/strong> This duty ensures citizens will follow the main principles of justice as fairness, which Rawls believes work toward the common good. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition, this duty helps preserve social stability\u2014something else that Rawls believes is a common good. It does so by ensuring citizens use existing<\/em> political methods (voting, for example) to accomplish their goals instead of more radical, destabilizing methods that go against existing laws (violent protests or civil disobedience, for example). Rawls argues that citizens should only use these more drastic measures to address major<\/em> injustices or violations of the principles of justice as fairness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The second duty citizens have is to help create just rules if they don\u2019t exist\u2014as long as doing so isn\u2019t at a great personal cost. <\/strong>This duty ensures citizens will continue working to make their society more just, another common good. In addition, it allows citizens to pursue the common good in a way that doesn\u2019t interfere with their own personal interests, since they won\u2019t have to give up too<\/em> much in their pursuit of a just society.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For example, while citizens might have a duty to advocate or vote for a just public housing policy, Rawls doesn\u2019t believe they\u2019re obligated to allow homeless people to move in with them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A Theory of Justice<\/em> by John Rawls<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Part 1: What Justice Is and Is Not<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Rawls\u2019s Definition of Justice<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/lh6.googleusercontent.com\/jAk8BzznH47tQ0dO36o_9c1InUsCk-_5qmM6tibYxLE0fiapVGhwk-3VimCEbnYSxT6-ZtD3qmGyXmpFsrDjtVpSbEiSOCsgSB5iDNJG9NwP8NSxdpyd6vrPXPklAyit0y_JvpLdxL5CGZKBTtJcfw\")
Rawls\u2019s Critique of Utilitarianism<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Part 2: The Theory of Justice as Fairness<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The Original Position<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
The Original Position Framework<\/h5>\n\n\n\n
The Veil of Ignorance<\/h5>\n\n\n\n
The Original Position Negotiation<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Step #1: Complete Equality<\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Step #2: The Benefits of Inequality<\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Step #3: Administering Inequality Fairly<\/h5>\n\n\n\n
The Conclusion of The Original Position<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Part 3: Justice as Fairness in Society<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Principle #1: Everyone Should Have Equal Rights, Liberties, and Duties<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Defining Rights and Liberties<\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Rights, Liberties, and Conflicts<\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Principle #2: Some Inequality Is Just Under Certain Circumstances<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Rule #1: Rights Have Priority Over Inequality<\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Rule #2: Account for Talent and Class<\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Rule #3: Some Unequal Opportunity Is Just<\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Part 4: Living Under Justice as Fairness<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Exception #1: Duties to Society<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Duty #1: Follow Existing Just Rules<\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Duty #2: Create Just Rules<\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Duty #3: Mutually Respect Fellow Citizens <\/h5>\n\n\n\n