What are John Rawls’s two principles of justice? How might each principle influence the rules and distribution systems of society?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Rawls’s principles of justice result from the original position. The principle of distributive justice<\/a> states that everyone should have equal rights, liberties, and duties. The difference principle<\/a> states that some inequality can be permitted in circumstances where it makes the least advantaged better off. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Keep reading to learn about Rawls’s principles of justice as fairness. <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Rawls\u2019s principle of distributive justice states that everyone in society should have basic equal rights, liberties, and duties.<\/strong> This principle derives naturally from the original position, since everyone involved would want to guarantee they weren\u2019t oppressed. To further explore Rawls’s principles of justice, 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\n1. The Principle of Distributive Justice<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Defining Rights and Liberties<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Rights, Liberties, and Conflicts<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
2. The Difference Principle<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Rule #1: Rights Have Priority Over Inequality<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Rule #2: Account for Talent and Class<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n