John Rawls was one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century. His principal theory is presented in his book “A Theory of Justice” published in 1971.
According to Frank Lovett, the “influence (of Rawls’s ‘Theory of Justice’) as a work of political theory and philosophy…has been astounding”. Lovett says Rawls’s book “so decisively transformed its field as to virtually guarantee its eventual status as a classic” and that “many of the basic ideas found in A Theory of Justice…have become standard parts of the repertoire of political philosophers…”
At the time Rawls published his theory, utilitarianism was the dominant political and moral philosophy. Rawls did not hold with the consequentialist ideas of utilitarianism. One of his major aims was to counter the ideas of the utilitarians and provide a coherent alternative to the utilitarian theory.
As a non-consequentialist, then, Rawls stands toward the Kantian end of the philosophical spectrum.
Rawls believed that under appropriate conditions of choice, rational persons would adopt a principle of justice that he articulated as “justice as fairness”.
Rawls conceived of the appropriate conditions of choice having two specific characteristics:
1) an “original position” whose characteristics apply to those making the decision on which structure of society and justice to adopt, and
2) a “veil of ignorance” behind which those decisions are made.
These two ideas represent a sort of thought experiment, but they convey the critical principles required by Rawls’s theory.
The “original position” idea is that those making the decision on what system to adopt are not permitted to know “whether they are rich or poor, black or white, man or woman”. No one knows “his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities” and no one knows “his conception of the good” or “the particulars of his rational life plan” i.e. whether he wants to become “a talented doctor or a good Christian, a champion of the environment, or whatever”.
Those in the “original position” make their choices from behind a “veil of ignorance”. That veil prevents participants from knowing “the particular circumstances of their own society…they do not know its economic or political situation” for instance. “The point of the veil of ignorance is thus to force us to think about the problem of social justice from an impartial point of view.” It, in effect “puts the participants on a perfectly equal footing”
This construct is admittedly not one that can be produced in reality but the conditions it suggests as necessary for impartial decisions is important. Rawls proposes that those making decisions in the original position from behind a veil of ignorance would choose the justice as fairness ideas over the utilitarian ones.
What are the elements of justice as fairness? There are two basic principles.
1. “Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others”
By “basic liberty” Rawls meant a bundle of rights similar to these: political liberty; freedom of speech, religion and assembly; liberty of conscience and freedom of thought; freedom of the person and from arbitrary arrest; the right to hold personal property, etc.
2. Social and Economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both a) reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage, and b) attached to positions and offices open to all.
Rawls recognizes that inequalities of various sorts among members of a society will exist. The fact that each individual shares the same basic bundle of liberties does not negate differences among people in their abilities, characters or desires. He does, however, specifically dispute the notion of utilitarianism that suggests the well-being of one individual might be sacrificed if that sacrifice created a marginally greater sum of total happiness.
Once all are given equal opportunity and protection from exploitation, each individual is free to pursue his or her own interests and desires. That will inevitably produce differences in condition.
The person who invents a cure for cancer, say, will likely be rewarded in greater measure than will the person who administers the medicine to patients. That inequality does not violate the justice as fairness principle.
This second idea is known as the “difference principle”. In adopting it Rawls suggests that parties to the original position agree that their society will be based on a system of reciprocal cooperation. His formulation of this idea, according to Lovett, is essentially the same as Kant’s Formula of Humanity.
Rawls’s work principally addresses the basic structure of a social and political system. It does have that in common with the utilitarians. That is: neither is primarily focused on the behavior of individuals toward one another. Both address the larger societal framework within which that individual behavior will occur. However, Rawls does address the question of the individual to a limited extent.
He acknowledges that individuals will need additional principles beyond those discussed above to guide their personal conduct. One interesting observation made in this respect is the idea that individuals have an obligation to “respect institutions and policies insofar as they are just – that is, insofar as they conform to the two principles of justice as fairness –but not otherwise”.
But that does not mean that an individual is free to ignore or refuse “the (imperfect) outcomes of a political system that is largely just according to the two principles of fairness”.
This is a fascinating point. It recognizes that imperfections are inevitable and that the benchmark is not perfectly just outcomes but only a construct of outcomes that is “largely just”.
That expresses a point made by Rawls early in his book. He “freely admits that all theories”, including his own, “are presumably mistaken in places. The real question at any given time is which of the views already proposed is the best approximation overall.”
While Rawls does not develop his ideas regarding individual behavior he does provide an important overall principle that can help guide individuals in their behavioral decisions i.e. the idea of justice as fairness.
The idea of the original position with its assumption of equal basic liberties is certainly an important principle of individual guidance.
The acknowledgment that inequality of outcome is not only inevitable but (can) also be good for all, can help to moderate tendencies toward envy and resentment.
The concept of decisions made from behind a veil of ignorance is very useful in assessing whether our actions toward others are appropriate in the context of both the Ethic of Restraint and that of Respect.
Rawls’s sound refutation of utilitarianism importantly pulls the center of gravity of the philosophical debate back toward the Aristotelian/Kantian end of the spectrum.
Quotes are from Lovett, Frank. Rawls’s ‘A Theory of Justice’: A Reader’s Guide. Bloomsbury Publishing. Kindle Edition. Many of the quotes from Lovett are quotes by him of Rawls’s A Theory of Justice.