A Theory of Justice
What is the main theme of John Rawls’s A Theory of Justice?
What is the “veil of ignorance,” according to Rawls?
What are the two principles of justice proposed by Rawls?
Why does Rawls consider Soviet-style communism and pure laissez-faire capitalism unjust?
How does libertarianism challenge Rawls’s theory of justice?
A Theory of Justice, the major work of the American political and ethical philosopher John Rawls (1921–2002), is a landmark defense of political liberalism. Following the book’s publication in 1971, the viability of liberalism became a major theme of political philosophy in English-speaking countries.
In A Theory of Justice, Rawls observes that a necessary condition of justice in any society is that each individual should be the equal bearer of certain rights that cannot be disregarded under any circumstances, even if doing so would advance the general welfare or satisfy the demands of a majority. This condition cannot be met by utilitarianism, because that ethical theory would countenance forms of government in which the greater happiness of a majority is achieved by neglecting the rights and interests of a minority. Hence, utilitarianism is unsatisfactory as a theory of justice, and another theory must be sought.
Reviving the notion of a social contract (as discussed by the 17th- and 18th-century philosophers Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau), Rawls argues that justice consists of the basic principles of government that free and rational individuals would agree to in a hypothetical situation of perfect equality. In order to ensure that the principles chosen are fair, Rawls imagines a group of individuals who have been made ignorant of the social, economic, and historical circumstances from which they come, as well as of their basic values and goals, including their conception of what constitutes a “good life.” Situated behind this “veil of ignorance,” they could not be influenced by self-interested desires to benefit some social groups (i.e., the groups they belong to) at the expense of others. Thus, they would not know any facts about their race, sex, age, religion, social or economic class, wealth, income, intelligence, abilities, talents, and so on.
" height="20" alt="HEW Logo">
According to Rawls, a just society is one whose major political, social, and economic institutions, taken together, satisfy the following two principles:
- Each person has an equal claim to a scheme of basic rights and liberties that is the maximum consistent with the same scheme for all.
- Social and economic inequalities are permissible only if (a) they confer the greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society and (b) they are connected to positions and offices open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.
The basic rights and liberties in principle 1 include those of democratic citizenship, such as the right to vote; the right to run for office in free elections; freedom of speech, assembly, and religion; the right to a fair trial; and, more generally, the right to the rule of law. Principle 1 is accorded strict priority over principle 2, which regulates social and economic inequalities.
Principle 2 combines two ideals. The first, known as the “difference principle,” requires that any unequal distribution of social or economic goods (e.g., wealth) must be such that the least-advantaged members of society would be better off under that distribution than they would be under any other distribution consistent with principle 1, including an equal distribution. (A slightly unequal distribution might benefit the least advantaged by encouraging greater overall productivity.) The second ideal is meritocracy, understood in a very demanding way. According to Rawls, fair equality of opportunity obtains in a society when all persons with the same native talent (genetic inheritance) and the same degree of ambition have the same prospects for success in all competitions for positions that confer special economic and social advantages.
Under principles 1 and 2, Soviet-style communism is unjust, because it is incompatible with most basic liberties and because it does not provide everyone with a fair and equal opportunity to obtain desirable offices and positions. Pure laissez-faire capitalism is also unjust, because it tends to produce an unjust distribution of wealth and income (concentrated in the hands of a few), which in turn effectively deprives some (if not most) citizens of the basic means necessary to compete fairly for desirable offices and positions. A just society, according to Rawls, would be a “property-owning democracy” in which ownership of the means of production is widely distributed and those who are worst off are prosperous enough to be economically independent.
The trusted destination for professionals, college students, and lifelong learners.
SUBSCRIBE
An early challenge to Rawlsian egalitarian liberalism was conservative libertarianism. According to this view, because people are literally the sole rightful owners of themselves, no one has property rights in anyone else (no person can own another person), and no one owes anything to anyone else. Libertarians thus contend that egalitarian liberalism is unjust, because it would allow (indeed, require) the state to redistribute social and economic goods without their owners’ consent, in violation of their private ownership rights. An early and sophisticated defense of libertarian principles was presented in Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974) by the American philosopher Robert Nozick.