Justice as Fairness
by
John Rawls
Rawls looks at justice.
• Kant’s ethics and Utilitarianism are about right and
wrong actions.
• For example: Is it ethical to lie on a job application to
preserve legitimate privacy?
• Rawls’ theory is about distributive justice.
• What is the ethically correct way to distribute benefits
and burdens in society?
Rawls’ theory is a version of
social contract theory
• Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau.
• State of nature, law of nature, creation of civil society
to improve/secure quality of life.
• US society rests on such social contracts.
• Declaration of Independence – “When in the Course of
human events it becomes necessary for one
people…to assume among the powers of the earth,
the separate and equal station….”
• Constitution – “We the people…do ordain and
establish….”
Contractarianism
• Moral or political theories based on the
idea of a social contract or agreement
among individuals for mutual advantage
Rawls’ Theory of
Justice as Fairness
Rawls asks, “What principles of justice would
people chose at the founding of society?”
• The “Original Position”
• A hypothetical, not real, moment – but still a doable thought
experiment.
• Hidden behind a “Veil of Ignorance,” a moment when people know
nothing about their future.
•
•
•
•
Class or social status.
Intelligence or other capabilities.
Social place in terms of gender, race, etc.
Wealth.
Rawls’ operational definition of “justice
as fairness.”
• Think yourself back to the original position and put yourself
behind the veil of ignorance.
• Ask yourself whether a proposed rule for distributing
benefits and burdens is acceptable to you.
• If not, then it cannot be fair, and therefore it cannot be just
– so, the rule must be rejected.
This operational procedure produces Rawls’
formal definition of “justice as fairness.”
• Justice = satisfying two general principles:
• “First: each person is to have an equal right to the most
extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for
others.”
• “Second: 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’ first principle.
• The basic liberties for all citizens:
• Political liberty (right to vote and be eligible for public
office).
• Freedom of speech and assembly.
• Liberty of conscience and freedom of thought.
• Freedom regarding your own person.
• Right to hold personal property.
• Freedom from arbitrary arrest and seizure as these are
understood under the rule of law.
Rawls’ second principle.
• Holding positions of authority and offices of command open
is clear enough.
• For example, no hereditary positions.
• No exclusions based on gender, race, etc.
• No “tests” based on wealth or property.
• Arranging social and economic inequities so that everyone
benefits is less clear.
• However, Rawls provides the framework for thinking
about this – original position and veil of ignorance.
A possible example.
• Proposed rule: “Women should always make less money
than men.”
• On average women make ~75% of what men make, and
this has not changed over the past 30 years.
• Men make more than women in the same job.
• So, here is an unequal distribution.
• Does it benefit everyone?
• Would you accept this rule – if you were behind the veil
of ignorance?
Priorities among Rawls’ principles.
• The basic rights and liberties for all principle has first
priority and takes precedence.
• This means, among other things, that you cannot justify a
decrease in liberty on the basis of increased social or
economic benefit.
Kohlberg and
Gilligan
Some Generalizations
• An emphasis upon personal relationships: This is where we
live a large part of our moral lives
• A suspicion of moral principles: Wary of the abstraction from
the lived moral life
• A rejection of impartiality: We rarely are impartial, so the
emphasis will be more upon duties
• A greater respect for emotions: Greater sympathy with the
virtues
Annette C. Baier: The Need for
More Than Justice
• Baier contrasts two major approaches to ethics—the
traditional justice-oriented moral theories of philosophers
such as Rawls and Kant, and the more virtue- or care-centered
views of thinkers like Alasdair MacIntyre and Susan Wolf. She
criticizes the former and welcomes the insights of the latter.
Ultimately she suggests that a mature morality should
accommodate both perspectives: “It is clear, I think, that the
best moral theory has to be a cooperative product of women
and men, has to harmonize justice and care.”