The principles of justice
John Rawls and the social contract
argument
The choice of principles
• How are we to decide on the principles which
determine the justice of the distribution of
rights and goods?
• On what basis do we measure or judge whether
some inequality in the distribution of goods is
justified?
• What is a just society and how do we know?
…principles
• Questions demand an answer because it is
glaringly obvious that there are inequalities
within society.
…Rawls on justice
• Justice as the first virtue of institutions
• Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is
of systems of thought. A theory however elegant and
economical must be rejected or revised if untrue;
likewise laws and institutions no matter how efficient
and well-arranged must be reformed or abolished if
they are unjust. Each person possesses an inviolability
founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a
whole cannot override...an injustice is tolerable only
when it is necessary to avoid an even greater injustice.
Theory pp.3-4
…Rawls
• What are the principles of social justice which
are to be applied to the basic structure of
society?
• Basic structure - the major political, social and
economic institutions which distribute
fundamental rights and duties and determine the
distribution of goods (the way in the advantages
of social co-operation are divided).
…Rawls
• We need a procedure to decide on the principles.
• We each have different interests and stakes.
• It is not absurd to think that ultimately I’ll always try to
get the rules which promote, or at least reflect, my
particular interests.
• Given the fact that we have different levels of resources
and interests why should we expect to be able to agree
on principles which we can all endorse as just or fair?
…Rawls
• Perhaps we need to set aside the ways in which
we differ to arrive at an agreement on social
justice.
• But how?
• Let’s imagine that we have to reach an
agreement about how society is to be run.
• That's to say, we have to settle on the principles
of justice – the rules of the game – and be
prepared to stick to them.
…Rawls
• If we have a dispute as participants in a game we
appeal to an impartial set of rules or referee to
settle the matter.
• We’re living our lives in the middle of the game
(i.e. society) without having settled on the rules.
• So…
…Rawls
• Imagine what we would have agreed to as the
rules if we were setting up the game.
• We can appeal to the notion of a hypothetical
contract.
• Rawls introduces the thought experiment of the
original position.
…Rawls
• Our actual interests, attitudes and position will
influence our views of what is just.
• This poses a problem if we aim to have
principles which are impartial.
• Rawls suggests that in decision making
ignorance is a way of modelling impartiality.
• If I don’t know what my interests, talents and
(dis)advantages are, then I cannot opt for
principles which favour my particular concerns.
…Rawls
• Principles of justice are those which would be hypothetically
agreed by individuals meeting in very special conditions.
• The agreement, however, is one which you must reach from a
position of radical ignorance about your future life in society.
Deliberation takes place behind the veil of ignorance. Rawls
terms this the Original Position.
• In the Original Position you know that when you enter society,
you will want certain primary goods - rights and liberties, powers
and opportunities, income and wealth, self-respect. For these
primary goods are supposed to be goods needed for carrying out
any rational plan of life.
…Rawls
• Rational people are supposed to want such goods whatever else
they want. In the OP I don’t know what my actual goals and
ends are, but I know that I (can) have such ends or conception
of the good (thin theory of the good).
• But otherwise you do not know what else you will want, or the
other features of you that will distinguish you from other
members of society.
• You do not know what your own particular strengths,
weaknesses and future social position will be, or exactly how
developed that society will be - or what your own particular plan
of life will be.
…Rawls
• The rules of justice are what rationally self-interested
agents would agree to if placed in the Original Position.
• For people in the Original Position there is complete
uncertainty about their future position in society. So
everyone would, if they were rational, pick rules of
justice that mandated an equal distribution of primary
goods - except where inequalities maximised the position
of the least well off.
…Rawls
• The Two Principles concern the distribution of social primary
goods – liberty and opportunity, income and wealth, and the
bases of self respect. Latter crucial – those aspects of basic
institutions essential for the citizen to possess a lively sense of
their own worth as a person such as the institutional fact of
equal basic rights and the recognition of this.
• All social primary goods– are to be distributed equally unless an
unequal distribution of any or all of these goods is to the
advantage of the least favoured. Theory p.303.
• Conflicts may arise concerning the distribution and ‘pay-offs’
between the various goods. There is a need to establish a lexical
ordering among the different parts of the general conception.
… The principles
• First Principle – Each person is to have an equal right
to the most extensive total system of equal basic
liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for
all. [Liberty Principle]
• Second Principle – Social and economic inequalities are
to be arranged so that they are both:
• to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged,
[Difference Principle] and
• attached offices and positions open to all under
conditions of fair equality of opportunity. [Fair
Opportunity Principle]
…Rawls
• The structure of the Original Position: the veil of ignorance, a
thin theory of the good, self-interest and mutual disinterest,
primary goods and the strains of commitment. A one-off
decision.
• The Original Position as a device of representation – embodying
equality and impartiality. Original position models moral equality.
Ignorance of fate and rationality model fairness. The device
helps to render our intuitions more precise – for example what is
inadequate in certain conceptions of equality of opportunity –
and to test opposing intuitions
• Reflective equilibrium and the convergence of the arguments.
Rawls
• The Choice of Principles and Lexical Ordering
• The priority of liberty – who would risk being a slave
given the finality of the choice? But would we not
accept some restrictions? Does the priority reflect an
unstated commitment to autonomy, one that would not
be accepted by all. The need to distinguish a
comprehensive and political sense of liberty?
Rawls: questioning the principles
• Why the liberty principle? Why enjoy priority?
• Who would risk being a slave given the finality
of the choice?
• But would we not accept some restrictions if
there were suitable compensations?
…questions
• The Difference Principle – why maximin? Rational
choice in a one-off choice. From a position of radical
ignorance you aim to ensure that the worst position is
as good as possible – maximise state of the worst case
scenario.
• Need to stick to principles once ‘back’ in society: the
need to address the strains of commitment.
• But – an alternative from the perspective of the OP –
constrained maximisation: 1. Liberty 2. Equality of
opportunity 3. Social minimum 4. Utility maximisation
…questions
• The possibility of (large scale) material
inequalities undermines the real freedom of
individuals.
• For example, my access to education and the
effectiveness with which I am able to pursue
legal rights seems to be influenced by my wealth.
What is the worth of my formal liberty?
…questions
• The difference principle fails to compensate for
natural disadvantages.
• It allows unreasonable or lazy choices to be
subsidised: the gardener and the tennis player
• The difference principle undermines liberty by
forcing people to dispose of their resources in
ways which they have not chosen.
• It threatens their rights and fundamental
autonomy – c.f. Nozick
…questions
• The principles of justice concern the distribution of
the primary social goods.
• In the Original Position each is ignorant of their
particular conception of the good and their individual
strengths and weaknesses.
• Each can, though, judge that whatever their individual
features it is better to have as many of the primary
goods as possible. Whatever you want from life you’ll
want as many as possible of these all-purpose means.
…questions
• The primary goods are taken to be neutral between
conceptions of a good life.
• But are they neutral?
• They seem to be drawn from and suited to societies
committed to something like a liberal conception of the
individual and a free market economy. No place allowed
for the value of non-commercial, communal goods.
• One (fast) response – principles are for liberal
democracies and draw on the public political culture.
What next?
• Read the notes on Nozick
• Make sure you have read either the Miller or
Wolff on justice. I recommend particularly Ch.5
of the Wolff, esp pp. 168-195.
• Write an essay on the following:
• Evaluate the claim that social justice means the
equal distribution of rights and resources.