Rawls’ Theory of Justice
John Rawls’ theory of justice changes the whole academic discourse about distributive
justice. The traditional views about distributive justice, such as no way to organize them
into systematic or a matter of culture interpretation rather than philosophical argument,
were changed. This theory concerns some important conceptions: social contract, original
position, veil of ignorance, liberal and difference principles, social primary goods. In the
following parts, I will discuss them in detail combined with the statement made by
Østerberg.
Individual or Group?
1. Rawls’s ideal state is based on the individual, who has unalienable rights. Women?
children?
According to Rawls’s thought of the common ground of a society, Rawls’s idea state is
based on the individual. He thought society is a community of citizens and a place of
social cooperation where everyone depends on everyone else. No one can live
comfortably without other’s participation in the society. Moreover, Rawls confirmedly
support Kantian principle that one person should never be considered as means to the
ends of another person.
However, except these two points, Rawls’ ideal state is show in the form of groups or
parties rather than individual. There are several points:
First, when talking about the cooperation of a society, he divided some individuals into two
extreme group, the most successful and the poorest. He pointed out that the most
successful group of any given society are the ones with the most to lose from general noncooperation while the poorest are those with the least to give up.
Second, when talking about the original position, he imagined individuals as the
contracting parties to decide up what the just distribution of goods and burdens should be
in a society that they themselves would want to live in. He considered individuals as
parties of every conceivable kind.
Third, when talking the difference principle, he described that social contract should be
based on working to the benefit of worst-off. Here the worst-off is understood to be the
least advantaged group, not individual.
Last but not least, when talking about the primary goods, he thought that only rights and
duties in public life are considered. In that situation, each individual is not in the same
starting point. Some groups are under vulnerable situation. Children, as a special group,
are excluded because they could not fully participate in public life by themselves. Besides,
Rawls considered family belonging to private life in stead of public life. Under this division,
women, as another group, are not treated fairly because they usually contribute more to
the family which leads to inequality distribution of primary goods for women.
Difference principles
2. Rawls accepts large economic inequality.
3. Up to a point, Rawls bases his theory on the Pareto principle.
For question 2 and 3, Both of them are related with the difference principle.
Rawls accepts large economic inequality. But there is a premiss. The inequality must be
worked to the advantage of the worst-off.
Income earned by Bill Gates per minute is much higher than that was earned by a
common American worker per year. It was acceptable by Rawls since American society
has a tax system which will transfer part of fortune made by Bill Gates to the worst-off.
That is to say, if a society have set up a system to guarantee people who gain from their
good fortune will also bring benefit for the advantage of the worst-off, then inequality, even
large inequality is acceptable. From the above analysis, we could say that Rawls’ theory
fulfill Pareto principle. However, except Pareto principle, Rawls’ theory is also based on
original position and liberal principle which will be discussed deeply in later questions.
Original Position-Mutually disinterested
5. Rawls makes a mutually disinterested rationality the basis of life-choices.
The original position, postulated by Rawls, is a state when social members meet together
to make an agreement on social contract. In this original position, the contracting parties
are ignorant of their age, sex, talents etc. as if they are behind a veil of ignorance of their
own position when they negotiate the agreement on the one hand. On the other hand, all
participants have a good understanding of legal, economic, political and social affairs and
they know how to organize an institutional society.
The conception of original position aims at making parties mutually disinterested and
hiding parties’ own particular circumstances so that it will ensure a social contract that
guarantees impartial justice.
Does Rawls’ assumption about “mutually disinterested” reflect how people behave in real
life? Or is it his way of describing the theoretical original position?
As Hilde mentioned, “the original position is not a description of human behavior or of any
situation that has actually occurred.” But it acts as a tool to guide living human beings to
reason about the just society in the long run. The purpose of making the contracting
parties ‘mutually disinterested’ is to ensure a consent-based and benefit-based social
contract. In that case, the rational self-interest of every single human being is equally
taking into account which makes the agreement close to the Rawls’ ideal social contract.
The Incentives of Social Contract
6. It seems as if Rawls imagines that the most well-to-do will share their wealth with the
rest of society
From the difference principle, we could see that Rawls considered that the most well-to-do
will share their wealth within the appropriate designed society.
Is this sharing behavior a coercion or of one’s own free will?
In my opinion, under a just institutional arrangement society, two reasons promote the
most well-to-do sharing their wealth:
1) Cooperation
As I mentioned above, Rawls said that everyone’s well-being depends upon a scheme of
co-operation without which no one could have a satisfactory life. Further more, the most
successful members are the ones with the most to lose from general non-cooperation. So
the most well-to-do have incentives to secure the voluntary cooperation of the least
successful. In Rawls’ words, the division of advantages should be draw forth the willing cooperation of everyone taking part in it, including those less well situated.
2) Endowments
Persons born into society are at some particular position and with different endowments.
At the same time, it is the society provides the platform for people with different
endowments to make achievement. Therefore, we don’t own ourselves in society. The
success of most well-to-do not only belongs to their gift, but also depends on the
beneficiary circumstance to them provided by the society. To some extent, the society
helps them to achieve their success. What’s more, helping the less fortunate will further
strengthen the cooperation of society by which the most well-to-do could benefit more from
this cooperation on the one hand, and prove and consolidate their advantage position on
the other hand.
Ambition Sensitive
7. The difference principle implies that something should be done for the worst off, not
that they themselves organize to improve their lives.
The difference principle aims at making up imbalance brought by natural distribution. It
doesn’t mean that what the worst off need to do is to wait assistance. Difference principle
provides a justice way for institutions to deal with natural facts. With admission of different
natural facts, difference principle tries to give equal opportunity to all; tries to create equal
environment; tries to create equal starting line. All of these efforts support ‘ambitionsensitive’, admire hard work, encourage self-supporting, and avoid the advantage taking
over the worst off.
However, the Difference Principle is criticized not ‘ambition-sensitive’ enough and that
provided people have equal resources they should live with the consequences of their
choices. For instance, People who choose to work hard to earn more income are required
to subsidize those choosing more leisure and hence less income. This issue was
discussed a lot in Dworkin’s resource-based principles. Here we don’t talk further.
Original Position-Monological?
4. The Pareto principle is best suited to cattle, that do not communicate.
There are many criticisms towards Rawls’ theory. On of them is that Habermas
considered, in Rawls’ theory, there was no plurality of voices and points of view
represented, i.e. the parties in the original position were several copies of one single
human being.
The criticism seems correct since the parties in original position are without individual traits
or characteristics beyond being human. But this assumption aims at providing a guide on
how to make agreement in a long run. In fact, every conceivable kind of human being has
been taken into account for understanding the general fact about human society during the
process of agreement making. And in real life, engaging in conversation or exchanging
points of view are the most common way to make Pareto principle into practice.
Rawls’ just society or Scandinavian Welfare States?
8. Give the choice between Rawls’ just society and the Scandinavian welfare states, most
people would prefer the latter
Like the most people, compared with Rawls’ just society and the Scandinavian welfare
states, I would prefer the latter. There are several reasons:
1) Egalitarian and extensive benefit levels
In Norwegian Jante Law, there is a rule said that you shall not behave as if you are better
than others. In Scandinavian welfare states, everyone are treated equally although they
have different social positions and endowment. Moreover, free public education system,
social security net, public health insurance and birth leave are policies effectively narrow
down the gap between the well-to-do and the poorest.
2) Gender equality
Scandinavian welfare states have realized the goals of equality between men and women
in a better way. In these countries, women’s contribution to the family is high respective.
Men tend to share housework with women. In public life, there is a quite broad agreement
that equal representation is important.
3) Large magnitude of redistribution
High tax rate in the Scandinavian welfare states not only lead to fair society, but also
increase social dialogue, collaboration and trust among people which are important factors
for explaining the high productivity and wage growth.
4)Incentives to work
Scandinavian welfare states are not only famous for their equality, but also good at
maximizing labour force participation. The reason is that in these states, most benefits
highly related to the working experiences. For example, both disability insurance and
retirement pensions increases dramatically if you have been working. With this kind of
incentive, Scandinavian welfare states keep a good recored on sustainable development.