A Theory Of Justice John Rawls Summary

John Rawls is the philosopher who came up with many theories of philosophy during a long time. One of his main works of arts was a book he wrote, A theory of Justice. This book contains his ideas in which the society would be fair and where the people inside the society would benefit as a whole the most they potentially would be able too.

During the book he talks a lot about having a well organized society in order for everything to flow out correctly. Everyone within the society need to accept and know that there are other people just as important as they within the society. This means that they need to accept the same principles of justice as everyone else in order to reach some type of equilibrium among each other. This is hard to happen

in today’s societies because there are generally no societies that are well organized. People tend to visualize the concepts of justice differently. They see it the way it would benefit everyone, but more towards themselves. Even though they think they are doing the best for everyone they are looking out to help themselves more than anyone else. With this type of mentality it is very difficult to reach a state of equilibrium within a society because no one is looking out for what is best for everyone in order to keep the most people happy at a time even if they do not like the outcome of the solution. This is why the Original Social Concept was made. In order to help release the conceptual constraint of the free and rational persons. These people will then help assign the best possible rights for everyone within a society that will better help the society as a whole instead of a couple of individuals within it. With the help of these people the general public will tend to be happier with the duties and responsibilities that they hold. They will not feel like they are being taken advantage of or under any other person. No one in this hypothetical theory will be superior from one another.

With the idea of the Original Social Agreement comes the idea of viewing Justice as fairness. The only way to view things in this way is to have an original point of view towards what the different parties are currently negotiating about. John Rawls states that in most cases there is an original position in the case, and that this original position is the correct most beneficial position that would give both parties the highest satisfaction. This party is supposing to the opposing party that they have a knowledge in multiple things like class statuses, social positions, distribution in resources among the society already, and higher intellectual knowledge overall about the topic. They are arguing that their original position would make everyone feel more free and and equal among each other. Since it is a theory it is possible that they are completely correct that their solution is the best one, but in reality it could be the worst option possible just with a higher popular vote overall. Because this theory tends to choose a persons point of view it tends to be a bias point of view, so it is not a general moral theory. On the other hand the Social Contract theory is a more theory that looks out for the well being of others ninety nine percent of the time.

John Rawls ultimate goal was to establish two principles of Justice.

The first one would give each person the equal right to be the most extensive basic liberty. This liberty would also then naturally be compatible with a similar liberty for others in a society. This first principle has logical priority over the second one. The second principle would try to make social and economic inequalities as leveled as possible. In order to give everyone the same reasonable advantage of others. This idea ultimately attaches a fair try at positions in offices as well as other ones inside a group. In order to create a well organized society where everyone's satisfaction is as high as possible basic structures are to be added to a society. Securing and giving equal liberties of citizenship would give the normal civilizan the political rights and liberties that they need in every day of life. The second essential need of people within a society is to establish a social and economic inequalities. This would result in a distribution of income, wealth, opportunities, and the bases of self respect would be dispersed equally among everyone unless an unequal talent of any, or all of these values would be to everyone’s advantage in the time that it is needed. An example of this would be if a group of people want to go somewhere, but the place is pretty far walking, so they choose to use a car instead of walking. No one besides one person knows how to drive. This person would ideally be given an

advantage over the others because he would be to the rest of the people’s advantage for him to drive in order to get to their destination as soon as possible.
Lastly, another huge point in the idea in the book of John Rawls is the veil of ignorance.

The veil of ignorance means to not know how specific deliberations will affect ones over a particular case and being obliged to evaluate evaluate principles solely on the basis of the general considerations. These people characterize things into two groups. Things that they do not know and are ignored, and things that they must know. Things that they often ignore consist of class positions, social statuses, distribution of goods, and natural assets and abilities. Things within the veil of ignorance that usually known are basic features of human social life, understanding political affairs, principles of economic theories, philosophy, and social organizations. The people incharge of taking a stand on the original position then often use these as a guide to make decisions on new laws and other necessities of a

society.
John Rawls book ultimately tries to display the best possible solution for a justice society in today’s world. He makes a good contribution to ideas to help think out things on how to improve and how to see the world as well as how to find solutions. Even though he makes good ideas there are also contradictions to his ideas that do not make everyone happy.