John Rawls' Approach to Distributive Justice

A Theory of Justice is the magnum opus of 20th century social contract theorist and political philosopher, John Rawls. A bit of background into this work is that social contract theory had fallen out of favor with political scientists and philosophers since the last 18th century, with the success of the American Revolution and the apparent triumph of John Locke and Democracy. However, with the advent of modern globalization, the emergence of America as a superpower, but the growing concern of socio-economic disparity necessitated a revisiting of the social contract, what it means, how societies and governments were best constructed.

Particularly, Rawls in this work attempts to solve the problem of distributive justice and reconcile the somewhat

disparate concepts of individual liberty and social egalitarianism. He doesn't attempt to do this by conceiving a new society but rather by subjecting existing Democracies and well-ordered societies to a thought experiment which ideally results in underlying principles from which come mutually acceptable and organic principles of justice.

The thesis of Rawls' work is that under his model of a fair choice and mutually acceptable situation he calls each individual in their original position operating under the veil of ignorance, parties would find two principles of justice – equal rights to basic liberties and fair equality of opportunity consistent with the difference principle – to be most efficient.

Key Concepts and Assumptions

Original position: The original position is a hypothetical thought experiment that John Rawls creates as a substitution to social contract theory's previous incarnation of what humanity would be like without established rules and morals, what Hobbes called the state of nature.

Hobbes' description of the state of nature or anarchy was that it was “solitary, nasty, brutish, and short” and thus necessitated agreements among people to certain codes of conduct in order to co-exist reasonably. Rawls, however, creates the original position in order to flesh out his full thought experiment, which will be elaborated upon below.

Veil of Ignorance: The key difference between the classical state of nature and Rawls' original position is that in the state of nature the strong and advantaged can simply bully and forcefully survive beyond and coerce their weaker counterparts. The result may be some structure to society that could sustain civilization (i.e. monarchy, oligarchy, etc) but this result, while sufficient for the creation of the social contract, us unresponsive to the issue of what principles from a natural state would be truly just and create the best society for all

participants.

To remedy this, Rawls posits not a state of nature but an original position in which participants are placed behind a theoretical veil of ignorance. Behind this veil, individuals know nothing at all about their advantages, preferences, tastes, abilities, intellect, wealth, power, or status in society or whatever social order exists pre-experiment. Additionally, when choosing the tenents of society and creating the principles with which society will be built these people do not know who they will be in the new society. For example, if they choose to build a society in which half it's members will be wealthy beyond measure and the other will live in abject poverty, none of the folks who chose this society knew which half they would belong to, and thus would almost certainly not risk the gamble.

Rawls' justification for this was so that individuals would theoretically could choose the best principles for society based on a perfect balance of self-interest and moral consideration – meaning they would choose the most just principles not just because it's the best and most ethical way to structure society but also because they know they could be placed anywhere in that society and must live with those consequences.

First principle of justice: Rawls argues that from behind the veil of ignorance and in the original position, individuals would agree to at least two underlying principles as the foundation of a truly just, free, and equal society. The first of principle would be that each person is to have equal access or right to basic human liberties such as freedom of speech and assembly, freedom of belief and thought, freedom of property, freedom from detainment or arrest without just cause, freedom to engage in the political and social arena, etc.

Rawls excludes the right to own means of production and the freedom of contract as posited in pure capitalism as rights as he says these are not unalieable liberties that which without individuals could not be truly free without imposing on the freedom of others.

Second principle of justice: The second principle of justice is a bit more complex. Rawls argues that participants in his thought experiment would all agree that inequality is inevitable. However, that economic and social inequalities would best be arranged so as to meet two distinct criteria. First, that they must be of greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society. Second, that all facets of society such as education, employment positions, political office, etc are open to everyone under the principle of fair equality of opportunity.

Difference principle: The difference principle, sometimes called the just savings principle, is a concept on social contract theory, popularized by Rawls, that posits that things while inequalities invariably must exist they should be tempered. The argument is that some, if not most of, what engenders material inequality comes from a position of arbitrary advantage anyway: the family you're born into, how smart or attractive you are genetically, natural athletic or intellectual aptitude, etc. As such, some of the benefits one gains from these advantages should be distributed to those less fortunate to compensate for the inherently disadvantageous circumstances from which they came.

Rawls has an unabashedly objectivist and absolutist outlook on human nature, moral truth, and the value of theory in creating his new paradigm for social contract theory. His theory is presented not as a interpretivist criticism or analysis but rather a new model for human interaction with little room for expansion or revision.

Usefulness for Research

Rawls' Theory of Justice spurred my interest in philosophy and the political arena.

Not just because it's a brilliant work but because after reading the subsequent responses in the social contract wars of the 70's – namely Nozick's libertarian magnum opus Anarchy, State, Utopia, Walzer's communitarian Spheres of Justice, Sandel's agency-based criticism in Liberalism and the Limits of Justice, and Wolff's Marxist Understanding Rawls – I've been convinced that society writ large would be significantly better off if it followed Rawlsian principles.

Having said that, I've come to believe that the reason the veil of ignorance becomes increasingly difficult to even moderately achieve – that is to say the reason it's becoming near impossible to get even disadvantaged citizens to vote for or believe in principles that would most benefit them – is because the advantaged have so thoroughly monopolized the rhetoric of dreaming and individualism that it muddies the ability of folks to see our rampant abuse of the tragedy of the commons in favor of the supremely

advantaged.

As such, I hope Rawls and his chief work will be a big part of my academic career as I pursue efforts towards an evolved American rhetoric – one that doesn't couch personal pride in individual struggle but in collective action towards social betterment. Some form of communication at the micro and macro-political levels of media and public spheres of discourse that nudge what we know as uniquely American values towards more Rawlsian and less Randian principles.