JustMovement
10th July 2011, 21:37
Rawls most important work is a theory of justice. In ToJ he defines justice as fairness. He tries to come up with principles of justice, or ways to organise society now.
To uncover these principles he invents a thought experiment. He imagines that a group of people come together to create a new society, but imagines that they are behind what he calls the "veil of ignorance", which means that they do not anything about what they are going to be in this new society (e.g. they do not know their sex, class, religious views, moral beliefs, etc etc).
The idea is that people in this situation of ignorance will come up with a fair society because they will not be skewed with their interests and will behave completely rationally. All of this is very much influenced by Kant and the categorical imperative.
He comes to the conclusion that behind the veil of ignorance people would agree to two principles:
1) First: each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others
(wiki)So basically this means that the form of the society would be a liberal democracy of some kind(freedom of speech, universal sufferage etc. etc.), people behind the veil of ignorance would not agree to feudalism for example because they do not know whether they will be a king or a serf.The second principle (and the interesting one from a leftist point of view) is:
Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that
a) they are to be of the greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society (the difference principle).b) offices and positions must be open to everyone under conditions of fair equality of opportunity(wiki)
So basically any existing inequality can only be justified if it benefits those at the bottom of society economically.
In applying these principles the first principle always comes before the second. He gives some convincing reasons why people in this situation would chose these principles, but you have to read it yourself.
Personally I do not think Rawls is very far from a socialist position, although he approaches it from a completely different (Kantian) direction to what we are used to, and it is very idealistic and ahistorical. He defends only personal private property, and does not consider private property in general to be protected under the first principle. He mentions explicitly that as long as there is democracy then the means of production can be controled by however makes most sense according to the difference principle.
Dasein
21st August 2011, 01:58
Here some old stuff I wrote on Rawls' for two different classes:
John Rawls begins his Theory of Justice by outlining the role of justice. First Rawls outlines two underlying assumptions he makes:
1. Society is a self-sufficient association of persons who recognize certain rules as binding and act in accordance, and
2. these rules specify a system of cooperation designed to advance the good of those taking part in it.
In this situation, Rawls’ points out, “There is a conflict of interests since persons are not indifferent as to how the greater benefits produced by their collaboration are distributed, for in order to pursue their ends they each prefer a larger to a lesser share" (Rawls 4). Thus, a set of principles is required “which determine this division of advantages and for underwriting an agreement on the proper distributive shares. These principles are the principles of social justice: they provide a way of assigning rights and duties in the basic institutions of society and they define the appropriate distribution of the benefits and burdens of social cooperation" (Rawls 4).
Before proceeding with Rawls’ Theory, it is important to distinguish and differentiate between what Rawls calls the natural and social lottery. The natural and social lotteries are both concepts which state the situation in which a person is born into is like a lottery, determined by luck. The natural lottery refers to the randomness of each person’s natural capabilities, such as whether or not they are mentally or physically able, prior to being born. The social lottery, on the other hand, refers to the same randomness, but with respect to each person’s social situation in which he/she is born. For example, whether a person is born to a family with money, a family that cares, born abandoned, etc. Rawls’ lottery concepts are simple devices used to point out that most of what determines the course of an individual's life is simply luck and the initial situation each lotto player is assigned to begin with.
Because of the natural and social lottery, Rawls’ argues in choosing the principles of social justice, one should place him/herself in an ‘original position,’ behind a ‘veil of ignorance,’ in which each person is unaware of the lottery’s outcome. Rawls’ sums up the necessary situation in choosing the principles of justice as, “Among the essential features of this situation is that no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does any one know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like. I shall even assume that the parties do not know their conceptions of the good or their special psychological propensities. The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance. This ensures that no one is advantaged or disadvantaged in the choice of principles by the outcome of natural chance or the contingency of social circumstances" (Rawls 11).
Rawls’ concludes that upon deciding principles of justice under a veil of ignorance, from an original position, two principles of justice would be agreed upon. The two principles are lexically ordered and stated by Rawls as,
“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) reasonable expected to be to everyone’s advantage, and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all" (Rawls 53).
The first principle asserts liberty and is the most fundamental principle. The second principle addresses the issue of necessary inequalities that promote everyone’s advantage, while still abiding by the first principle.
One criticism of Rawls’ Theory is made by Peter Singer in “One World: The Ethics of Globalization.” Singer criticizes Rawls’ failure to distinguish the extreme inequalities and injustice that exist between different societies. Singer argues Rawls’ veil of ignorance should extend even further and the individuals making the choice should be ignorant about whether they are citizens of a rich world power nation or of a poor tyrannical-run nation.
[Michael J.] Sandel begins chapter six of his book [Justice] with a thought provoking question: why are we obliged to obey the law? Most Americans never signed a social contract, or even gave consent to agree to abide by the law, so why should we be held responsible to the law? Sandel gives three different answers, and perspectives, to this question beginning with John Locke. Locke argues we give tacit consent, which means our consent is implied or indicated but not actually expressed. Sandel expresses Locke’s idea of tacit consent by writing, “anyone who enjoys the benefits of the government, even by traveling on the highway, implicitly consents to the law, and is bound by it" (Sandel 140). Another philosopher who attempted to answer the question as to why are we obliged to obey the law was Immanuel Kant. Kant argues for hypothetical consent; consent which is conditional and depending upon supposition. Thus to Kant, “a law is just, if it could have been agreed to by the public as a whole" (Sandel 140). Sandel provides the reader with a third philosopher, John Rawls, who also attempts to answer the question as to why are we obliged to obey the law in his Theory of Justice. Rawls argues, in a way similar to Kant, for a form of hypothetical consent, but, differs from Kant in that the process of coming to an agreement must be made from a hypothetical original position of equality. Sandel expresses Rawls’ conception of justice when he writes, “The way to think about justice is to ask what principles we would agree to in an initial situation of equality" (Sandel 140).
Before proceeding with Rawls’ Theory, it is important to distinguish and differentiate between what Rawls calls the natural and social lottery. The natural and social lotteries are both concepts which state the situation in which a person is born is determined by complete luck, similar to a lottery. More specifically, the natural lottery refers to the way in which randomness and luck determines a person’s natural capabilities, such as whether or not a person is mentally-handicapped or physically able upon being born, commonly referred to as genetics. The social lottery, on the other hand, refers specifically to the randomness which determines the social situation in which a person is born. For example, the social lottery is what determines if a person is born to a family with money that cares for them or is born into abandonment. Rawls’ lottery concepts are simple devices used to point out that most of what determines the course of an individual’s life is getting lucky or unlucky.
Because Rawls acknowledges our lives are determined by nothing but the natural and social lottery, Rawls’ argues that in choosing principles of justice, one should place him/herself in an ‘original position,’ behind a ‘veil of ignorance,’ in which each person is unaware of the lottery’s outcome. Rawls’ sums up the necessary situation in choosing the principles of justice as, “Among the essential features of this situation is that no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like. I shall even assume that the parties do not know their conceptions of the good or their special psychological propensities. The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance. This ensures that no one is advantaged or disadvantaged in the choice of principles by the outcome of natural chance or the contingency of social circumstances" (Rawls 11). “If no one knew any of these things, we would choose, in effect, from an original position of equality. Since no one would have a superior bargaining position, the principles we would agree upon would be just" (Sandel 141). Thus, Rawls’ conception of the social contract is a hypothetical agreement; however, Rawls’ theory is unique in that it is made from an original position of equality to guard from particular interests being taken into consideration.
Rawls’ concludes that upon deciding principles of justice from behind a veil of ignorance, in an original position, two principles of justice would be agreed upon. The two principles are lexically ordered and stated by Rawls as,
“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) reasonable expected to be to everyone’s advantage, and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all" (Rawls 53).
The first principle asserts extensive liberty to all individuals and is the most fundamental principle. The second principle, which Rawls refers to as ‘the difference principle,’ addresses the economic issue of necessary inequalities that promote everyone’s advantage, while still acting in accordance to the first principle.
By creating the difference principle, it appears Rawls realized that a completely equal distribution of income and wealth, to guard against poverty, would result in an unproductive and inefficient society. The difference principle allows for inequalities that benefit all of society; however, any equality that does not promote the general interest of all of its citizens is unjust. For example, if paying a doctor more than a janitor greatly increases the quality and amount of health care for all of the citizens, then by all means pay doctors more than janitors; however, if paying doctors more than janitors had “no impact on health services… and simply produced more cosmetic surgeons in Beverly Hill,” then that inequality would be consider unjust.
In order to more fully understand Rawls’ idea of a hypothetical contract, Sandel proposes we dive deeper into the limits contracts. First, Sandel makes explicit the point that contracts do not necessitate fairness; just because we made a deal does not make that deal fair. For example, originally our constitution, a contract agreed upon by our founding fathers, didn’t allow women to vote, it allowed racial segregation, and even worse justified slavery; however, no one would argue that deal was fair. So what is necessary for a contract, or deal, to be fair? If consent is not enough to form an obligation, then what is? Maybe, like Locke argued, some form of benefit must be received to justify a contract. So, if women and blacks were benefiting from the government, then they are obliged to obey all the state’s laws, regardless of how much of their individual liberty is violated; but this does not seem right.
If neither consent nor benefit can guarantee a contract to be fair, then how do contracts carry moral weight and why should we use a contract to establish our principles of justice? Sandel answers this question by writing, “imagine a contract among parties who were equal in power and knowledge, rather than unequal; who were identically situated, not differently situated. And imagine that the object of this contract was… the principles to govern our lives together, to assign our rights and duties as citizens. A contract like this, among parties like this, would leave no room for coercion or deception or other unfair advantages. Its terms would be just, whatever they were, by virtue of their agreement alone" (Sandel 150). This is the original position in which individuals are behind the veil of ignorance, and this is why Rawls proposes we use a social contract in order to establish our principles of justice.
So, According to Rawls, the correct way to think about justice is to reason from behind a veil of ignorance, from an original position of equality; if we can do this, then our moral principles should emerge. My moral reasoning leads me to think Rawls is correct in his method of thinking about justice because like Rawls, I think justice is something that should not be determined by moral arbitrariness.
In order to more fully explain what Rawls means by moral arbitrariness, Rawls compares several rival theories of justice beginning with feudal aristocracies. As Sandel mentions, “These days, no one defends the justice of feudal aristocracies or caste systems. These systems are unfair… because they distribute income, wealth, opportunity, and power on the opportunity of birth… But the circumstances of your birth are no doing of yours. So it’s unjust to make your life prospects depend on this arbitrary fact" (Sandel 153). If you take the idea of moral arbitrariness deeper, the same thinking can be applied to both market societies, or the libertarian notion of justice, and meritocracies.
In a market society, goods are allocated by those willing to pay a price determined by supply and demand, and each individual is given an ‘equal opportunity;’ however, in practice the opportunities individuals have are far from equal. If each individual must follow the same rules, but every individual has a different starting point, as Rawls makes explicit with the natural and social lottery, then the system is far from just. Like feudal aristocracies, market societies permit distributive shares “to be improperly influenced by these factors so arbitrary from a moral point of view" (Rawls 63).
According to the meritocratic conception of justice, if every individual has the same opportunity to cultivate his/her talents, or everyone has the same starting point, then the result of the free market is just. Rawls disagree on the same grounds he has disagreed with feudal aristocracies, as well as market societies. Sandel uses the example of a race, “Rawls believes that the meritocratic conception corrects for certain morally arbitrary advantages, but still falls short of justice. For, even if you manage to bring everyone up to the same starting point, it is more or less predictable who will win the race—the fastest runners. But being a fast runner is not wholly my own doing. It is morally contingent in the same way that coming from an affluent family is contingent" (Sandel 154). Rawls summarizes his thoughts by writing that the meritocratic conception of justice “still permits the distribution of wealth and income to be determined by natural distribution of abilities and talents" (Rawls 64). Thus, Rawls concludes all three systems: feudal aristocracies, market societies, and meritocracies all are flawed for the same reason: they all base distributive shares on morally arbitrary facts of life.
This might be a better introduction actually, seeing as it was written by my professor, rather than me.
The classical Social Contract Theory was a necessary condition for understanding the legitimacy of authority, but it was no longer sufficient. We were now understanding that the problems of Justice demand much more critical scrutiny than simple concepts could provide. Yet, the social contract theory did seem to be the correct interpretation of democratic societies, but we need a more comprehensive understanding of justice within these societies.
It was John Rawls who provided this deeper analysis of justice as "the first virtue of social institutions". Rawls clearly understood that humans perceive the world subjectively. We often reason toward where we want to go. Thus, our individual desires can shape our conclusions, even concerning the more important areas of justice. What is needed is a method for reasoning about justice that will leave aside our individual preferences based on our positions in life.
There are four very important concepts which need to be understood in order to understand Rawls's reasoning concerning justice. They are: The Natural Lottery, The Social Lottery, The Original Position, and The Veil of Ignorance.
We all realize that people are born with a wide range of mental and physical abilities, or disabilities. Intellectually, we do not fall into three categories of: genius, average, or mentally handicapped. It is a broad spectrum of natural mental abilities that we are born with. And how it is determined is now known as genetics. It is the same with our physical abilities. Most of us are about average, yet the range of natural ability is determined by the genetic endowment that were the gifts from your parents. We realize that severe disabilities such as Down's syndrome or Spina Bifida are genetic abnormalities and thankfully they are rare. But what determines the abilities that you were born with is: "the luck of the draw". None of us "chose" our parents; none of us "chose" our own genetic code. What Aristotle had called "the gifts of nature", Rawls literally calls The Natural Lottery.
Accordingly, we are born into a wide range of social circumstances that none of us chose for ourselves. We could have been born into a wealthy family, or an extremely poor family. Also, we could have been born to parents who nurtured and emotionally supported us, or we could have been born to parents who neglected or even abuse us. Again, none of us chose our parents. We got (un)lucky. What Aristotle had termed "the gifts of fortune", Rawls calls The Social Lottery.
Aristotle believed that ones chances of attaining happiness (flourishing, or the good life) was a matter of luck. You had to be born into a good family, with good mental and physical abilities, etc. But Rawls argues that Justice should not be a matter of luck. The conditions of life are a matter of fact, justice is how we deal with these conditions.
Rawls did not believe that justice should be a matter of luck. Justice concerns how we address the conditions that we find ourselves in. And we must agree to the principles of justice based on their ability to distribute fairly an equality of opportunity and the resources necessary for human welfare. Yet because we often choose based on our subjective desires, Rawls believes that we need to have a method for choosing these principles of justice before we know how they will affect us individually.
Rawls uses the analogy of game theory. What is it that makes a game fair? One thing is that the rules are chosen before we start the game and the rules apply equally to everyone involved. But more than that the rules cannot be tailored to favor any one particular starting place in life.
Accordingly, for the social contract theory, we choose our principles of justice before we enter civil society, and before we know how they will affect us personally. The concepts that he uses here are: The Original Position and The Veil of Ignorance.
The Original Position corresponds to the state of nature in the classical theories. This is the position that we are in before we enter civil society. (The Game) We must choose our principles of justice here, before we are aware of where we will enter civil society in the Natural and Social Lotteries. We could be born into a wide range of social circumstances with a wide range of natural (mental and physical) abilities. The point is that we must choose our principles of justice from "behind a Veil of Ignorance", not knowing where we will be when we take our place in The Game. Rawls argues that this position (viewpoint/perspective) allows us to choose our principles of justice impartially and fairly.
So, we choose our principles of justice in The Original Position, from behind a Veil of Ignorance, not knowing where we will enter life in the Natural and Social Lottery.
The question is: What principles would we choose?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2020 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.