Rawls' Theory of Justice

[altzarina]

Hellow,
I am new to this forum. (I shall introduce myself soon in the introduction section..) I was wondering what you all think of John Rawls and his concept of Justice through the Difference Principle and Veil of ignorance? In a way, he was very ascerbic towards Capitalism but he did not espouse Communism either. Personally, I find his theory very intriguing....but then again, can a society sustain on only Justice without Order? What takes precedence, Order or Justice?

Looking forward to your views....excuse my question if its very naive but am pretty new to this discipline.


:)

[midnight marauder]

Justice as Fairness, while I suppose a nice idea, is purely idealistic. In this respect we can treat like any other social contract theory, as this is a trait social contracts almost universally share.

His two principles on this topic are essentially good, but not really useful for running a society. Justice as Fainress relies on Rawls' conception of the Origional Position, in which those in charge decide on rights for the public from an a priori viewpoint.

From a materialist standpoint, it just simply isn't realistic to pretend that those with such an incredible power (ruling a society), with so much to gain, could really divorce their views, backgrounds, and the contexts of their lives from the decisions that they make.

In addition to that, rights are never objective concepts. They're a human concept and as such, we each have different views on what is or is not a right. Things like abortion may never be viewed as a right by certain members of society, and under Rawl's contract, they just wouldn't happen.

That's why a veil of ignorance is just that and nothing else: an imaginary position without much ground in the real world.

I would say that, from a leftist perspective, A Theory of Justice is a very statist in the anarchist sense approach to a forumla for providing rights. It's a very classically liberal theory, and Rawls' is the first to admit it. Like you said, he simply wasn't a communist.

Being that rights are subjective (if you believe that), rights aren't something for a state to "decide" upon, whether in accordance with the first and second principle or not. Rights are something which the people themselves must decide on first and formost. Justice as Fairness subordinates citizens of a social contract into only having the ability to judge a society as being in accordance with justice, as opposed to them actually having the power to do anything about it.

This is a major flaw in all classic social contract theories. They're unapologetically top-down, without much options for those who don't agree to it. If you have the time, take a look at the Gunman vs. the Tax Collector thread in the Philosophy section: http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=55520

Also a problem with subjectivity, the two axioms of Justice as Fairness are extremely open to debate. There is, of course, no clear point at which one can decide which rights and inequalities are just. Especially in the second principle, there just isn't any objective way to determine what the "greatest benefit" is. If left to a statesman to decide what inequalities are to be present in a society, I wouldn't think it unrational to expect something which benefitst the ruling class.

As a way to judge a society, justice as fairness is a very good start. However, as anything else, it just simply isn't practical or useful.

It's best to treat it like it is: a very liberal and idealist idealogy, and nothing more.

[altzarina]

^ Yes, my thoughts exactly.

Have you read Dworkin's take on Veil of ignorance and his technique of distribution? I dont know if this is possible or rational, but after dismanteling the state probably the workers associations can incorporate Dworkin's method of distribution...no? But then again, Dworkin supports the Tax system...oh this is very confusing... :o