John Rawls’ Theory of Justice

We analyze the main ideas of this philosopher on justice and social organization.

Undoubtedly, if there has been a dominant figure in political philosophy during the second half of the twentieth century, it is the figure of John Bordley Rawls (1921 - 2002).

The Theory of Justice of John Rawlswhich is also a form of social contract, has been the main form of philosophical foundation of liberalism in its social aspect, as well as a point of reference of obligatory confrontation for other political currents.

The experiment of the "original position

Rawls' theory of justice, which has at its core the mental experiment of the "original position", set out in his magnum opus "A Theory of Justice" (1971), is also a proposal of the "original position". (1971), is also a proposal on human subjectivity and the ultimate motives that govern moral behavior.

The thought experiment of the original position aims to ground the basic principles of justice on the basis of a reflection that, by hiding certain knowledge about our concrete life circumstances behind a "veil of ignorance", allows us to reflect as free and equal persons on what the basic principles of justice should be.

The influence of Kant's moral imperative

John Rawls' thought experiment can be traced back to philosophers such as Hume or Kant. In fact, there is a clear relationship between the original position and the Kantian moral imperative, since the latter is based on the grounding of moral principles through reflection based on the rational capacity of the subject, and not on his or her belonging to a certain cultural or historical group. cultural or historical group.

The difference lies in the fact that, while Kant assumes that it is possible to arrive at these principles individually, Rawls proposes the original position as an exercise of deliberation between people who will occupy different places in society, even if at the time of the original position they do not know what those places will be.

Thus, it is not only an abstract deduction of universal moral principles made individually by each person, but it is also a form of social contract that lays the foundations of justice. social contract that lays the foundations of justice and the basic structure of society. and the basic structure of society.

As we have seen, Rawls assumes that the people who deliberate in the original position do not know what position they will occupy in the future in society. do not know what position they will occupy in the future in society.. They do not know, therefore, to what social class they will belong or what positions of power they will occupy. They also do not know what natural abilities or psychological dispositions they will have that might give them an advantage over other people.

In fact, for Rawls, the natural lottery is neither just nor unjust, but what it does have to do with justice is how a society treats the natural differences between people. Finally, these people know that they will have a certain conception of the good (of what a meaningfully lived life should be) that will guide their lives, and that as rational beings they will be able to reconsider and modify over time.

Contrary to other theories of justice, John Rawls does not presuppose any historically inherited conception of the good that functions as the foundation of justice. If so, subjects would not be free. For Rawls, the principles of justice are generated in the original position and are not prior to it. and are not prior to it. It is the principles arising from the original position that would mark the limits of the future conceptions of the good chosen by each person in his or her concrete life.

Thus, the participants in the original position are conceived as representatives of concrete persons, obliged, however, to deliberate. forced, however, to deliberate under the veil of ignorance..

The participants of the experiment of the original position

But these subjects are not totally ignorant. They do not know any details of their life as concrete subjects, but they do they are assumed to have scientific knowledge about human nature (knowledge of biology, psychology, as well as a presupposition of the validity of neo-classical economic theory) that allows them to know how they will behave in their lives, so that they can negotiate with others on equal terms the best principles on which to base justice.

Moreover, these people are presupposed to have a sense of justice, which means that they wish to comply with the norms recognized as just after the bargaining process.

Finally, Rawls presupposes that the subjects of the original position are mutually disinterested, which does not necessarily mean that they are selfish beings, but rather that in the context of the original position their interest is only to negotiate with the constraint of the veil of ignorance in favor of a particular future person they represent. Their motivation is this and not beneficence.

The principles of justice

From here, Rawls extracts a series of primary social goods necessary for the development of the "moral powers", the aforementioned sense of justice, as well as the capacity to review and pursue a certain conception of the good.

These primary social goods are rights and freedoms, opportunitiesThe primary social goods are rights and freedoms, opportunities, income and wealth or the social basis for self-respect (such as an education that prepares one for life in society as well as a minimum income).

Rawls applies rational choice theory to the uncertainty conditions of the original position to extract the principles of justice. The first principle he extracts from the original position is that according to which each person should have the greatest possible basic freedoms that allow the rest of the members of society to have these freedoms as well. These freedoms are freedom of expression, association and thought. This principle underlies the idea of freedom.

The second principle underlies equality. According to Rawls, the abstract rational subjects deliberating in the original position would come to hold that economic and social inequalities are permissible to the extent that they work in favor of the greatest possible benefit to the most disadvantaged in society and depend on positions open to all under conditions of equal opportunity.

What is the best way to organize society?

Since the participants in the original position do not know what place they will occupy in society, that is, they do not know what social or natural advantages will be available to them in competing for the various offices and positions in society, they would come to the conclusion that the most rational and safe thing to do is to maximize the minimums, the so-called "maximin"..

According to maximin, the limited resources of a society must be distributed in such a way that the less well-off can live in an acceptable way.

Moreover, it is not simply a matter of distributing a set of limited resources in a fair manner, but rather that such distribution should enable society as a whole to be productive society as a whole to be productive and based on cooperation. Thus, inequalities can only make sense once these minimum needs have been met for all, and only insofar as they work in favor of society, especially the most disadvantaged.

In this way, the participants in the original position ensure that, whatever their place in society, they will live in dignity and will be able to compete for access to the various possible positions. When the participants in the original position have to choose between different theories of justice, they will choose justice as fairness proposed by Rawls over other theories such as utilitarianism.

Of course, a theory such as Rawls', central in the reflections on politics and justice, has raised many criticisms. For example, libertarian thinkers such as Robert Nozick (1938 - 2002) are against redistribution by government, as this contradicts the basic right to enjoy the fruits of one's labor.

It has also been criticized also been criticized by communitarian thinkers for his conception of subjectivity. As is clear from his theory, for Rawls, human beings, in everything that responds to articulate the foundations of society, can be reduced to rational (or, as he would say, reasonable) beings.

Society would be constituted with an agreement between equals prior to the different conceptions of the good. However, from communitarianism it is argued that there is no possible subject that is not preceded by a conception of the good.

According to this conception, we cannot make decisions based on the principles of justice apart from the common values that have shaped us as subjects. These thinkers have a conception of the subject as constituted in relation to its cultural and social environment, such that subjectivity cannot be reduced to an abstract and individual entity. individual entity.

John Rawls is undoubtedly the political philosopher who had the greatest impact in the second half of the 20th century. His theories have not only helped to support certain political positions, but have also served as a horizon from which to think about justice. horizon from which to think about justice and politics, albeit from opposing political positions.even if from opposing political positions.

Bibliographical references:

• Freeman, S. (2017). Original Position. [online] Plato.stanford.edu. Available here.
• Rawls, J. (1980). Kantian Constructivism in Moral Theory. The Journal of Philosophy, 77(9), p.515.
• Rawls, J. (2000). A theory of justice (1st ed). Cambridge (Massachusetts) [etc.]: Harvard University Press.