Rawls’ concept of “Justice as Fairness.”
Justice as Fairness: The Rawlsian Approach - Explained in Detail
1. Foundational Idea: Justice and Fairness
• John Rawls argues that a fair society can only be achieved if justice is rooted in fairness. Justice, in Rawls’ view, is not merely about laws or rules but about creating conditions that are fundamentally fair to everyone.
• Fairness is essential for justice because it involves unbiased, equitable treatment. For Rawls, focusing on fairness ensures that justice does not favor any one group or individual unduly, especially when constructing the basic framework of society.
2. Principles of Justice
• Rawls proposes that “justice as fairness” encompasses specific principles designed to shape the social structure. These principles provide a foundation for a society that treats all individuals fairly and impartially, promoting equality in opportunities and distribution of resources.
• These principles, derived from fairness, determine the requirements for a just social structure, as well as for legislative processes and policies, creating a system where every individual can access opportunities without being hindered by arbitrary societal divisions.
3. The “Original Position” Concept
• A core feature of Rawls’ theory is the “original position,” an imagined scenario used to determine principles of justice. In this hypothetical situation, individuals come together to establish the rules of society but are placed under a “veil of ignorance” — they are unaware of their own social status, wealth, personal preferences, or even their future prospects.
• This imagined condition removes bias, forcing individuals to think impartially since they cannot make choices that might favor their known personal situations. The idea here is that individuals, when unaware of their particular identities, would choose principles that ensure fairness and protect the interests of all, especially the less advantaged.
4. Veil of Ignorance and Impartiality
• The “veil of ignorance” is central to achieving fairness in decision-making. It is a mechanism that prevents individuals from letting personal biases, vested interests, or personal ambitions influence their choices regarding social principles.
• This approach requires decision-makers to put aside their particular preferences, making choices that would be fair and acceptable to any member of society, no matter their social standing. It cultivates fairness by ensuring all members of society would be willing to abide by the principles chosen in this state of ignorance.
5. Selection of Just Principles
• Under the “veil of ignorance,” Rawls believes individuals would unanimously select two main principles of justice:
• Equal basic liberties: Every individual is entitled to the most extensive set of basic freedoms (such as freedom of speech and assembly) compatible with similar freedoms for others.
• Difference principle: Social and economic inequalities are only acceptable if they result in compensating benefits for everyone, especially the least advantaged in society.
• These principles aim to guarantee fairness by ensuring both the protection of individual rights and the equitable distribution of resources, particularly benefiting those who may be disadvantaged.
6. Impartiality as a Requirement for Fairness
• Rawls asserts that true justice requires impartiality, which he defines as the avoidance of bias in assessments and decisions. Fairness entails that all individuals’ interests are respected equally and that no individual’s decisions are swayed by personal biases, prejudices, or vested interests.
• This demand for impartiality is key to Rawls’ “justice as fairness” since it requires people to consider the welfare of others in addition to their own. By focusing on fairness, Rawls advocates for a society structured on principles that account for the diverse needs and perspectives of all its members.
7. Justice as a Political Conception
• Rawls classifies “justice as fairness” as a “political conception of justice.” This political framework helps address societal stability by fostering cooperation among people who hold diverse values and beliefs, particularly on fundamental issues.
• According to Rawls, individuals in society can agree on basic principles of justice that ensure fairness, despite having differing views on topics such as religion or personal beliefs about a good life. This consensus forms a foundation for public discussion and decision-making on essential issues, even in the face of disagreement.
1. Purpose of Fairness: The goal of Rawls’ fairness model is to establish principles that will guide the selection of fair and just institutions within a society’s fundamental structure.
2. Principles of Justice: Rawls defines specific principles of justice, which he believes everyone would agree on if they were in the “original position” — a hypothetical scenario where individuals decide without knowing their own personal identities or advantages.
3. Unanimous Agreement: In the original position, with everyone equally ignorant of their own positions, these principles would be chosen unanimously. This choice represents a “political conception” of justice that could serve as a foundation for societal rules.
4. Influence on Society and Individuals: If a society is organized according to these agreed principles, Rawls believes that people will naturally develop a sense of justice. This shared sense of justice influences both social institutions and individual behavior, encouraging people to act in ways that align with fairness and equality.
In essence, Rawls argues that, in a fair decision-making environment, people would collectively agree on just principles, and these principles would shape both society’s institutions and individuals’ sense of justice.
STEPS INVOLVED IN THE THEORY
1. Stage 1 - Choosing Principles: The process starts with picking basic principles of justice. This forms the foundation.
2. Stage 2 - Constitutional Stage: Next, these principles guide the design of actual institutions, adjusted to the specific needs and realities of each society.
3. Stage 3 - Legislative Stage: Once institutions are set up, laws are created to ensure these principles are upheld in daily life.
4. Goal - Step-by-Step Justice: Each stage is a carefully planned step toward creating a fully just society, with each stage building on the one before.
This step-by-step approach allows for an organized development of justice across different areas of society.
1. Rawls’s Theory of Justice as Fairness: Despite any later doubts or challenges, Rawls’s theory remains one of the most influential in modern philosophy, providing a structured way to think about justice.
2. Key Principles: In his "original position" thought experiment, Rawls argued that people would agree on two core principles of justice:
- Equal Basic Liberties: Everyone should have equal basic rights and freedoms, and this system of rights should work equally well for everyone.
- Handling Inequalities: While social and economic inequalities can exist, they should meet two conditions:
- Fair Opportunity: Jobs and positions should be open to everyone, with fair opportunities for all.
- Benefit for the Least Advantaged: Inequalities should be arranged in a way that benefits the least advantaged people the most.
In essence, Rawls suggests that fairness in society requires equal rights, open opportunities, and ensuring that any inequalities serve to help those who are worse off.
1. Priority of Liberty: Rawls's first principle of justice is about the "priority of liberty." He argues that everyone should have maximum personal freedom, as long as everyone else can have the same level of freedom. This focus on liberty takes priority over economic or social considerations.
2. Liberty vs. Equality: According to Rawls, personal freedoms shouldn't be limited or compromised to achieve other goals, like economic equality. For instance, we shouldn't restrict people's freedom just to improve wealth distribution. This principle puts liberty above other societal goals.
3. Liberty's Unique Importance: Rawls sees liberty as fundamental, not just an extra benefit alongside things like wealth. This unique importance of personal liberty highlights how crucial freedom is in human life.
4. Balanced View: While Rawls's view on liberty may seem extreme, the general idea here is that liberty has a unique role in society—one that shouldn’t simply be traded off for material benefits. This broader idea of liberty is what the author will explore further in the book.
1. Rawls’s Second Principle: Rawls’s second principle of justice has two main parts, each focusing on different aspects of fairness within institutions.
2. Equal Opportunity: The first part emphasizes equal access to opportunities. It suggests that institutions should be designed so everyone, regardless of their background (like race, ethnicity, caste, or religion), has a fair chance at public opportunities, like jobs or education.
3. Difference Principle: The second part, known as the "Difference Principle," focuses on distributive fairness. This means that social and economic policies should help those who are worst off in society. The idea is to raise their well-being as much as possible, ensuring a more equitable society.
So, in short, the second principle seeks to create fair access for all and to improve the lives of society’s least advantaged.
1. Primary Goods: Rawls uses the concept of "primary goods" to determine how resources should be distributed. These are essential resources that help people achieve their goals and include:
- Rights and Liberties: Basic freedoms everyone should have.
- Opportunities: Equal chances to pursue various life paths.
- Income and Wealth: Financial resources to support a standard of living.
- Social Bases of Self-Respect: Social structures that help people feel valued.
2. Liberties as Resources: In this context, liberties are seen as resources that support other goals, unlike in Rawls’s first principle, where liberty is a priority. Here, liberties work alongside income and wealth as part of the means for people to pursue their aims.
3. Exclusions in Distribution: Rawls chooses not to consider certain claims, like those based on "merit" or "ownership" of property, in the distribution of resources. Instead, he focuses on equal access to primary goods for all, not on individual achievements or property ownership.
In short, Rawls’s approach emphasizes equal distribution of essential resources for everyone’s benefit, leaving out claims based on individual merit or ownership, to ensure fair opportunities for all.
In Rawls's view, differences in productivity (how much people contribute or produce) can lead to inequalities in wealth or income, but he sees these inequalities as acceptable if they benefit everyone, especially the least advantaged in society. This idea, known as the **Difference Principle**, means that it’s acceptable to give extra rewards to productive people if those rewards create incentives that ultimately help improve the living standards of the worst-off.
For example, higher pay for certain jobs could encourage skilled people to work harder or in areas that benefit society. This increased productivity can then lead to better overall resources, which could be used to improve conditions for those who are less advantage. However, in real life, not everyone acts purely out of a sense of justice. People often need incentives to work harder or take on challenging roles, so Rawls acknowledges that incentive-based inequalities are practical and can be justified within his framework if they serve the greater good, especially for the least privileged.
This discussion questions whether, in a truly just society envisioned by Rawls, incentives (like extra pay or rewards) are necessary to encourage people to work hard or contribute their best effort.
In the original position—a hypothetical situation where people decide on principles of justice without knowing their personal circumstances—participants might see incentives as unfair, viewing them as "bribes" to get people to work. If they agree that a just society shouldn't rely on incentives that create inequality, then logically, they would choose principles that encourage everyone to do their fair share without extra rewards.
Since Rawls assumes that, after agreeing on principles of justice in the original position, people would follow them naturally, the question arises: shouldn’t people, out of a sense of fairness, willingly do their part without needing incentives? This line of reasoning challenges the need for incentives at all, suggesting that if people are truly committed to justice, they might act responsibly and productively without additional motivation.
In short, if a society truly embodies fairness, shouldn't everyone contribute fairly without needing extra rewards? This question pushes at a tension in Rawls's theory: if people need incentives, maybe the ideal of a fully duty-oriented, just society is not fully attainable.
This passage highlights a challenge in Rawls's theory of justice. According to Rawls, once people agree on principles of justice in the "original position," they are expected to act on those principles voluntarily. However, Rawls allows for inequalities that arise from incentives—extra rewards to encourage people to work harder or be more productive—even though his theory generally opposes other forms of inequality. The question is why certain inequalities, like incentives, are permitted in a supposedly fair and just society.
CRITICISM
1. Central Role of Two Principles: Rawls’ process of social justice depends on two specific “principles of justice,” chosen in the first stage. These principles guide all further steps in creating a just society.
2. Skepticism about Uniqueness: The author is skeptical of Rawls’ idea that only one specific set of principles would emerge from the original position as the universal choice for justice.
3. Plural Views of Justice: Justice involves a range of different values and perspectives, which may sometimes conflict. This diversity makes it hard to assume one single set of principles can embody all aspects of justice.
4. Shared Traits in Other Principles: Other principles, not just Rawls’, can also reflect fairness and impartiality. Many of these could potentially serve as universal guidelines, a concept shared with Kant’s idea that moral rules should be applicable universally.
In essence, while Rawls’ approach is influential, there are other ways to define justice that may also meet fairness and impartiality.
1. Different Ways to Be Fair: Fairness or impartiality isn’t one-size-fits-all. Different principles can be unbiased in distinct ways, depending on what we prioritize in fairness.
2. Flute Example: Imagine three children arguing over who should get a flute. Each child has a different reason:
• One argues they can play the flute best, so it will be most useful with them.
• Another says they are the poorest and deserve it as a fair share.
• The third argues they made the flute and therefore deserve it.
3. Impartial Arguments: Each child’s argument is impartial in its own way:
• Effective Use and Utility: Choosing based on who can use it best.
• Economic Equity and Fair Distribution: Considering who has the least and could benefit the most.
• Entitlement: Rewarding effort by giving it to the one who created it.
4. Challenge to Rawls’ Theory: Because there are many valid, impartial ways to decide what is fair, it may be hard to say that only one set of principles should guide a just society. This challenges Rawls’ idea that his “two principles of justice” would be the only choice in a fair decision-making process.
5. Alternative Theories of Justice: Other thinkers, like John Roemer, also propose impartial theories of justice, showing that fairness can be approached from multiple angles.
RAWLS CONFLICTING IDEAS
1. Rawls’s Theory Relies on a Single Set of Justice Principles: Rawls’s original theory of “justice as fairness” depends on creating a fair society using a unique, agreed-upon set of justice principles chosen in an unbiased “original position.”
2. Doubt in a Single Solution: In his later thoughts, Rawls acknowledges that it might be impossible to get unanimous agreement on just one set of principles for everyone. This admission suggests a problem for his original theory.
3. A Conflict in Rawls’s Ideas: If there isn’t one clear set of principles everyone can agree on, then Rawls’s original structured, step-by-step approach might not work as he intended. However, he doesn’t entirely abandon his theory, even though he hints that getting everyone to agree on one set of principles might not be realistic.
4. Challenge to “Justice as Fairness”: This internal tension in his reasoning means that his “justice as fairness” theory faces a major challenge if it can’t rely on a single, shared understanding of justice.
Philosopher G.A. Cohen critiques this aspect of Rawls's theory, arguing that allowing incentives weakens Rawls's commitment to justice. Cohen believes that a truly just society should avoid inequalities, even those created for practical reasons like incentives. From Cohen’s perspective, justice should be a pure ideal, not compromised by practical concessions. Thus, Cohen sees Rawls’s allowance for incentives as a limitation on his theory's ability to represent true justice.
In essence, Cohen's critique questions whether incentives and justice can coexist, challenging whether Rawls's theory can fully embody the ideal of fairness if it still allows some inequalities.
This passage delves into the debate on whether a truly just society can avoid relying on incentives. Rawls suggests that in a fair society, people should act based on principles of justice agreed upon in the original position, without needing extra rewards to fulfill their roles. However, this assumption faces a practical challenge: expecting people to work hard without incentives might not be realistic.
G.A. Cohen argues that a perfectly just society would have no need for incentive-based inequalities because people would naturally perform their roles without needing rewards. However, achieving such an ideal might not be practical. Therefore, Cohen's vision of a "transcendental" (perfect and idealized) justice may be inspiring but not applicable in real-world scenarios.
Rawls’s approach, known as "justice as fairness," is more of a middle ground. It considers practical limitations by allowing incentives, acknowledging that people may not always act purely from a sense of duty. This middle ground, while less ideal than Cohen’s vision, is also more grounded in the realities of human behavior. The concept of “comparative justice” introduced here focuses on choosing the most just option within feasible, real-world conditions, rather than aiming for an unattainable ideal.
1. Rawls’ Evolving View: In his original work, Rawls believed a single set of justice principles would naturally come from his “original position” (an imagined situation where people choose principles of justice without personal bias). However, he later acknowledged that this idea could be too rigid.
2. Many Valid Considerations: In his later writings, Rawls admits that there could be many valid factors to consider when choosing principles of justice. Some reasons might support one view, while others support a different view.
3. Guided by Judgment: He suggests that, in the end, deciding on principles of justice involves informed judgment – careful reasoning guided by logic, even if complete agreement is hard to reach.
4. Perfection Isn’t Required: Rawls concedes that his idea of a perfectly just society might be unrealistic. However, this doesn’t mean we can’t reach strong, widely accepted ideas about justice, even if some disagreements remain.
IMPORTANCE OF THE THEORY
1. Rawls’s Contribution is Valuable: Even if we find problems with Rawls’s theory and might ultimately abandon it, his work has greatly helped us understand different parts of what justice means. His ideas have deeply influenced political philosophy and brought new insights.
2. Balance of Appreciation and Critique: It’s possible to both appreciate and criticize a theory at the same time. The writer feels that Rawls’s theory deserves respect for its contributions, even though it has issues.
3. A Shared View with Rawls: The writer suggests they would enjoy having Rawls’s agreement in seeing the theory of justice as both groundbreaking and open to critical analysis.
In other words, the writer admires Rawls’s theory for its impact on thinking about justice, even though they believe it has flaws.
STRENGTH OF RAWLSIAN THEORY
1. Fairness as the Foundation of Justice: Rawls argues that justice must be based on fairness. This idea prioritizes equal treatment and opportunity for everyone, setting it apart from earlier theories like utilitarianism, which focused more on maximizing overall happiness rather than individual fairness.
2. Objectivity in Practical Reasoning: Rawls emphasizes that a fair society needs a shared framework for objective reasoning. This framework allows people to make judgments and reach conclusions based on reason, evidence, and open discussion, ensuring fairness in decisions.
3. The ‘Original Position’ and Impartiality: Even though Rawls’ “original position” (a hypothetical situation where individuals decide principles of justice without knowing their social status) has limitations, it highlights the need for impartiality. This idea encourages people to think beyond personal biases when considering justice for all.
4. Public Framework of Thought: Rawls stresses that justice requires a public way of thinking. It’s not just about individual beliefs but building a shared understanding of what is just, based on evidence and reasoning that everyone can engage with.
5. Moral Powers Beyond Self-Interest: Rawls highlights that people have “moral powers,” which include a sense of justice and the ability to understand what is good, beyond just looking out for self-interest. This challenges the narrow view of rational choice theory, which often assumes people only care about their own gains.
6. Distinction Between Rational and Reasonable: Rawls makes a helpful distinction between “rational” (thinking only about self-interest) and “reasonable” (considering fairness and justice). This distinction shows that justice involves more than just logical self-interest; it requires an openness to fairness.
7. Liberty as a Fundamental Priority: Rawls emphasizes liberty as a separate and essential concern in justice, beyond just being one of many benefits. Liberty, including freedoms like speech and thought, is seen as vital for individual freedom and for the collective ability to reason and evaluate society fairly.
8. The Unique Importance of Liberty: By prioritizing liberty, Rawls highlights that it’s more than a helpful asset, like income or health. Liberty is a central right essential for personal autonomy and public reasoning, making it a core aspect of a just society. This is why, historically, people have fought to protect their freedoms.
9. Fairness in Processes, Not Just Outcomes: Rawls emphasizes that fairness isn’t only about the final result (like wealth or status) but also about how people are treated throughout. He draws attention to “procedural fairness,” which means people shouldn’t be excluded from opportunities or positions based on race, color, or gender. This adds depth to the conversation about inequality by focusing on fair treatment at every step.
10. Helping the Worst-Off: Rawls’ “difference principle” says that when structuring society, we should pay special attention to those who are worst-off. His focus on reducing poverty, by addressing people’s lack of essential resources (or “primary goods” like income, basic rights, and freedoms), has greatly influenced policies aimed at lifting people out of poverty.
11. Freedom as a Real Opportunity, Not Just Formal Rights: Rawls acknowledges the importance of “primary goods,” which are resources that help people achieve their goals. But beyond having access to resources, Rawls suggests that true freedom is about having real, meaningful opportunities to live as we choose. This emphasis on genuine freedom has helped pave the way for thinking about justice in terms of people’s actual abilities and life opportunities, not just their formal rights.
Overall, these discussions show that Rawls’ approach to justice is about fairness, objective reasoning, impartiality, moral reasoning, liberty, beyond simple self-interest, fair processes, a focus on helping those most in need, and ensuring people have real opportunities, not just theoretical ones, to live fulfilling lives. and public discourse are essential to achieving true justice in society.
Some important problems with Rawls’ approach that can be addressed effectively without departing from his core ideas:
1. Over-Prioritization of Liberty: Rawls places liberty above all other needs, meaning even serious issues like hunger and medical neglect are considered less important than certain freedoms. Critics, like philosopher Herbert Hart, argue this approach is too extreme. A more balanced approach would still value liberty but allow basic needs to be prioritized in some cases, so liberty isn’t always seen as more important than critical issues like survival and health.
2. Different Abilities to Use Resources: Rawls’ approach assumes everyone can use resources (or “primary goods”) in the same way. However, people have different abilities and needs—e.g., someone with a disability or a pregnant woman might need more resources to achieve the same level of well-being as someone else. This means we should not only consider resources but also focus on people’s actual ability to turn those resources into meaningful opportunities, or “capabilities.”
3. Shifting Focus to Capabilities: Rawls’ focus on primary goods is indirectly meant to support human freedom. But, by focusing directly on “capabilities”—the real freedom to do what one values—we could improve this approach without abandoning Rawls’ main goal. This adjustment would ensure people have real opportunities that consider their individual circumstances.
Rawls’ focus on behavior and institutions:
1. Focus on Just Institutions: In Rawls’ theory, the main focus is on creating “just institutions” through social agreements. He’s more concerned with setting up fair structures rather than defining how people should behave in a just society.
2. Principles of Justice for Institutions: Rawls suggests that a fair society starts with agreeing on basic principles that regulate institutions. His approach is to create a “basic structure” that people agree on, which aims to ensure fairness for the future.
3. Influence of Institutions on People: Rawls believes that just institutions shape people’s behaviors, goals, and character. By focusing on fair institutions, he argues that people within that structure will naturally become aligned with justice over time.
4. Primary Subject of Justice: For Rawls, the fundamental element of justice is the structure of society, not individual actions. He believes that a fair system influences people in ways that promote justice throughout society.
the niti-centered approach (focused on rules and institutions) and the nyaya-based approach (focused on social outcomes and real-life impact) to justice:
Niti vs. Nyaya:
• Niti focuses on having just rules, laws, and institutions in place to create justice.
• Nyaya goes further by focusing on the real-world outcomes of those rules and institutions—what actually happens to people and whether justice is truly realized in their lives.
2. Importance of Social Outcomes in Nyaya:
• The nyaya-based approach values the actual impact of institutions on people’s lives. It looks at whether justice is achieved through real-life consequences, not just through the existence of fair institutions.
• This means a nyaya approach pays attention to how society actually functions, considering both the rules and the effects on people.
3. Concerns about Real Behavior Patterns:
• Even if fair institutions are chosen by mutual agreement, how people behave within those institutions might vary. This could affect whether justice is truly achieved.
• The nyaya approach asks: what happens if people’s behavior doesn’t fully align with the fair rules? Will justice still be achieved in reality?
4. Challenge of Reasonable Behavior:
• Rawls argued that for society to work well, people must behave “reasonably”—meaning they should generally follow fair rules and norms.
• However, Rawls also acknowledges that it’s hard to expect everyone in society to act reasonably all the time. This is a limitation of relying solely on niti (just institutions) without considering how people actually behave in practice, as nyaya does.
Ideas on justice, institutions, and behaviour
1. Justice Depends on Institutions and Behavior:
• Justice in a society is based not only on fair institutions but also on how people actually behave and other factors that influence social outcomes.
• Simply agreeing on principles of justice doesn’t automatically mean those principles will work effectively in the real world.
2. Can Institutions Be Fair on Their Own?:
• The question arises: Can we identify “just” institutions without considering how people actually behave within them? For example, can a set of rules be truly just if people don’t act in line with them?
• Even if people accept certain principles as the “right” ones for justice, that doesn’t guarantee that the institutions alone will create a just society.
3. Justice and Behavior Evolve Gradually:
• Achieving justice involves gradually building behavior patterns. People won’t immediately start acting perfectly just because new principles or institutions are introduced.
• The process of forming a just society includes slowly aligning people’s actions with the accepted principles of justice over time.
4. Choosing Institutions That Match Society’s Nature:
• Institutions should be chosen based on the unique characteristics of a society and the likely behaviors of its people, not just an ideal version of justice.
• Even with a common idea of what justice looks like, institutions must be designed with real behavior patterns in mind.
5. Rawls’s Approach and its Limitations:
• Rawls’s system combines choosing just institutions with hoping that people will behave reasonably in line with those institutions. This makes behavior and institutions closely linked to a type of “political ethics.”
• However, this approach simplifies the complex task of achieving justice, as it doesn’t fully address the gap between ideal behaviour and real world actions.
CONTRACTARIAN VIEW
1. Contractarian Reasoning: Rawls uses ‘contractarian’ reasoning, which asks what kind of social contract individuals would agree to in a hypothetical scenario called the original position.
2. Original Position: In the original position, people are behind a “veil of ignorance,” meaning they do not know their social status, wealth, abilities, or personal circumstances. This ensures impartiality in decision-making.
3. Justice as Fairness: Rawls’s theory, justice as fairness, is based on the idea that in the original position, individuals would choose principles that guarantee fairness and equality for all, as they wouldn’t want to create a system that might disadvantage them.
4. Kantian Influence: Rawls’s method follows the Kantian tradition, which emphasizes universal moral reasoning and autonomy. In Rawls’s view, people would choose universally just principles that they could rationally endorse regardless of their position in society.
5. Connection to Social Contract Theory: Rawls seeks to modernize and abstract the traditional social contract theories of Locke, Rousseau, and Kant. He describes his theory as a generalization of these earlier theories, with a focus on creating a fair system for all members of society.
6. Principles of Justice: Rawls argues that the individuals in the original position would agree to two key principles—equal basic liberties for all and socioeconomic inequalities allowed only if they benefit the least advantaged members of society.
RAWLS VS UTILITARIAN
In this passage, Rawls is comparing his contractarian approach to justice with the utilitarian tradition. The key differences are:
1. Contractarian vs. Utilitarian Reasoning:
• Contractarian Reasoning (Rawls): This method, based on social contract theory, asks what principles individuals would choose to govern society if they were in the ‘original position’ (behind a veil of ignorance). The focus is on fairness and ensuring just outcomes for all individuals, especially the least advantaged.
• Utilitarian Tradition: Utilitarianism focuses on maximizing the total good or happiness summed across all members of society. It aims to produce the greatest overall good, as specified by a comprehensive moral doctrine.
2. Rawls’s Critique of Utilitarianism: Rawls critiques utilitarianism for its focus on the sum-total of good, arguing that it can lead to unjust outcomes for some individuals, as it prioritizes aggregate welfare over fairness to each person. Rawls’s contractarian model instead emphasizes equal consideration and fairness for all, not just maximizing total good.
RAWLS VS SMITH
3. Neglect of Other Approaches: While Rawls draws a clear distinction between contractarian and utilitarian reasoning, this focus leads him to neglect other approaches to justice. For example, Adam Smith’s concept of the ‘impartial spectator’ presents a different framework for judging justice and fairness, one that does not rely on social contracts or maximizing the sum of utilities.
4. Adam Smith’s ‘Impartial Spectator’: Smith’s approach involves imagining an impartial observer who makes judgments based on fairness and moral sentiments. This model, unlike Rawls’s or the utilitarian one, does not rely on a social contract or the maximization of overall good, but on fairness from the perspective of a neutral party.
In sum, while Rawls contrasts his theory with utilitarianism, he does not fully explore alternative models like Adam Smith’s ‘impartial spectator’ that offer different pathways to understanding justice beyond contractarianism and utilitarianism.
The passage outlines how Adam Smith’s idea of the ‘impartial spectator’ offers possibilities for addressing fairness that are not readily available in Rawls’s contractarian approach. These differences include:
1. Comparative Assessment vs. Transcendental Solutions:
• Smith’s impartial spectator allows for comparative assessments of different social arrangements, not just identifying an ideal, “perfect” solution to justice.
• Rawls’s contractarian reasoning, focused on identifying a single, ideal social contract, may struggle with nuanced, real-world comparisons between imperfect situations.
2. Social Realizations vs. Institutional Rules:
• The impartial spectator approach considers actual social outcomes and how justice is realized in practice, not just what institutions and rules demand.
• Rawls’s focus is more on designing just institutions and rules, but this may overlook how they operate in real-life social contexts.
3. Incompleteness but Practical Guidance:
• Smith’s model accepts that social assessments might be incomplete but can still provide valuable guidance on urgent problems of justice, such as eliminating clear injustices.
• Rawls’s theory seeks a comprehensive solution, which may not always accommodate incomplete assessments but can overlook practical, immediate injustices that need addressing.
4. Considering Voices Beyond the Contractarian Group:
• The impartial spectator can consider the interests of those outside the specific group involved in the social contract, addressing issues of global justice or avoiding local biases.
• Rawls’s contractarian approach is limited to the agreement of those within the society under consideration, potentially ignoring the perspectives and needs of outsiders or marginalized groups.
In summary, Smith’s impartial spectator provides flexibility in assessing social justice by focusing on practical realities, global perspectives, and immediate injustices, which Rawls’s more abstract, rule-oriented contractarian approach may not fully accommodate.
1. Limited Scope of Rawls’s Social Contract:
• In Rawls’s idea of justice, the social contract only applies to members of a particular group or country. It’s mainly about justice within a nation-state or similar political community.
2. Global Justice Debate:
• Some thinkers, like Thomas Pogge, suggest expanding Rawls’s idea to create a global social contract, which would involve setting up fair institutions for the entire world.
3. Problems with a World Government:
• Creating just institutions for the whole world would likely require some form of world government, but this idea is highly controversial and faces many practical challenges.
• Thinkers like Thomas Nagel are skeptical about the possibility of achieving global justice through such a system.
In essence, while Rawls’s model works for nations, extending it globally raises complex issues that many philosophers question.
1. Global Impact of a Country’s Actions:
What a country does affects other parts of the world. For example, things like terrorism or wars (like the US invasion of Iraq) have global consequences.
2. Influence of Local Beliefs:
Each country may have its own narrow (parochial) beliefs, but these should be examined from a global perspective. Looking at how other countries handle issues can help broaden understanding.
3. Importance of Global Comparison:
Comparing globally is crucial to question facts and values, like women’s rights, torture, or capital punishment, which may be seen differently in different countries.
4. Rawlsian Fairness Focus:
Rawls’s idea of fairness focuses on individual interests and priorities within one society, but to overcome local biases and narrow views,
1. Rawls’ Social Contract Method:
• Rawls uses a “contractarian” method to investigate justice, asking what kind of social contract everyone would accept in an “original position” (a hypothetical situation where people don’t know their place in society).
• This method follows the tradition of thinkers like Kant, Locke, and Rousseau, focusing on creating just institutions.
2. Comparison with Utilitarianism:
• Rawls compares his social contract method with utilitarianism, which seeks to maximize the overall good of all individuals in society.
• Rawls believes his approach is different because it doesn’t just aim for the most good for everyone but focuses on fairness through agreed-upon principles.
3. Rawls’ Narrow Focus:
• Rawls mainly contrasts his method with utilitarianism, but he does not explore other approaches, like Adam Smith’s idea of the “impartial spectator.”
• Smith’s impartial spectator method focuses on fairness and judging justice based on impartiality, not through a social contract or maximizing utility.
4. Smith’s Impartial Spectator Method:
• Sen suggests that Adam Smith’s approach could address issues that Rawls’ method does not. These include:
1. Comparative assessment: Evaluating different societies and not just looking for a perfect solution.
2. Social outcomes: Considering what actually happens in society, not just focusing on rules and institutions.
3. Handling incomplete assessments: Providing guidance even when full justice isn’t achieved, especially in addressing clear injustices.
4. Global perspectives: Taking into account voices from outside the group involved in the social contract, preventing a narrow, local viewpoint.
5. Limits of the Rawlsian Social Contract:
• Rawls’ method is limited to the people of a particular society or country (like a nation-state).
• If we want to apply Rawls’ principles globally, it would require a worldwide social contract or world government, which is very challenging.
• Some thinkers, like Thomas Nagel, are skeptical about whether global justice is even possible.
6. Global Influences on National Justice:
• Despite these limits, what happens outside a country still affects justice inside that country for two main reasons:
1. Global consequences of national actions: A country’s actions, such as terrorism or military invasions (like the US-led invasion of Iraq), impact the whole world.
2. Parochial beliefs need global scrutiny: Every country has its own narrow beliefs that should be examined from a global perspective to ensure they are fair. Global experiences can challenge local biases, such as on women’s rights or capital punishment.
7. Rawlsian Focus on Fairness:
• Rawls focuses on fairness by addressing the differing interests and priorities of individuals in a society.
• However, addressing local biases and vested interests requires more investigation, which Sen says will be explored in later chapters of his book.
This comment reflects a deep appreciation for Rawls’ contributions to the theory of justice, particularly his analysis of fairness, justice, institutions, and behavior. It acknowledges that Rawls’ work has significantly shaped our understanding of these concepts and remains influential. However, it also stresses the need for progress beyond Rawls’ framework.
Key points in the comment:
1. Rawls’ Contribution:
• Rawls has profoundly illuminated our understanding of justice, especially through his concept of fairness and his theory of institutions.
• His ideas have been instrumental in developing the theory of justice.
2. Avoiding Intellectual Stagnation:
• While Rawls’ work is important, we should not treat his ideas as the final or only way of understanding justice.
• The phrase “intellectual stand-still” suggests that sticking solely to Rawls’ framework without considering new ideas or challenges can limit the progress of justice theory.
3. Need for Further Development:
• The reference to “justitia” (justice) rather than “justitium” (pause or standstill) emphasizes that the pursuit of justice is an ongoing process.
• It suggests that we must continue to develop and evolve our understanding of justice, building on Rawls’ ideas but not treating them as the ultimate or unchangeable solution.
4. Moving Beyond Rawls:
• The comment encourages further exploration and adaptation of justice theory, implying that Rawls’ insights provide a foundation from which new ideas should emerge.
• This reflects a dynamic and evolving understanding of justice, rather than a static one.
In essence, while Rawls’ analysis is invaluable, the pursuit of justice should be continuous, adaptive, and open to new perspectives rather than relying solely on one framework.
Here are some important problems with Rawls’ approach that can be addressed effectively without departing from his core ideas:
1. Over-Prioritization of Liberty: Rawls places liberty above all other needs, meaning even serious issues like hunger and medical neglect are considered less important than certain freedoms. Critics, like philosopher Herbert Hart, argue this approach is too extreme. A more balanced approach would still value liberty but allow basic needs to be prioritized in some cases, so liberty isn’t always seen as more important than critical issues like survival and health.
2. Different Abilities to Use Resources: Rawls’ approach assumes everyone can use resources (or “primary goods”) in the same way. However, people have different abilities and needs—e.g., someone with a disability or a pregnant woman might need more resources to achieve the same level of well-being as someone else. This means we should not only consider resources but also focus on people’s actual ability to turn those resources into meaningful opportunities, or “capabilities.”
3. Shifting Focus to Capabilities: Rawls’ focus on primary goods is indirectly meant to support human freedom. But, by focusing directly on “capabilities”—the real freedom to do what one values—we could improve this approach without abandoning Rawls’ main goal. This adjustment would ensure people have real opportunities that consider their individual circumstances.
Rawls’ focus on behavior and institutions:
1. Focus on Just Institutions: In Rawls’ theory, the main focus is on creating “just institutions” through social agreements. He’s more concerned with setting up fair structures rather than defining how people should behave in a just society.
2. Principles of Justice for Institutions: Rawls suggests that a fair society starts with agreeing on basic principles that regulate institutions. His approach is to create a “basic structure” that people agree on, which aims to ensure fairness for the future.
3. Influence of Institutions on People: Rawls believes that just institutions shape people’s behaviors, goals, and character. By focusing on fair institutions, he argues that people within that structure will naturally become aligned with justice over time.
4. Primary Subject of Justice: For Rawls, the fundamental element of justice is the structure of society, not individual actions. He believes that a fair system influences people in ways that promote justice throughout society.
Breakdown of the comparison between the niti-centered approach (focused on rules and institutions) and the nyaya-based approach (focused on social outcomes and real-life impact) to justice:
1. Niti vs. Nyaya:
• Niti focuses on having just rules, laws, and institutions in place to create justice.
• Nyaya goes further by focusing on the real-world outcomes of those rules and institutions—what actually happens to people and whether justice is truly realized in their lives.
2. Importance of Social Outcomes in Nyaya:
• The nyaya-based approach values the actual impact of institutions on people’s lives. It looks at whether justice is achieved through real-life consequences, not just through the existence of fair institutions.
• This means a nyaya approach pays attention to how society actually functions, considering both the rules and the effects on people.
3. Concerns about Real Behavior Patterns:
• Even if fair institutions are chosen by mutual agreement, how people behave within those institutions might vary. This could affect whether justice is truly achieved.
• The nyaya approach asks: what happens if people’s behavior doesn’t fully align with the fair rules? Will justice still be achieved in reality?
4. Challenge of Reasonable Behavior:
• Rawls argued that for society to work well, people must behave “reasonably”—meaning they should generally follow fair rules and norms.
• However, Rawls also acknowledges that it’s hard to expect everyone in society to act reasonably all the time. This is a limitation of relying solely on niti (just institutions) without considering how people actually behave in practice, as nyaya does.
Ideas on justice, institutions, and behavior from this passage:
1. Justice Depends on Institutions and Behavior:
• Justice in a society is based not only on fair institutions but also on how people actually behave and other factors that influence social outcomes.
• Simply agreeing on principles of justice doesn’t automatically mean those principles will work effectively in the real world.
2. Can Institutions Be Fair on Their Own?:
• The question arises: Can we identify “just” institutions without considering how people actually behave within them? For example, can a set of rules be truly just if people don’t act in line with them?
• Even if people accept certain principles as the “right” ones for justice, that doesn’t guarantee that the institutions alone will create a just society.
3. Justice and Behavior Evolve Gradually:
• Achieving justice involves gradually building behavior patterns. People won’t immediately start acting perfectly just because new principles or institutions are introduced.
• The process of forming a just society includes slowly aligning people’s actions with the accepted principles of justice over time.
4. Choosing Institutions That Match Society’s Nature:
• Institutions should be chosen based on the unique characteristics of a society and the likely behaviors of its people, not just an ideal version of justice.
• Even with a common idea of what justice looks like, institutions must be designed with real behavior patterns in mind.
5. Rawls’s Approach and its Limitations:
• Rawls’s system combines choosing just institutions with hoping that people will behave reasonably in line with those institutions. This makes behavior and institutions closely linked to a type of “political ethics.”
• However, this approach simplifies the complex task of achieving justice, as it doesn’t fully address the gap between ideal behaviour and real world actions.
CONTRACTARIAN VIEW
1. Contractarian Reasoning: Rawls uses ‘contractarian’ reasoning, which asks what kind of social contract individuals would agree to in a hypothetical scenario called the original position.
2. Original Position: In the original position, people are behind a “veil of ignorance,” meaning they do not know their social status, wealth, abilities, or personal circumstances. This ensures impartiality in decision-making.
3. Justice as Fairness: Rawls’s theory, justice as fairness, is based on the idea that in the original position, individuals would choose principles that guarantee fairness and equality for all, as they wouldn’t want to create a system that might disadvantage them.
4. Kantian Influence: Rawls’s method follows the Kantian tradition, which emphasizes universal moral reasoning and autonomy. In Rawls’s view, people would choose universally just principles that they could rationally endorse regardless of their position in society.
5. Connection to Social Contract Theory: Rawls seeks to modernize and abstract the traditional social contract theories of Locke, Rousseau, and Kant. He describes his theory as a generalization of these earlier theories, with a focus on creating a fair system for all members of society.
6. Principles of Justice: Rawls argues that the individuals in the original position would agree to two key principles—equal basic liberties for all and socioeconomic inequalities allowed only if they benefit the least advantaged members of society.
RAWLS VS UTILITARIAN
In this passage, Rawls is comparing his contractarian approach to justice with the utilitarian tradition. The key differences are:
1. Contractarian vs. Utilitarian Reasoning:
• Contractarian Reasoning (Rawls): This method, based on social contract theory, asks what principles individuals would choose to govern society if they were in the ‘original position’ (behind a veil of ignorance). The focus is on fairness and ensuring just outcomes for all individuals, especially the least advantaged.
• Utilitarian Tradition: Utilitarianism focuses on maximizing the total good or happiness summed across all members of society. It aims to produce the greatest overall good, as specified by a comprehensive moral doctrine.
2. Rawls’s Critique of Utilitarianism: Rawls critiques utilitarianism for its focus on the sum-total of good, arguing that it can lead to unjust outcomes for some individuals, as it prioritizes aggregate welfare over fairness to each person. Rawls’s contractarian model instead emphasizes equal consideration and fairness for all, not just maximizing total good.
RAWLS VS SMITH
3. Neglect of Other Approaches: While Rawls draws a clear distinction between contractarian and utilitarian reasoning, this focus leads him to neglect other approaches to justice. For example, Adam Smith’s concept of the ‘impartial spectator’ presents a different framework for judging justice and fairness, one that does not rely on social contracts or maximizing the sum of utilities.
4. Adam Smith’s ‘Impartial Spectator’: Smith’s approach involves imagining an impartial observer who makes judgments based on fairness and moral sentiments. This model, unlike Rawls’s or the utilitarian one, does not rely on a social contract or the maximization of overall good, but on fairness from the perspective of a neutral party.
In sum, while Rawls contrasts his theory with utilitarianism, he does not fully explore alternative models like Adam Smith’s ‘impartial spectator’ that offer different pathways to understanding justice beyond contractarianism and utilitarianism.
The passage outlines how Adam Smith’s idea of the ‘impartial spectator’ offers possibilities for addressing fairness that are not readily available in Rawls’s contractarian approach. These differences include:
1. Comparative Assessment vs. Transcendental Solutions:
• Smith’s impartial spectator allows for comparative assessments of different social arrangements, not just identifying an ideal, “perfect” solution to justice.
• Rawls’s contractarian reasoning, focused on identifying a single, ideal social contract, may struggle with nuanced, real-world comparisons between imperfect situations.
2. Social Realizations vs. Institutional Rules:
• The impartial spectator approach considers actual social outcomes and how justice is realized in practice, not just what institutions and rules demand.
• Rawls’s focus is more on designing just institutions and rules, but this may overlook how they operate in real-life social contexts.
3. Incompleteness but Practical Guidance:
• Smith’s model accepts that social assessments might be incomplete but can still provide valuable guidance on urgent problems of justice, such as eliminating clear injustices.
• Rawls’s theory seeks a comprehensive solution, which may not always accommodate incomplete assessments but can overlook practical, immediate injustices that need addressing.
4. Considering Voices Beyond the Contractarian Group:
• The impartial spectator can consider the interests of those outside the specific group involved in the social contract, addressing issues of global justice or avoiding local biases.
• Rawls’s contractarian approach is limited to the agreement of those within the society under consideration, potentially ignoring the perspectives and needs of outsiders or marginalized groups.
In summary, Smith’s impartial spectator provides flexibility in assessing social justice by focusing on practical realities, global perspectives, and immediate injustices, which Rawls’s more abstract, rule-oriented contractarian approach may not fully accommodate.
1. Limited Scope of Rawls’s Social Contract:
• In Rawls’s idea of justice, the social contract only applies to members of a particular group or country. It’s mainly about justice within a nation-state or similar political community.
2. Global Justice Debate:
• Some thinkers, like Thomas Pogge, suggest expanding Rawls’s idea to create a global social contract, which would involve setting up fair institutions for the entire world.
3. Problems with a World Government:
• Creating just institutions for the whole world would likely require some form of world government, but this idea is highly controversial and faces many practical challenges.
• Thinkers like Thomas Nagel are skeptical about the possibility of achieving global justice through such a system.
In essence, while Rawls’s model works for nations, extending it globally raises complex issues that many philosophers question.
1. Global Impact of a Country’s Actions:
What a country does affects other parts of the world. For example, things like terrorism or wars (like the US invasion of Iraq) have global consequences.
2. Influence of Local Beliefs:
Each country may have its own narrow (parochial) beliefs, but these should be examined from a global perspective. Looking at how other countries handle issues can help broaden understanding.
3. Importance of Global Comparison:
Comparing globally is crucial to question facts and values, like women’s rights, torture, or capital punishment, which may be seen differently in different countries.
4. Rawlsian Fairness Focus:
Rawls’s idea of fairness focuses on individual interests and priorities within one society, but to overcome local biases and narrow views, we need a broader investigation, which will be explored later.
1. Global Impact of a Country’s Actions:
What a country does affects other parts of the world. For example, things like terrorism or wars (like the US invasion of Iraq) have global consequences.
2. Influence of Local Beliefs:
Each country may have its own narrow (parochial) beliefs, but these should be examined from a global perspective. Looking at how other countries handle issues can help broaden understanding.
3. Importance of Global Comparison:
Comparing globally is crucial to question facts and values, like women’s rights, torture, or capital punishment, which may be seen differently in different countries.
4. Rawlsian Fairness Focus:
Rawls’s idea of fairness focuses on individual interests and priorities within one society, but to overcome local biases and narrow views, we need a broader investigation, which will be explored later.
1. Rawls’ Social Contract Method:
• Rawls uses a “contractarian” method to investigate justice, asking what kind of social contract everyone would accept in an “original position” (a hypothetical situation where people don’t know their place in society).
• This method follows the tradition of thinkers like Kant, Locke, and Rousseau, focusing on creating just institutions.
2. Comparison with Utilitarianism:
• Rawls compares his social contract method with utilitarianism, which seeks to maximize the overall good of all individuals in society.
• Rawls believes his approach is different because it doesn’t just aim for the most good for everyone but focuses on fairness through agreed-upon principles.
3. Rawls’ Narrow Focus:
• Rawls mainly contrasts his method with utilitarianism, but he does not explore other approaches, like Adam Smith’s idea of the “impartial spectator.”
• Smith’s impartial spectator method focuses on fairness and judging justice based on impartiality, not through a social contract or maximizing utility.
4. Smith’s Impartial Spectator Method:
• Sen suggests that Adam Smith’s approach could address issues that Rawls’ method does not. These include:
1. Comparative assessment: Evaluating different societies and not just looking for a perfect solution.
2. Social outcomes: Considering what actually happens in society, not just focusing on rules and institutions.
3. Handling incomplete assessments: Providing guidance even when full justice isn’t achieved, especially in addressing clear injustices.
4. Global perspectives: Taking into account voices from outside the group involved in the social contract, preventing a narrow, local viewpoint.
5. Limits of the Rawlsian Social Contract:
• Rawls’ method is limited to the people of a particular society or country (like a nation-state).
• If we want to apply Rawls’ principles globally, it would require a worldwide social contract or world government, which is very challenging.
• Some thinkers, like Thomas Nagel, are skeptical about whether global justice is even possible.
6. Global Influences on National Justice:
• Despite these limits, what happens outside a country still affects justice inside that country for two main reasons:
1. Global consequences of national actions: A country’s actions, such as terrorism or military invasions (like the US-led invasion of Iraq), impact the whole world.
2. Parochial beliefs need global scrutiny: Every country has its own narrow beliefs that should be examined from a global perspective to ensure they are fair. Global experiences can challenge local biases, such as on women’s rights or capital punishment.
7. Rawlsian Focus on Fairness:
• Rawls focuses on fairness by addressing the differing interests and priorities of individuals in a society.
• However, addressing local biases and vested interests requires more investigation, which Sen says will be explored in later chapters of his book.
This comment reflects a deep appreciation for Rawls’ contributions to the theory of justice, particularly his analysis of fairness, justice, institutions, and behavior. It acknowledges that Rawls’ work has significantly shaped our understanding of these concepts and remains influential. However, it also stresses the need for progress beyond Rawls’ framework.
Key points in the comment:
1. Rawls’ Contribution:
• Rawls has profoundly illuminated our understanding of justice, especially through his concept of fairness and his theory of institutions.
• His ideas have been instrumental in developing the theory of justice.
2. Avoiding Intellectual Stagnation:
• While Rawls’ work is important, we should not treat his ideas as the final or only way of understanding justice.
• The phrase “intellectual stand-still” suggests that sticking solely to Rawls’ framework without considering new ideas or challenges can limit the progress of justice theory.
3. Need for Further Development:
• The reference to “justitia” (justice) rather than “justitium” (pause or standstill) emphasizes that the pursuit of justice is an ongoing process.
• It suggests that we must continue to develop and evolve our understanding of justice, building on Rawls’ ideas but not treating them as the ultimate or unchangeable solution.
4. Moving Beyond Rawls:
• The comment encourages further exploration and adaptation of justice theory, implying that Rawls’ insights provide a foundation from which new ideas should emerge.
• This reflects a dynamic and evolving understanding of justice, rather than a static one.
In essence, while Rawls’ analysis is invaluable, the pursuit of justice should be continuous, adaptive, and open to new perspectives rather than relying solely on one framework.
No comments:
Post a Comment