An Analysis of the Theory of Justice by John Rawls

An Analysis of the Theory of Justice by John Rawls

Introduction

Benjamin Franklin once wrote: “justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are.” To apply the concept of justice, imagine a scenario where you have total amnesia about your what characteristizes you, gender, race, sexual orientation, personality, talent, education, socioeconomic standing, and most importantly -- your morality. After eliminating all of your personal biases and prejudices, suppose that you are to be born, without knowing to whom, where, and with what characteristics, and that together with a congregation of amnesiacs like yourself, you are called upon as jury to negotiate and agree on the political and economic constitutions of society in which all of you will be born, unknowing of the circumstances of your birth. 

Each individual deliberates behind a “veil of ignorance” to answer the question: what kind of society would you choose to exist in such that your basic rights and liberties are met with the hope of a fulfilling existence? Such is the remarkable thought experiment conducted by John Rawls known as the “original position” (Huang et al., 2019). I argue that Rawls’ Theory of Justice, based on this thought experiment, presents a strong and compelling argument on the account of a just society, such that its adoption in institutional form would make society function better.

Before we can consider the arguments of the Theory of Justice, it is important to define what is meant by justice in a liberal society, and therefore what constitutes a “just society”, and what it means for it to be “functioning better”. In a Rawlsian view, justice is constructed as fairness “around specific interpretations of the ideas that citizens are free and equal, and that society should be fair” (Wenar). Unlike the current social arrangement, where social and economic inequalities contribute to status hierarchies, and where such inequalities encourage the attitudes of inferiority and superiority amongst citizens, Rawls’ view of justice as fairness is predicated on the philosophies of egalitarian liberalism which express that “citizens relate to each other as equals within a social order defined by reciprocity” (Wenar).

 In an institutional form, Justice as fairness “aims to describe a just arrangement of the major political and social institutions of a liberal society: the political constitution, the legal system, the economy, the family, and so on” (Wenar). Rawls argues the arrangement of these institutions has profound effects on the lives of its citizens. Therefore, interference with and regulation of these institutions is necessary – especially the market economy because “rational people in the original position would want to guarantee themselves at least a decent standard of living” (Kosub, 16). Since a society’s basic structure influences not only its citizens’ attitudes and characters, but also their prospects in life, such institutions require justification. 

In contrast, Robert Nozick holds a different view of justice known as the entitlement theory. He rejects Rawls distributive justice as a patterned theory, proposing instead that “the minimal state is the most extensive state that can be justified. Any state more extensive violates people’s rights” (Nozick). In his views, the state only acts in a manner necessary to protect the holdings of citizens against fraud, theft, and violence without further interference to the market or institutions such that it would make society fairer according to other standards of fairness. 

In the current state of our society, there are conflicts caused by economic inequality which lead to higher rates of health and social problems. In this perspective, the least advantaged lack a sense of freedom or access to resources that may be available to different social classes. Nozick’s view would worsen such conditions by making the rich exploit the poor in the community (Coker 2021). By Nozick’s view, it would become possible to monopolize the protection agencies – or the state, in favor of the wealthy to protect their rights. After evaluating both Nozick and Rawls’ views of justice, I would argue that Rawls’ distributive justice would construct a fairer society that would maximize the minimum level of wealth and benefits for its citizens. In other words, it would also maximize utility therefore making society function better. 

The Theory of justice

Motivated by his objections to utilitarianism, John Rawls first published his Theory of Justice in 1971 as a moral theory alternative to utilitarianism, which was the dominant theory in application.  Rawls pointed out that utilitarianism was flawed in its approach to justice since the principle of maximum utility permitted scenarios which would be obviously morally objectionable. For example, if 10% of the population was enslaved to the benefit of the rest of the 90% of the population, it would be permitted by utilitarian principles because It would benefit the majority over the minority. Rawls, and similarly Nozick, both critique the utilitarian who holds that “by parity of reasoning it is rational for a member of society to incur costs for herself (or to forego benefits for herself) if doing so will spare any member of society greater costs (or provide any member of society with greater benefits)” (Mack). In other words, each person in a society “has reason to maximize the aggregate social good even at the expense of the individual good of herself” (Mack). By that logic, some individuals are treated as a means to an end rather than ends in themselves. 

As a response to these objections of utilitarianism, Rawls developed his Theory of Justice in which justice depicts a scheme of fairness. Among the four cardinal virtues of ethics, Rawls argues that justice is the most important, and that “if we hold that justice is primary, that the welfare of the many cannot trump the basic rights nor an equitable share of society’s goods” (Kosub, 3). He holds the view that basic rights and liberties must be protected which secure the interest of all citizens. As such, Rawls argues that any rational being behind the veil of ignorance would agree upon the two principles outlined in his Theory of Justice: the principle of equal liberty, and the difference principle which are given institutional form.

The first principle, the principle of equal liberty states that “each person has the same indefeasible claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme of liberties for all” (Wenar). Rawls’ first principle gives importance to the equal rights and liberties for all which is to be embodied in the political institutions. The liberties that must be afforded to all members of a society which include “liberty of consciousness and freedom of association; freedom of speech and liberty of the person; the rights to vote and hold public offices; and to be treated in accordance with the rule of law” (Wenar). Under all normal circumstances, these rights and liberties must be equal so as to not unduly favor those who are born under advantaged circumstances. Two features make Rawls’ first principle distinct: first, it is a the most important principle which upholds priority over any other principle. Second, it requires fair value of the political liberties such that “citizens who are similarly endowed and motivated should have similar opportunities to hold office, to influence elections, and so on regardless of how rich or poor they are” (Wenar).

Furthermore, the second principle: the difference principle states that social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions:

1. They are to be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity;

2. They are to be to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society (the difference principle) (Rawls, 42–43).

Rawls’ second principle regulates the distribution of wealth and income. It states that any change or departure from equality may only be permitted so long as it benefits the least advantaged members of society, and that it does not infringe upon another’s basic liberties as outlined by the first principle. 

Nozick’s Theory of Entitlement

While Robert Nozick upholds the same philosophy as Rawls’ principle of equal liberty, and while he shares Rawls’ criticism of utilitarianism, his moral theory rejects Rawls’ distributive justice. Nozick argues, instead, for his theory of entitlement which states that there is “no central distribution, no person or group entitled to control all the resources, jointly deciding how they are to be doled out” (Nozick). In Nozick’s view of justice about holdings, he proposes a three-part theory stating that a person is entitled to that holding which he acquires in accordance to with the principle of justice, and that that person is entitled to a holding which is transferred to him. Finally, the third aspect of his theory states that no one is entitled to a holding except through the aforementioned two principles. 

As such, Nozick’s entitlement theory contrasts markedly against Rawls’ in that it refutes the patterned theory that is distributive justice. While Nozick argues that the state’s only position should be that of to protect individual’s holdings, with no other interference, Rawls’ difference principle argues the state’s interference with the political and economic institutions is necessary in order to distribute wealth and benefits equally. Nozick contends with Rawls by devising a counterargument known as the Wilt Chamberlain argument as an example of how a patterned theory such as Rawls’ becomes upset. 

In the Wilt Chamberlain argument, Chamberlain is an excellent basketball player who agrees to play with a team on the condition that he receive an extra 25 cents from those who pay to watch the game. His fans happily agree to the condition. Assuming that the beginning, wealth is distributed equally, and that all players make the same amount of money, at the end of the season, Chamberlain will have received an additional $250,000 in comparison to the other players, as a result of his condition. Thus, equal distribution is disturbed, and the question that is posed is: is this new distribution unjust? (Kosub, 26). Since Chamberlain’s fans willingly paid the extra amount as a reward to his abilities, instinctively, we know that his earnings are just, and that his income satisfies the second condition of Nozick’s theory. Through the Wilt Chamberlain argument, Nozick argues that any patterned theory can be easily upset by unobjectionable and natural means, and that institutional application of Rawls’ difference principle would grossly intrude on citizens’ liberties to their holdings. 

While Nozick’s entitlement theory contrasts remarkably against Rawls’ Theory of Justice, I would argue that Rawls’ moral theory supports the interests of all citizens in a society and would therefore make society function better. I would critique that Nozick’s arguments, however sound, may benefit only those who may already be well endowed or are born under favorable circumstances in accordance with the basic structure of society that we live in today. Since wealth and natural talents are arbitrarily distributed in nature, and are therefore unfairly distributed, I would argue that in a Nozickian society, these uneven distributes would give unfair advantage and opportunities to some people, and thus only propel the interests and wealth of those already well endowed. In modern times, Nozick’s theory can be interpreted as the “American Dream” which stipulates that through hard work and talent, people can become successful. Yet, despite this ideal, many people fear that it is unattainable and is demonstrated by the common saying that “the rich keep getting richer” because of the Income inequality in the US, which continues to grow (Hogan). Nozick’s principles do not provide a theory that is applicable in today’s society such that it would remedy this inequality. 

Conclusion

Consequently, the goal of my thesis is to prove that Rawls’ Theory of Justice provides a compelling argument for a society of free citizens who hold equal liberties cooperating under a liberal egalitarian society. The Rawlsian society is that of a peaceful and just society that holds the interests of all citizens comprising of that society. John Rawls provides a thought experiment that allows people to abandon personal biases and prejudices to negotiate a social contract that would benefit everyone. Behind this veil of ignorance, Rawls argues that those who are in the original position would negotiate and agree on a contract comprising of the two principles: the principle of equal liberty which provides a political framework of liberties endowed equally; and the difference principle which is an economic framework for the equal distribution of wealth and resources. Rawls’ theory of justice is constructed upon the understanding that completely equal distribution may not be possible, and inequalities are permitted so long as they benefit the least advantaged members of society, thus raising the sociopolitical status of all members of society and maximizing utility. 

I would argue that in the basic structure of the society we live in today, we face many conflicts arising from the inequality of wealth and benefits distribution, some of which can be rectified by the application of Rawls’ theory of justice.  

Works Cited

Coker, D. (2021, December). Rawls and Knight: Connections and influence in a theory of justice. In Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology: Including a Symposium on Frank Knight's Risk, Uncertainty and Profit at 100. Emerald Publishing Limited.

Huang, K., Greene, J. D., & Bazerman, M. (2019). Veil-of-ignorance reasoning favors the greater good. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 116(48), 23989-23995.

Hogan, Jenny. “Why It Is Hard to Share the Wealth.” New Scientist, New Scientist, 12 Mar. 2005, https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7107-why-it-is-hard-to-share-the-wealth/#:~:text=Pareto's%20law,edition%2C%2019%20August%202000). 

John, R. (2017). Justice as fairness. In Power, Authority, Justice & Rights (pp. 192-218). Routledge.

Rawls, John. Justice as fairness: A restatement. Harvard University Press, 2001.

Kosub, Tim 2022, “Lecture 8 Distributive Justice (Rawls).” LIBS 7001 Applied Ethics, 10, April, 2022, British Columbia Institute of Technology, Burnaby, Canada.

Nozick, Robert. “Distributive Justice Robert Nozick - Iowa State University.” Distributive Justice, Basic Books, Inc., http://econ2.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ362/hallam/Readings/Nozick_Justice.pdf. 

Rawls, J. (2020). A theory of justice. In A theory of justice. Harvard university press.

Robert Nozick's Political Philosophy.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, 15 June 2018, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nozick-political/. 

Salahuddin, A. (2018). Robert Nozick’s Entitlement Theory of Justice, Libertarian Rights and the Minimal State: A Critical Evaluation. Journal of Civil & Legal Sciences, 7(1), 2-5.

Syla, D. (2018). Two principles of justice in the philosophy of John Rawls and libertarian critique of Robert Nozick.

Taylor, H. (2018). Social Justice in Contemporary Housing: Applying Rawls’ Difference Principle. Routledge.

Taylor, R. S. (2021). Reading rawls rightly: a theory of justice at 50. Polity, 53(4), 564-571.

Wenar, Leif. “John Rawls.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, 12 Apr. 2021, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2021/entries/rawls/.