Understanding Rawls's Theory of Justice

Understanding Rawls’s Theory of Justice

2011

Understanding Rawls’s Theory of Justice Written by: YACINE HOUHOUD Tutored by: Douglass Burnham Student NO: 09038578

11th May, 2011

1


Contents

Introduction … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … Page 3 1. Original position … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … Page 4 2. The principles of justice … … … … … … … … … … … … … Page 5 2.1 The first principle of justice … … … … … … … … … … ….. Page 5 2.2 The second principle of justice … … … … … … … … … ….. Page 5 3. Rawls‟s argument for the two principles of justice … … … … … Page 7 3.1 The moral argument … … … … … … … … … … … … … …. Page 7 3.2 The argument from the original position … … … … … … … … Page 8 4. To what extent Egypt can learn from Rawls‟s theory of justice... … Page 9 Conclusion … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ….. Page 11 References … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … …

2

Page 12


Introduction Political theories, by and large, attempt to formulate rules and regulations which maintain peace and just between all members of a society. In this respect, there have been many attempts to interpret the “justice” in terms of the principle of equality that guarantees the right of each person comparative of liberty for others, and one of the most significant book describes this concept was made by John Rawls (1921-2002). He has been widely described as the most significant contemporary philosopher in the late twentieth century, and his book “A Theory of Justice” (1971, revised 1999), has made highly influential contribution to the debate over social justice and equality. One further point: Rawls‟s book is widely “Believed to have significant bearing on the philosophy of rights.” (Martin, 1985: 3) At the core of his theory lies the so-called „different principle‟, according to which states that “Social and economic inequalities should be arranged to the advantage of the least well-off” (Rawls, 1999:23). For Rawls, the emphasis is on the hypothetical nature of “the original position” which has its origin in the social-contract tradition of Hobbes, Jean Jacques Rousseau, John Locke, and Immanuel Kant. According to John Rawls, principles of justice are the moment of rational choice. So that, people are unsure which position they are going to hold in their future lives behind a “veil of ignorance”, in which all personal interests and allegiances are forgotten (Rawls, 1999:11). Therefore, much of the dynamic of Rawlsian justice responds against the utilitarian ethics. From a utilitarian perspective, “any amount of inequality is justified provided that it results in a net gain in utility” (Dupré, 2007:181). However, Rawls proposes an approach to justice that everyone has the equal access to the basic care necessary for living and “The dispossessed should be protected” (Bowie, 2004:260). This paper, therefore, outlines a number of points; firstly, I will discuss the idea of the Original Position, and Rawls‟s two principles of justice. Then, I will analyze the main arguments for the significant features identified in Rawls‟s theory. Finally, I will simply attempt to reflect Rawls‟s tenet on Egyptian revolution in this in 2011.

3


1. Original position Rawls‟s hypothetical theory of justice was originally derived from traditional social contract, particularly in the work of Locke, Rousseau, and Kant. He invites us to get together to write a social contract that can ensure liberties of equal citizens. So, what principles would be chosen? We may find it hard to agree because human natures tend to reflect their personal interest and allegiances (Sandel, 2009: 79). In this state of nature, Rawls spills out the main feature 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 [….] Nor again, does anyone know his conception of the good, the particulars of his rational plan of life” (Rawls (1999: 11). So, he imagines that we all find ourselves behind a “veil of ignorance”. Behind this veil, we do not know what position we are going to hold in our future lives. Imagine that no one knows anything about themselvessex, talents, race or ethnicity, religion, political opinion, sexual preferences, social classes, wealth, and age. No one has any basic knowledge about his or her society; its history, its economy and so forth. Accordingly, “We are obliged to play safe and to ensure that no one group is disadvantaged in order to give advantage to another” (Dupré, 2007:182). So, under such circumstances, Rawls invites us to ask what principles of justice each of us would choose. However, Rawls‟s hypothetical experiment of “the original position” has generated a vast amount of criticism. Sandel (1999:11) raised an argument that “original position (OP)” is unrealistic starting point. He argues that the idea of OP means that persons should ignore their background and their history when this is impossible in our human nature. In his article entitled problems with John Rawls’s veil of ignorance, Fnordian (2002) takes the issue of rationality. The requirement of „veil of ignorance” means that people should be rational, pointing out that young children, babies, mentally disabled and non-human species are unrepresented in his hypothetical theory and that is completely inconsistent with Rawls‟s theory that all member of society should be equal.

4


2. The principles of justice 2.1 The first principle of justice Rawls offers two principles of justice. The first one takes priority over the second. The first principle is the “equal basic liberties”. According to Rawls (1999:53), “Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others.” What is exactly included among the total system of equal liberties are specified by a list: “Political liberty (the right to hold public offices) with freedom of speech and assembly; liberty of conscience and freedom of thought; freedom of the person; which includes freedom from psychological oppression and physical assault and dismemberment (integrity of the person); the right to hold personal property and freedom from arbitrary arrest and seizure as defined by the concept of the rule of law” (Rawls, 1999: 61). The first principle, then, guarantees equal basic liberties for all citizens, such as freedom of speech, religion and so forth. This principle seems to be familiar with traditional ideas of freedom. Rawls believes in something like John Stuart Mill whose tenet “On Liberty”. The idea simply means that everyone has the freedom to do what he or she please as long as they do not harm others. However, as Arneson (2008:6) commented, “This freedom of action, according to Rawls, should be left to the discretion of a democratic legislator. Different legislatures in different equally just societies might trade off non basic liberties against other benefits in various ways, without compromising the justice of the basic structure.” The first principle, as it has been mentioned earlier, has to be ranked in lexical order over the second principle. In this way, the “equal basic liberties” should take priority over the principle of the “fair equality of opportunity” and “the difference principle”. In other words, we must never sacrifice our fundamental rights of life and movement for social and economic benefits. 2.2 The second principle of justice Rawls‟s second principle, which is also called “the second principle”, concerns social and economic benefits. It has two parts: the first part establishes fair equality of opportunity, whereas the second part introduces the benefit of the least advantaged. Rawls (1999: 53) states: “Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both:(a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just saving principle, and (b) attached to offices and oppositions open to all under conditions of fair equality”.

5


The first part, then, discusses the economic and social inequalities to be arranged so as to make them beneficial to the worst off members of society. Rawls‟s purpose is to achieve egalitarian society. That is to say, these inequalities are justifiable as long as they work to everyone‟s advantages particularly those who are least well off (Rawls, 1999:65). This example is given by Sandel (2009: 152) doctors who are working for the government and earning greater salary for their duties and responsibilities. According to Rawls‟s concept of justice, despite the fact that doctors are paid higher than bus drivers for instance, this could be justified because they benefit large number of the least advantaged by increasing access to health care and producing better medical care.

Imagine that we have three possible system of distribution like the table below: (Burnham, 2011) Upper-class

Middle-class

Working-class

Population

⅓

⅓

⅓

Fully Managed Economy Partial M E

2

2

2

6

4

1

Total

6 11

(Rawlsian) Unmanaged Economy 11

2

0

13

As a consequence, Rawls‟s difference principle would find for the second system that produces the largest possible amount of wealth for the worst off members of society. Accordingly, the difference between the richest and the poorest is permitted because this difference makes the worst off as well off as they could possibly be-“they may end up with a smaller share of the total, but that smaller share of a bigger total may turn out to be more than a bigger share of a smaller total” (BBC News- politics, 2004).

6

(Rawls‟s rational choice)


Rawls states that the equality of opportunity is very important. He argues that all social positions such as careers, education and so forth should be open to all. Behind a “veil of ignorance”, no one would know his or her place in social class and hence, all social positions must be open to all citizens. It is essential to consider that Rawls‟s tenets against discrimination. That is to say, we should not discriminate against people because of their gender, ethnicity, and religion for example. However, everyone in our society should have an equal chance to achieve an important position. In an article entitled John Rawls’s two principles of justice, Lohi (2006) makes the point that considering Rawls‟s two principles can be concluded on positive and negative liberty. Making a balance between them is likely to lead the best distribution of rights and liberty among citizens. However, taking just negative liberty (the first principle) into account might have a negative impact on least advantaged. Therefore, in my point of view, just society depends on these two principles. If people try to consider these principles behind the “veil of ignorance”, then they should live in a fair community.

3. Rawls’s argument for the two principles of justice 3.1 The moral argument It has been observed that an important issue on Rawls‟s different principle focuses on natural endowment and moral desert. He claims that “The conception of justice abolishes the idea of natural endowment” (Rawls, 1999: 101). In other words, people with natural talents or with advancement of wealth do not deserve economical benefit in accordance to their actions unless they benefit for the least advantaged members of society. In Rawls‟s words: No one deserves his greater natural capacity or merits a more favorable starting place in society [……] the basic structure can be arranged so that these contingencies work for the good of the least fortune (Rawls, 1999: 102). It is vital to consider that Rawls‟s argument indicates that people are used as means to benefit each other and therefore, inequalities can be justified only if everybody profits by it. It is worth mentioning in this regard that Rawls‟s difference principle guides for the value of fraternity in liberalism. As Lohi (2006) pointed out, “This principle is not only benefiting oneself, but also taking care for the least fortune”. In my point of view this idea corresponds with Islamic teaching so as poverty is inevitable among people over the world. Therefore, it is

7


possible to use practical ways to help the suffering by trying to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor and securing means for the latter. To solve this problem, Allah has commended the affluent people to contribute out of the wealth. Therefore, the Holly Quran states “That it (wealth) becomes not a commodity between the rich and among you”. (Sura 59:7) In other words, the wealth should not only be distributed among the well- off, but also those who are in need should benefit and such a contribution may be defined as in Zakat (purifying social tax which estimated 21/2% of the value of possessions). Similarly, it is the responsibility of the state to interpose, whenever necessary, in the protection of the underprivileged against the disasters of hunger. As Tazi-Saoud (1991: 39) comments, “In cases of emergency, the state is often forced to extract additional contributions from the rich to rescue the poor, in accordance with principle that, when people are stricken by hunger, wealth is no longer anybody‟s.” In the Holy Quran, Allah almighty says: What Allah has extracted from the town population to give the Messenger is intended for Allah and his Messenger, as well as for the Kindred, the orphans, the poor and the wayfarer, so that it does not remain in the hands of the rich amongst you (Sura 59:7).

3.2 The argument from the original position Rawls disagrees with the Utilitarian ethic applied to society. He writes, “Utilitarianism does not take seriously the distinction between persons” (Rawls, 1999:24). From a utilitarian perspective, “An action is right if it produces the greatest good for the greatest number, where the greatest good is the greatest pleasure or happiness and the least pain and sadness, and the greatest number is the majority of people” (Bowie, 2004:39). In other words, any amount of inequality is justified by advantages to others. However, Rawls criticizes this theory because it cannot protect the rights of minorities. He states: “The striking feature of the utilitarian view of justice is that it does not matter, except indirectly, how this sum of satisfactions is distributive among individuals any more than it matters, except indirectly, how one man distributes his satisfactions over time...thus there is no reason in principle why the greater gains of some should compensate for the lesser losses of others; or more importantly, why the violation of the liberty of a few might not be made right by the greater good shared by many” (Rawls, 1999: 26). Let us imagine we have a lecture once a week and every time, the lecturer asks his students if they prefer to study about philosophy of science or philosophy of ethics for example.

8


However, the majority of students usually like studying philosophy of science. The minority on the other hand, will never get a chance to study about philosophy of ethics. In this way, the rights of individuals might be violated. Hence, Rawls observed that under hypothetical agreement of original position, the individuals have no idea about their classes in society, their abilities, their gifts and so forth. Also, they would not choose utilitarianism because they think that they might be members of dispossessed groups. Rawls argues that utilitarianism does not provide an adequate account of rights for individuals. The American slaves in the eighteenth century couldn‟t be justified because they provided great happiness for the majority. Thus, he proposes an approach to justice that everyone should have the equal access to the basic rights and freedom. Additionally, social positions should be opened to all, and the advancement of wealth should be maximized in order to benefit all members of society. For the reasons mentioned above, Rawls sees that utilitarianism and other alternatives are not valid because the rights of individuals would be squandered whenever the greatest good for the greatest number. Furthermore, Rawls‟s two principles of justice express individuals‟ sense of self-respect. He describes it as “Perhaps the most important primary good” (Rawls, 1999: 386). In this way, self-respect secured as long as the individuals follow these two principles otherwise life plan seem worthless (Kukathas and Pettit, 1990: 44-46).

4. To what extent Egypt can learn from Rawls’s theory of justice It can be observed that a real world of unfair political regime was a dictator system in Egypt. Under this system, there were high rate of unemployment, poverty, torture, and corruption, while the ousted leader‟s family fortune stashed billions of dollars in European banks. According to a report last month from The Guardian newspapers, Mubarak family fortune could reach 70 billion dollars, with much of his wealth in British, Swiss, New York and so forth (Inman, 2011). So what could John Rawls comment about this revolution? Is it fair that Mubarak‟s family wealth could reach $ 70bn whereas 20% of Egyptian out of 80% million people lives on less than $2 a day? What Rawls‟s theory about the exclusion of some parties (i.e. Left, Muslim Brotherhood) from engaging in political process? Using Rawls‟s conception of justice, it can be clearly seen that this system is unfair. From his justice‟s perspective, justice as fairness lies on the equal basic liberty, the distribution of economic advantages, and the benefit of the least advantaged.

9


He states: (1) Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all. (2) Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity (Rawls,1999: 53). Today, and after the resignation of the ousted leader Egyptian president, Egypt, which is experience the fundamental political changes, might be the perfect sample of Rawls‟s hypothetical agreement. In an article entitled what can John Rawls teach Egypt, the writer makes the point that Egyptian might be considered as legislators on the “original position” (Todayscatharsis, 2011). So, in a thought experiment, Rawls proposes that Egyptians should imagine that they‟re finding themselves behind a “veil of ignorance”. Behind this veil, they do not know what position they are going to hold in their future lives, no one knows anything about themselvessex, talents, race or ethnicity (i.e. Egyptians, Arabs, and Berbers), religion (i.e. Muslims, Christians, Coptic Catholics, Jews), political opinion ( i.e. Left, Muslim Brotherhood), sexual preferences, social classes, wealth, and age. Furthermore, they do not have any basic knowledge about their society, its history, its economy and so forth. Now, under such circumstances, Rawls invites them to ask what principles of justice each of them would choose and then he suggests the two principles mentioned above. The first principle, according to Rawls, guarantees equal basic libertines such as freedom of speech, religion and so forth. Accordingly, Egyptians should have the freedom to practice the religion they please as long as they don‟t harm others. This religion might include Islam, Christian, Coptic, and so forth. Therefore, individuals should have the right to practice their religions freely by building churches, mosques and any other places specialized for practicing the religion. This is likely to encourage the state to be multicultural. In this way, Egyptians from different cultures, customs, and religions might take opportunity to learn how to live together peacefully. Furthermore, Rawls‟s first principle includes other basic liberties such as the freedom of speech and the right of holding public positions. Rawls‟s second principle focuses on social and economic benefits. This, as mentioned earlier, has two parts: the first part establishes fair equality of opportunity, while the second part introduces the benefit of the least advantaged. In this respect, political regime in Egypt should be a democratic system. Under this system, Egyptian should have access to all social positions such

10


as careers, education, and so on. In other words, they should not discriminate against Egyptians because of their gender, religion and so forth. Hence, both men and women, Muslims, Christians, Coptic, and Jews need to take the same opportunity to reach high level of education and find better jobs. Although it will be impossible for Egypt to be equal on economic benefits, these inequalities should be justified as long as they benefit the worst of members of the state. In short, even thought Rawls‟s political theory is well known in the western states, it would be applicable to work out in such developing countries such as Egypt and Tunisia who got a rid recently of their dictatorship systems. If those countries take these principles of justice into considerations, then, they should get a rid of a lot of social problems such as unemployment, poverty, corruption and so forth.

Conclusion In conclusion, Rawls‟s political theory of justice emphasize on hypothetical nature of “the original position”. He proposes an approach to justice through two principles. These principles concern “the equal basic liberties” and “the difference principle”. The former indicates that the individuals should have access to the basic liberties such as the freedom of speech, the freedom of thought, and the right of holding the political offices compatible with the freedom for all. The latter has two parts: the fair equality of opportunity and the benefit of the least advantaged of members of society. Although Rawls‟s tenet has been criticized for being hypothetical situation and unrealistic in modern societies, it is really an attractive theory compared with other contraction ideas like utilitarianism. Therefore, his theory might be a good direction in different societies like Egypt, at least to some extent. Egyptian legislators should put into heir consideration such principles if they do care of a better life based on real liberty. Citizens should have access to the basic liberties like freedom of speech, and freedom of thought. Social positions should be opened to all, and the advancement of wealth should be maximized in order to benefit all members of the society.

11


References Arneson, Dick. (2008). „John Rawls’s theory of justice’. Retrieved 2nd April, 2011, from: http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/rarneson/Courses/Rawlschaps1and2.pdf

BBC News- politics. (2004). „The Political Philosophy of John Rawls’. Retrieved 25th March, 2011, from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A3136042). Bowie, Robert. (2004). Ethical studies. 2nd Ed. United Kingdom. Thrones, Nelson. Burnham, Douglass. (2011). Rational choice and fairness: John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, Morality and the good life [Reading group]. Staffordshire University, Flaxman Building, 15th February. Dupré, Ben. (2007). 50 Philosophy ideas you really need to know. London, Quercus. Fordian. (2002). „Problems with John Rawls' Veil of Ignorance’. Retrieved 25th March, 2011, from: http://everything2.com/title/Problems+with+John+Rawls%2527+Veil+of+Ignorance Inman, Philip. (2011). „Mubarak family fortune could reach $70bn, says expert’. The Guardian, 4 February 2011. Retrieved 25th March, 2011, from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/04/hosni-mubarak-family-fortune

Kukathas, C., P. Pettit. (1990). Rawls A Theory of Justice and its Critics. Cambridge, Polity Press. Lohi, Teo. (2006). „John Rawls's Two Principles of Justice’. Retrieved 25th March, 2011, from: http://everything2.com/title/John+Rawls%2527s+Two+Principles+of+Justice

Martin, Rex. (1985). Rawls and rights. 2nd Ed. Lawrence, Kansas. USA, the University Press of Kansas. Rawls, John. (1971). A Theory of Justice, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, USA (revised edn1999). Sandel, Michel. J. (2009). Justice, what the right thing to do? USA, Straus, Farrar. th

Todayscatharsis. (2011). „What can John Rawls teach Egypt?’ Retrieved 25 March, 2011, from: http://todayscatharsis.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/what-can-john-rawls-teach-egypt/

Tazi-Saoud, Abdelwahab. (1988) Islamic Morals. 2nd Ed. Rabat. ISESCO. (Revised edn 1991).

12


13

Understanding Rawls's Theory of Justice

Recommend Documents