Theory of justice: John Rawlss Justice as Fairness Introduction What is justice in your eye?

Have you ever felt that something is injustice? Then how would you define justice? Throughout so many centuries, there have been so many meaning given to justice from different thinkers. Plato in his book Republic had explained justice as an overarching virtue of individuals (and of societies), meaning that almost every issue he (or we) would regard as ethical comes in under the notion of justice (dikaosoune).1 The Utilitarianism view that the just society should be so organized in its institutions--its government, its laws, and its economy--that as many people as possible shall have the means and opportunity to achieve their chosen conception of a desirable life. To reform the institutions of one's society toward this goal, in the utilitarian view, is to pursue greater justice.2 Justice can be in many types, such as the reciprocal or commutative justice which concerned with the justice as a whole, which is a matter of redress in private transactions required equivalent exchange. Or the corrective justice, which intends to restore equality when it is disturbed by wrong behavior. Another is the distributive whereby the context is regarding the fair distribution of wealth among the members of a society. John Rawls, (February 21, 1921 - November 24, 2002), also the author of the famous and path-breaking A Theory of Justice, had contributed a lot to the theory of justice through his principle of justice as fairness. Rawlss theories have been said to be the reformulation of the Utilitarianism conception of justice. Rawls' theory provides a framework that explains the significance, in a society assumed to consist of free and equal persons, of political and personal liberties, of equal opportunity, and cooperative arrangements that benefit the more and the less advantaged members of society.3

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-virtue/ Slote, Michael, "Justice as a Virtue", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.) 2 http://lilt.ilstu.edu/pefranc/default.htm Three Theories of Justice 3 http://www.wku.edu/~jan.garrett/ethics/matrawls.htm by Dr Jan Garett .Rawls Mature Theory of Th Social Justice, 24 August 2005. Western Kentucky University.

John Rawls: Justice as Fairness Rawlss theory of justice is one of the distributive justices. He tends to promote the primary social good where the justice must be something which able to benefit every person in the society, especially the least advantaged people. Justice can occur in different perspective; legal justice, social justice, financial justice and others. Rawls had chosen to interpret the society justice as his theory of justice. According to Rawls, the basic structure (the society) is the primary subject of justice because its effects are so profound and present from the start. Consequently, Rawls had developed his justice based on the social contract concept to a higher level whereby the guiding idea is that the principles of justice for the basic structure of society are the object of the original agreement. According to Rawls, justice as fairness is happened when a situation where the society had agreed to some principles which form the basis of social contract which will govern all further agreements. Those are the principles that free and rational persons concerned to further their own interests would accept in an initial position of equality as defining the fundamental terms of their association. In such, the model of original position had appeared as the initial position of equality according to Rawls. Thus, justice as fairness is a concept where the principles of justice are agreed to an initial situation that is fair. The original position is purely a hypothetical circumstance where it is impossible to be realized in actual. It is the appropriate initial status quo which insures that the fundamental agreements reached in it are fair. It is a thought experiment that asks: what principles of social justice would be chosen by parties thoroughly knowledgeable about human affairs in general but wholly deprivedby the veil of ignoranceof information about the particular person or persons they represent? 4 Under the original position, there have been several conditions: 1. The people are self-interested motivation.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/r/rawls.htm Richardson, Henry. John Rawls. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

2. They do not know what their particular interests are (ie: gender, economic background, talent, and etc)., the veil of ignorance. 3. They know the general conditions of human life. 4. They know that they are to choose the fundamental principles where their basic institutions of their society are to be organized and evaluated. 5. They are to choose among the alternative principles by the rule of maximin. Representative persons in the Original Position are to choose principles of justice that would govern the basic structure of a (just and fair) social order. 5It is aim to rule out those principles that are rational to propose for acceptance, however little the chance to success, only if one knew certain things that are irrelevant from the standpoint of justice. This is because every person will make different choices as regards to the same issue due to the differences several factors. Those are the factors which Rawls had discounted them under the concept of veil of ignorance. With the combination of original position and veil of ignorance, Rawls believed that the principle of justice can only be produced by the choice of people to form the social contract. He believed that rational persons would consent to as equals when none are known to be advantaged or disadvantaged by social and natural contingencies. Rawls had laid down the two principles of justice, which are also the reasoning of how the representative in original position in making choices: A. Each person has an equal right to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties which is compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for all, (The equal liberty principle) B. Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: I) they must be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; and II) they must be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society. (The different principle)

Dr Jan Garett. Rawls Mature Theory of Social Justice, 24Th August 2005. Western Kentucky University.

According to Rawls, the principles were to regulate the distribution of social and economic advantages and to govern the assessment of rights and duties. The first principle of justice, Equal Liberty, has lexical priority over the second principle.. Which means the distribution of wealth and income, and the hierarchies of authority, must be consistent with both the liberties of equal citizenship and equality of opportunity. The different principle had been divided into two parts and part A has the priority over part B The equal basic liberties specify a status of equal democratic citizen that is to be accorded to all members of society. The "basic liberties" in the first principle are specified by a list: "political liberty (the right to vote and to hold public office) and 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 rules of law". 6 Rawls argued that economic liberty is not among the basic liberties protected by his first principle of justice. He says that the right to hold personal property is among the basic liberties. But, the right to own certain kinds of property (e.g. the means of production) and freedom of contract as understood by the doctrine of laissez-faire, are not basic and so they are not. Part B explained that, according to Rawls, is the rule or set of economic arrangements that maximizes not the relative share but the amount of primary goods that goes to the worst off group over the long haul. In other words, some inequalities in social and economic benefits are productive in the sense that arranging the economy so that these inequalities are generated works to maximize the long run primary goods benefits flowing to the least advantaged. Rawls explained that while the distribution of wealth and income need not be equal, it must be to everyone's advantage, and at the same time, positions of authority and offices of command must be accessible to all. One is not allowed to justify differences in income or organizational powers on the ground that the disadvantages of those in one position are outweighed by the greater advantages of those
6

John Rawls.(1971), Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.pg. 53

in another. it does not permit is a change in social and economic institutions that makes life better for those who are already well off but does nothing for those who are already disadvantaged, or makes their life worse. The concept of Rawlss principles of justice were to balance the distribution the social and economic advantages so that the least advantaged getting worst, at the same time the advantaged getting better without benefiting the least advantaged. Though that, Rawls
recognized from the beginning that we could never just hand over the endorsement of those principles to this hypothetical device. Rather, he foresaw the need to work from both ends, pruning and adjusting things as we go.7 If those results clash with some of our more concrete

considered judgments about justice, then we have reason to think about modifying the OP. Eventually, it is hope that this process reaches a reflective equilibrium that coincides with every other persons according to Rawls. Analysis on John Rawlss Theories From the overall of Rawlss idea of justice, his whole concept is based on the hypothetical state, something which is not happened. Rawls proposed that the social contract can be justifiably established if the people who involved in the formation of the contract are under the veil of ignorance subsequently producing a just society. The idea seemed to be ideal but it is unpractical. Firstly, the persons involved are human being but not computerized robot can be programmed. In other words no matter how neutral the person to be, it is impossible to being under the conditions of veil of ignorance as Rawls suggested. Next, if according to Rawls, the person of the original position shall being under the veil of ignorance with only the knowledge of general conditions, then how are these people going to mutually consent to the terms of the contract which will regulate further agreements without knowing what issue or problems they are going to face and settle? Thus, the consented terms of the social contract will come out to be very general. Brian Barry had criticized that the principles which possibly come out under the original position are want-regarding but not ideal-regarding 8 as Rawls intended it to be. According to Barry, the only common factor left among the people in original position
7 8

ibid. Theory of Justice,pg.18 Brian Barry. Liberalism and Want-Satisfaction: A Critique of John Rawls. Political Theory, Vol. 1, No. 2 (May, 1973), Sage Publications,Inc. pp. 134-153

will be what they want, If you put nothing but wants in at the beginning, you cannot get anything but wants out at the end. Conversely, if you do succeed in validly getting something else out at the end, this can only be because you put something else in at the beginning. Not to forget, the person in original position is to be self-interested motivated. This had enhanced Barrys want-regarding model. When a human is self-interested motivated, I wonder the terms laid down can be so justice to all people in the society. Furthermore, Rawlss notion on the primary social good as the basis of distributive justice had been objected by Amartya Sen9. Sen viewed that different people will value differently the same amount of, say, wealth and income. The physically disabled person will need more wealth and income to develop and exercise her capabilities to the same degree as the able-bodied person. It is a mistake, according to Sen, to identify the leastadvantaged as those with the lowest expected lifetime share of wealth and income (the unskilled workers). The least advantaged are instead those least able to develop and exercise their capabilities, to realize functioning, over the course of their lives. Again, if based on the imaginary state of Rawls, the utility value of the persons in original position need to be programmed to be standardized or the human who will accept the terms of the contract will need to be homogeneous against the particular event. Not only that, Rawls had failed to hypothetically clarified about the consequences of the people will are not the person in the original position but have to involuntary bind by the terms of the social contract. Or maybe Rawls had assumed that every human being in his ideal state is born in original position. There was also criticism from others that the concept of Rawls will leave the people adrift as rudderless ships in an increasingly homogenous sea of meaningless options, wandering a cultural wasteland with no rational basis for taking this or that direction with their lives. In Rawlss Equal Liberty Principle, he had included the liberty to hold personal property. Robert Nozick argues that once we take individual rights seriously, in particular property rights, including individual rights of self-ownership, we will find that there is no moral

6 International Conference on The Capability Approach, Freedom and Social Justice, Two Conceptions of Justice: Between Sen and Rawls: Justice: A Matter of Theory or A Matter of Well-being? 29 August - 1 September 2006, Groningen, Netherlands

th

space left for a Rawlsian conception of institutional justice. 10 Rawls reject natural property and natural rights to property in possessions. In contrast, Robert Nozick argued that justice is about respecting peoples (natural) rights, in particular, their rights to property and their rights to self-ownership. We must allow people the freedom to decide what they want to do with what they own. Each person is separate, an individual, and we must respect their autonomy. Nozick thinks property rights are important because they derive from self-ownership Though Rawlss idea had received several criticisms, his idea had nonetheless; is precisely to establish conditions that will encourage all to be fully contributing members of society. 11 The Rawlss principles of justice had tried to compose a concept that every categories of people in the society shall has the right to be included in the apprehension of the governing institute; regardless advantaged or least advantaged. The idea is very ideal in the way that each persons rights and liberties have been protected equally. In fact Rawls of Justice is this centurys most comprehensive attempt to construct a theory of right that transcends historical circumstance. Comparison The utilitarian has a different perspective in defining justice based on their Greatest Happiness Principle. Justice, according to Mill, concerns those moral duties which involve rights.
12

For a utilitarian, an individual has a right to X if and only if the

individual has a valid claim on society for Xs protection; rights are only justified if they are essential to happiness. Take for example, a man who speaks publicly against a politician who takes bribes (for this example say the bribes are for things which do not cause harm); while the whistleblower believes he has the right to freedom of political speech the utilitarian society silences him because the media hounds the politicians family, which causes them suffering. If that is to be placed under Rawlss theory, the man shall have the freedom of speech under the equal basic liberties principle. It can be seen that the individual rights by utilitarian is conditional.
10

http://www.iep.utm.edu/nozick/ by Edward Feser,Robert Norzick, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 11 Alexander E. Rawls. Of Rawls, Responsibility, and Retribution 2006. Issue 099 Article 10. pg.132 12 Baillie, James. Class Lecture. Philosophy 220, Section E (Ethics). University of Portland, Franz Hall. 19 March 2002.

Other than that, utilitarian has a different idea with regard to the distribution of happiness. Rawls stressed on the social and economic inequalities are only allowed if it can bring the greatest happiness to the least advantaged. Utilitarian said that it is not necessary for the happiness (ie: income, wealth) to be distributed equally. It all depends on who can do more with a given resource, who can derive more happiness out of it. Example: if by giving you $100, I can make it possible for you to finish college, then utilitarianism might require me to give it to you rather than to a homeless person, whose situation would only marginally and temporarily improved by it. In contrast, Rawlss principles of justice might require the money to be given to the homeless person. There is some comparison between the utilitarian and Rawlss idea of justice : Option Action A Action B Action C Happiness 20 Units 15 Units 15 Units Unhappiness 8units 4 Units 2 Units Total (Happiness) 12 Units 11 Units 13 Units

If according to the Utilitarian, Action C is the right action to be chose because it produces the greatest happiness. Lifetime average levels of income Economy A B C D Least-advantaged 10,000 12,000 20,000 17,000 Middle 10,000 15,000 30,000 50,000 Most-advantaged 10,000 20,000 50,000 100,000

Based on the different principle of Rawlss principles of justice, Economy C will be selected because it creates the greatest advantage to the least-advantaged group of people. It can be seen from the diagrams that the basis of both principles of justice are different which produce the different outcome to the society and the people. Rawls' approach is not utilitarian and it does not rely heavily on arguments from tradition. Conclusion

To sum up, John Rawlss idea of justice had turned the new pages for the interpretation of justice. It is very ideal for the society but again, it cant be practiced. It is too easy for Rawls to form his theory of justice simply based on a hypothetical example13 with further the idea target was to be applied on the human being society. A theory of social justice, in Sens view, must have something to say about the choices that are actually on offer, and not just keep us engrossed in an imagined and implausible world of unbeatable magnificence 14 On Rawlss view, a just state ought to be neutral in its aim (no state can be neutral in its effects) toward all reasonable conceptions of the good and comprehensive moral or religious or philosophical doctrines. A just state must enforce the demands of justice, of course. And it can aim to promote the virtues of good citizenship associated with the demands of justice. But beyond that it ought to be neutral (in its aims) regarding the good, for both individuals and the community. Rawlss theories had expressed his desires in balance the societys distribution of wealth especially to ensure that the advantaged people will do something which could help the least advantaged. Though it is difficult to put Rawlss concepts into actual application, his idea had stimulated the other philosophers in harvesting a more improved concept of justice, such as Amartya Sen, who had been influenced by Rawls and subsequently attempt to develop Rawlss theories. The concept of Rawls might not be worked our but the objective and intentions behind the principles are exactly portray the social justice of every people in society. All in all, like the other scholars, the principles of justice raised by Rawls, were also focused on only one or certain field, whereby Rawls had chosen the society distribution of wealth to tell us his idea of justice. The theories might be defective but it had shown a new perspective of distributive justice.

13 14

Brian Barry. Liberalism and Want-Satisfaction: A Critique of John Rawls. pp. 134-153 Amartya Sen,(2009). The Idea of Justice. Allen Lane, New York. P106.