Rawls’s Theory of Justice  (Explained by Prof. Craig Duncan of Ithaca College)

Rawls’s basic ideas: 

Society = a fair system of cooperation for mutual gain.

Principles of justice = those principles that free, equal, and rational beings would choose, under fair bargaining conditions, to govern the basic structure of society.

So Rawls uses a “hypothetical contract” argument to justify his principles of justice. 

He argues for the following principles of justice:

1.  Each person has an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all.  (The Liberty Principle)

2.  Social/economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both:

            (a)  To the greatest advantage of the least advantaged. (The Difference Principle)
            (b)  Attached to offices/positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of                                    opportunity.

How does Rawls arrive at these two principles?  3 steps:

1.  The definition of the conditions in which the hypothetical agreement takes place (“the Original Position”).

2. His argument that the 2 principles above would be chosen in the Original Position.

3. His claim that this pedigree shows they are the correct principles of justice.

 

Step 1:

Contractors in the Original Position each represent a citizen, on behalf of whose interests they are to bargain.

Key part of Original Position = “the veil of ignorance.”

So a contractor does not know any of the following facts regarding the person he/she represents:

·        social position (income, race, gender, etc.)

·        natural assets (intelligence, strength, etc.)

·        the person’s “conception of the good”

·        contingent facts about the person’s society (number of rich, poor, black, white, Christians, Jews, etc.; level of technology; time period; and so on), apart from the knowledge that there is neither extreme scarcity nor extreme abundance.

Basic idea = the veil of ignorance removes potential sources of bias from the bargaining. 

This allows Rawls to claim (in Step 3) that the principles that emerge from the bargaining are fair ones.

à Objection to the Original Position:  How can you choose anything if you don’t know whom you represent?

Reply:  You should still seek to secure as many “primary goods” as you can for the person—that is, things anyone wants no matter who he/she is:

  • liberties
  • opportunities
  • wealth & income
  • the “social bases of self-respect”

 

Step 2: Why should contractors choose Rawls’s two principles of justice over, say, utilitarianism?

 

Rawls:  In the special circumstances of the Original Position, the rational way to proceed is to choose the option with the least bad worst-case outcome. 

 

That is, according to Rawls the rational way to proceed is to “maximin”—to maximize the minimum outcome.

 

Caution is in order; it isn’t always rational to maximin.  Consider two lotteries, A and B, that use a die:

·        Lottery A pays $10,000 if a 1 is rolled, $10 otherwise.

·        Lottery B pays $100 if a 1 is rolled, $15 otherwise.

 

Maximin says to choose B.  But that is crazy.

 

But maximining does make sense, says Rawls, when the following conditions hold:

a)            You can’t assign probabilities with any confidence.

b)            One option has a tolerable worst-case outcome.

c)            Alternative options have intolerable worst-case outcomes.

 

Consider a choice between two lotteries A and B. 
In each you draw a single ball from an urn containing black balls and white balls in unknown quantities.

·        In A, you get $500 if you draw white, $100 if you draw black.

·        In B, you get $10,000 if you draw white, and your hand gets smashed with a sledgehammer if you draw black.

Here conditions (a)–(c) are met.  It seems rational to maximin and choose A.

 

What about in the Original Position?

  • The veil of ignorance ensures that (a) is met.
  • The Difference Principle ensures a tolerable worst-case outcome, so (b) is met.
  • The alternative of utilitarianism has an intolerable worst-case outcome, e.g. being a gladiator in Rome, or a member of a very small untouchable caste that does menial work for others, etc.  So (c) is met.

 

Similar remarks apply to the choice between Rawls’s two principles and, say, libertarianism or theocracy. 

 

It is less clear, though, that contractors would choose Rawls’s principles over the following set of principles:

1.  The Liberty Principle (as before)

2.      Social/economic inequalities are to be arranged so            that they both:

(a)                Are attached to offices/positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.

(b)               Maximize average expected utility, subject to a tolerable guaranteed social minimum.  (Restricted Utilitarianism)

 

In recent writings Rawls argues in favor of the Difference Principle on the grounds that it better realizes an ideal of reciprocity, since the inequalities it permits are to everyone’s advantage (unlike those permitted by Restricted Utilitarianism).