John Rawls: Major Political Thoughts

1. Introduction: The Architect of Modern Liberalism

John Rawls stands as a monumental figure in the landscape of political science and academia in the United States. Born in 1921 and passing away in 2002, Rawls left behind a legacy that fundamentally reshaped political philosophy in the English-speaking world, particularly in the post-World War II era. His intellectual contributions are primarily anchored in two seminal works: A Theory of Justice, originally published in 1970 and revised in 1990, and Political Liberalism, published in 1993.

Rawls wrote during a critical historical juncture—the Cold War—where the ideological battle lines were drawn between Western liberalism and Soviet communism. During the heyday of Soviet communism, Rawls offered a robust alternative: a scheme of political liberalism based on the concept of a minimal state. Unlike the radical egalitarians or socialists of his time, Rawls did not view inequality as the inherent enemy of social progress, nor did he seek to thoroughly reject the American capitalist system. Instead, he championed the cause of liberalism by challenging conventional thoughts on equality and justice, arguing that the American system had the capacity to revise itself.

2. Defining Justice: The First Virtue of Society

To understand Rawls, one must first grasp his fundamental definition of justice. For Rawls, the conception of justice is not merely a legal term but an inherent nature of our social and practical life. Echoing the views of Ernest Barker, Rawls famously declared that “Justice is the first virtue of social institutions as truth is of systems of thought”.

The Subject Matter of Justice: Rawls posits that we cannot imagine a well-ordered society where justice is not the core concept. Justice is the binding force that connects all men and institutions. However, Rawls is specific about the scope of justice. He views justice against the background of the social structure. The primary subject matter of justice is the “basic structure” of society because these social institutions are responsible for two critical tasks:

Distributing Fundamental Rights and Duties: Deciding who has the right to vote, speak, or own property.
Allocating Privileges and Advantages: Deciding how the economic and social benefits of cooperation are shared among the people.

Thus, justice is defined as a social principle or scheme that determines the procedure for distributing these rights, duties, and opportunities. It acts as an interpretation of the role of principles in assigning rights and duties and defining the appropriate division of social advantages.+1

Justice as a Balance: Rawls acknowledges that in any liberal society, opposing views on natural necessities and opportunities will exist side by side. Therefore, justice must be viewed as a “proper balance between competing claims”. This aligns with Barker’s view that justice is a social reality originating from the cross-currents of social thought.+3

3. The Core Concept: Justice as Fairness

The central pillar of Rawls’ theory is the concept of “Justice as Fairness”. While the dictionary defines fairness as appropriateness or the absence of partiality, Rawls gives it a specific technical meaning. An arrangement is “fair” or “just” only when it satisfies two specific conditions:

The institution itself must be just (satisfying the principles of justice).
Individuals must have voluntarily accepted the benefits of the arrangement.

Features of Fairness: Rawls breaks down “fairness” into several key components:

Obligation vs. Natural Duties: Fairness implies obligations. An obligation is an act a person is morally or legally bound to do. These are distinct from natural duties. When a person is under an obligation, their liberty is necessarily restricted.
Cooperative Venture: Fairness implies that members of society are engaged in an advantageous cooperative venture. Individuals cooperate to create an atmosphere of mutual advantage, meaning the cooperation should not create a disadvantage for anyone.
Absence of Parochialism: For institutions to be fair, they must rise above parochial or group interests. Institutions created solely to serve specific groups cannot serve the interests of justice.
Ungrudging Acceptance: A fair arrangement is one that the general public accepts without reservation or objection.

Ultimately, fairness constitutes the core of the theory of justice, bringing it closer to the traditional idea that justice means giving everyone their due share.

4. Methodology: The Social Contract Revived

How does Rawls arrive at these principles of fairness? He traces the origin of “Justice as Fairness” back to the Social Contract Theory propounded by Locke, Rousseau, and Kant.

The Nature of the Contract: Rawls is not interested in the historical formation of civil society or government. His chief aim is to understand how an original agreement helps establish justice. He imagines a scenario where rational and free individuals meet to settle the principles of their association.

Terms of the Contract: The contracting parties agree to distinct principles:
1. They will cooperate to further their mutual interests.
2. The society shall be established on the principle of equality.
3. These two terms—cooperation and equality—guide all subsequent agreements.

Why Contract Theory Works for Fairness: Rawls argues that the contract theory provides the foundation for “Justice as Fairness” for several reasons:

Appropriate Initial Position: In the “state of nature” (the original position), all members were similarly advantaged and disadvantaged. No one had the capacity to manipulate the situation in their favor, creating an appropriate starting point for fair justice.+1
Limited Choices: The people in this state had very few choices and had to act within those limits, forcing a focus on essential fairness.
Voluntary Assembly: The people voluntarily assembled on equal footing to set up society.
Rationality: The parties to the contract were rational. They abandoned the state of nature to adopt a judicious decision. Rawls believes irrational or self-interest-seeking men cannot build justice because they would manipulate the system to ignore the general interest.+1

5. The Veil of Ignorance: The Pillar of Impartiality

A critical element of Rawls’ contract theory—and perhaps his most famous concept—is the “Veil of Ignorance”. This is a hypothetical situation that describes the mental state of the people forming the original contract.

What is the Veil of Ignorance? When the members of the state of nature gathered to build a civil society, they were “prisoners” of this veil. It implies a state of specific unawareness or ignorance about their own future status.

Ignorance of Particulars: The contracting parties did not know the specific details of their society, such as its formation or functions.
Ignorance of Self: Crucially, people were not acquainted with their own position. They did not know to which class they belonged, their status, or the position they would occupy in the new hierarchy.
Ignorance of Rights and Abilities: They were ignorant of what rights, duties, or privileges they would personally have. They had no idea about their own strength, weakness, abilities, inabilities, or conceptions of good and bad.

The Consequence of Ignorance: Because they were ignorant of these factors, the people were not in a position to form an opinion that favored anyone specifically. They could not disapprove of anything based on personal bias. They essentially started their civil life with a “clean slate”.

Ensuring Fairness: Rawls states, “The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance. This ensures that no one is advantaged or disadvantaged in the choice of principles by the outcome of natural chance or the contingency of social circumstances”.

This ignorance was not a handicap but a necessary condition for justice. It forced individuals to choose principles that would be fair to everyone, regardless of where they ended up in society. This concept echoes ideas found in Kant’s “categorical imperatives” and Rousseau’s writings on the state of nature.

6. Reflective Equilibrium and Intuitionism

To further refine how principles of justice are chosen, Rawls introduces the concepts of Reflective Equilibrium and Intuitionism.

Reflective Equilibrium: This concept describes a state of balance between our principles and our judgments.

The Process: Individuals construct judgments about rights and duties and simultaneously decide on principles. We must constantly check our moral reasoning against our intuitive moral motions.
Adjustment: If there is a mismatch, we adjust the conditions of the original position or revise our judgments until they coincide. This state of coincidence is the “equilibrium”.
Instability: Rawls notes that this equilibrium is never stable. Since society is in a fluctuating condition, new situations emerge that disturb the old equilibrium, requiring a continuous process of adjustment and readjustment. Justice is only fair if there is consistency between the principles and our moral judgments.

Intuitionism: Rawls also discusses intuitionism—the theory that primary truths are known by intuition rather than conscious reasoning.

Role in Justice: When individuals face the task of deciding on justice, they weigh various principles against one another. They do this by applying intuition rather than empirical methods.
The Method: Intuitionism has no specific method; individuals use it to reach a balance when faced with conflicting first principles. Rawls believes that for deciding “what is justice as fairness,” men apply intuitionism.

7. The Two Principles of Justice

The entire structure of Rawls’ theory revolves around Two Principles of Justice that would be chosen by people in the original position.

The First Principle: Equal Basic Liberties

“Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others”.

Interpretation: This principle prioritizes Liberty. In a society, there must be an extensive list of equal basic liberties (political, religious, cultural, economic).
Equality: Every person must have an equal right to these liberties. No one can claim more than others. The state must not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, caste, or language.
Priority Rule: Rawls prioritizes liberty over other values. If liberty is not given priority and discrimination crops up, injustice is inevitable. Mere declaration is not enough; implementation is vital to ensure no one gets more liberty than others due to manipulation.

The Second Principle: Social and Economic Inequalities

“Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) Reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage and (b) Attached to positions and offices open to all” .

Rawls considers this principle perhaps even more important than the first. It contains two powerful conditions for allowing inequality:

A. “Everyone’s Advantage” (The Difference Principle):

Rawls admits that strictly viewed, inequality is an anathema to justice. However, he makes a concession: inequality is allowed if it is to everyone’s advantage.
Natural Talents: Rawls argues that natural talents and abilities should be properly rewarded. The owner of natural abilities will get higher remuneration, leading to inequality. However, this is acceptable only if these inequalities work for the benefit of the least advantaged.
Capitalist Implication: By pronouncing that inequalities are not harmful if they generate benefits for all, Rawls effectively welcomes inequality and bestows good wishes upon capitalism.

B. “Open to All” (Fair Equality of Opportunity):

Inequalities must be attached to positions that are open to all.
Accessibility: This means every citizen must have adequate freedom to reach the door of privilege. There must be no restrictions.
Efficiency: The agencies allocating these privileges must be efficient so that advantages can reach everyone. Accessibility to authority and the “open to all” clause are inseparable.

8. Pure Procedural Justice

Rawls asserts that his theory relies on a system of Pure Procedural Justice. To understand this, he compares it with other forms:

Perfect Procedural Justice: A criterion for the “right result” exists before the procedure begins (like cutting a cake where the person cutting takes the last piece—the result is guaranteed to be equal).
Imperfect Procedural Justice: A goal exists (finding a criminal), but the procedure (a trial) cannot guarantee the result every time.
Pure Procedural Justice:
- There is no independent criterion for the right result.
- Instead, there is a fair procedure. If this procedure is properly followed, the outcome is automatically considered correct or fair, whatever it turns out to be.
- This requires impartial institutions that cooperate efficiently.

9. The Basic Structure

The implementation of these principles relies on the “Basic Structure” of society.

Definition: The basic structure is a public system of rules that defines a scheme of activities, leading men to act together to produce greater benefits.
Function: It is the way major social institutions (constitution, economic institutions) allocate rights, duties, and responsibilities.
Importance: Its effects on justice are profound, felt from the beginning to the end of the social process.

10. Assessment and Criticisms

While Rawls’ theory is monumental, the text highlights several critical assessments and limitations:

Capitalist Bias: Critics argue Rawls framed his theory to justify the liberal capitalist system. He justifies inequalities as potentially advantageous to all without addressing the fundamental division of classes or ownership of production. Critics like Ralph Miliband argue that as long as the capitalist system remains intact, real justice is a “far cry”.
Ambiguity of the “Least Advantaged”: Who exactly are the “least advantaged”? Rawls refers to a “representative man” of this group, but his definition is criticized for precluding many individuals with actual disadvantages. Barry believes this creates a big loophole in the theory.
Utopian Ideals:
- Efficiency: Rawls assumes owners of production will invite efficient management for the sake of efficiency. Critics argue this is Utopian; owners will not easily share responsibility.
- Opportunity: The phrase “open to all” is criticized as ambiguous. For example, can an ordinary poor citizen really compete for the American Presidency against a millionaire? The cost of campaigning makes the “open to all” clause practically meaningless for the middle class.
Priority Rule Challenge: The priority of equal liberty over economic advantage has been challenged. Critics question whether liberty should always supersede economic needs.
Egalitarianism: Paradoxically, while Marxists criticize his capitalist bias, Liberals and Libertarians (like Nozick) criticize his theory for being “extremely egalitarian” and difficult to apply.

11. Conclusion

John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice remains a cornerstone of modern political thought. By reviving the social contract and introducing the “Veil of Ignorance,” he attempted to balance the competing demands of Liberty and Equality within a liberal framework. He sought a middle ground where inequalities are permitted only if they serve the common good—a “fairness” that legitimizes the social structure. However, as critics note, whether this theory truly solves the injustices of capitalism or merely provides a sophisticated justification for them remains a subject of intense debate.