Justice according to John Rawls
By Ayessa Kyla Siton
The Rawlsian Theory of Justice
John Rawls’s A Theory of Justice describes the meaning of justice in meticulous detail. To begin, the Original Position is described to be only a hypothetical concept that acts as a guide to help theorists or scholars understand where the “starting” point of equality and topics of justice should lie. This concept is in accordance to the traditional theory of the social contract, meaning that when in discussion about moral and political philosophy, scholars must put into account the first teachings and theories about the topics in order to have a base concept about justice. The concept of Original Position acts as a base or structure to study or create principles to provide equality of justice for everyone.
The Veil of Ignorance, another term related to the concept of Original Position, tells us that since "no one truly knows their position and status in society," people must assume that they are in equal standing in terms of deciding the choice of the principles of justice. With this concept, the rules concerning social cooperation are created. Rawls defines" justice as fairness" as the compromise between freedom and equality. Inequalities are permissible as long as they are to the benefit of the worst off in society.
The Priority of Liberty, a concept that has a central role on Rawls’ Theory, discusses the importance of making sure everyone in society has access to their basic rights and liberties. If ever comes a time where a minority is deprived of equal liberty, it is stated that it is only possible if these restrictions are justified by the circumstances that they present and only if those restrictions will eventually lead to an end goal where everyone gets to enjoy equal liberties. But other than that, the rights and liberties of each individual must be protected and respected. Liberty is non-negotiable. The liberty of a person cannot be sacrificed even if the same is meant for the advantage of many.
The Difference Principle seeks to ensure that the worst off are taken care of in society. Inequalities are not necessarily bad. People have talents and they should be able to enjoy the fruits of the same. But the unequal incomes of people is only allowed if the inequality gives more advantages to those who are less fortunate in society. The redistribution of social primary goods is meant to rectify the uneven situation of people without compromising personal liberty.
On the Communitarian Meaning of Justice
Michael Sandel criticized Rawls’s theory that tackled the topic of the priority of rights. Sandel challenged that justice is relative to the concept of the good. Justice and the meaning of the common good are not independent of each other or mutually exclusive. One way of understanding Sandel's explanation of justice is looking through the communitarian lens in which the concept of what is just and unjust depends on the values of a community. Different communities have different shared understandings on the idea of right and wrong, depending on their history, traditions, culture, and belief systems.
One view, says Sandel, explains that the concept of right or wrong depends on the justification of the circumstances of a situation. If the act points to the sense of human good, then the act can be justified as morally right. According to Sandel, such view is insufficient if that will be the only basis for deciding what is right or not. He speaks about a second view in which an act must first be judged on the basis of the fact that it serves an important moral good in the first place.
Sandel emphasized the importance of the community’s role in the self-realization of the individual. In his writing, he discusses some arguments that tell us several things about the environment’s influence to individual personality. According to the concept of the Emptiness Argument, there is no such thing as an empty human self. The self is molded by the social practices of an environment people grew in. The identity that most people preach is “unique to every individual” is actually just influenced by their own communal practices. Human beings are subconsciously dependent on such practices. Their beliefs, culture, and preferences are sophisticatedly intertwined with their community’s influence. People cannot choose which community they will be born into, thus the community they will grow up has a major role in shaping what they will become.
Rawls’s concept of justice centers more around the rights and liberties of each individual person. The rights of one person are so important that it is considered completely inviolable, not even for the benefit of a greater welfare. The concept of what is just versus what is good are two independent entities and Rawlsian justice gives more priority to the rights of the individual person. Communitarianism, on the other hand, gives importance to the shared understanding of justice in a certain community. Communal practices, culture, and beliefs carry a great weight in how an act can be justified as right or wrong. The individual is connected to the community, therefore the general welfare of the majority in the community is the priority.
Editor's Note: This is an examination paper under the Contemporary Theories of Justice class of Dr. Christopher Ryan Maboloc, an undergraduate course.
