Rawls' theory of justice is not a theory of law but a theory about the

distribution of advantages, rights and duties that right-thinking individuals will agree
to be fair. To him, there are certain goods that are universally useful: liberties,
opportunities, income and wealth, and the bases of self respect; these he calls social
primary goods. The structures of society control these goods and distributes them in
such wise as to enable everyone to enjoy them. The allocation and distribution of
these goods is, for Rawls, the concern of justice.
Rawls perceives society as a cooperative venture for mutual advantage;
however, this cooperative venture is both marked by conflicting interests as well as
shared interests. There exists mutual advantage of interests, since social cooperation
benefits all members of the society. Conflict of interests arises because people have
different purposes and ends, and therefore make different claims on the distribution of
social primary goods. How then, can distributive justice be applied?
The trouble with choosing principles governing distribution in society is that
individual choices will be shaped in large measure by their particular circumstance. If
each of them is to choose the principles controlling society from the standpoint of his
own particularity, agreement may well be impossible. To ensure agreement, Rawls
proposes a hypothetical initial standpoint of neutrality. The principles that are to
govern distribution must be chosen by individuals who are interchangeable with each
other, i.e., each one is representative of any other, with the result that the choice of
one will be the choice of the other. Here, Rawls also states that the parties must
choose behind a veil of ignorance; they must know the general facts about human
history, political affairs and the principles of economic theory, but they must not know
the basis of social organization and the laws of human psychology. This is necessary,
according to Rawls, for this is what makes it possible for an intelligent, non-partisan,
non-discriminatory choice of principles to be made.
According to Rawls, this hypothetical arrangement in choosing the principles
to govern distribution will result in the principles of justice as fairness, stated as
follows;
1. Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty
compatible with similar liberty for others. this is known as the Liberty Principle, and,
2. The Equality Principle, which states that social and economic inequalities
are to be arranged so that they are both 1) reasonably expected to be to everyone's
advantage and 2) attached to positions and offices open to all
Central to Rawls' theory is the lexical order that obtains between the
principles, meaning that no social or economic benefit will ever justify the curtailment
of the most extensive liberty that may be allowed by the first principle.
In addition to these principles, there are two rules of priority:
priority rule 1: since the principles of justice are ranked in lexical order,

Liberty can be restricted only for the sake of liberty.

The basic liberties are those commonly protected by constitutional regimes,
including "freedom of speech and assembly; liberty of conscience and freedom of
thought; freedom of the person; the right to hold personal property and freedom from
arbitrary arrest and seizure. This priority rule, also called Priority of Liberty treats
these liberties as paramount and prohibits their sacrifice for the sake of efficiency,
utilitarian and perfectionist ideals, or even other principles within Justice as Fairness.
Priority rule 2 states that justice is prior to efficiency and to the maximization
of the sum of advantages.
The Equality Principle is the component of Justice as Fairness establishing
distributive justice. Rawls awards the Fair Equality of Opportunity Principle lexical
priority over the Difference Principle: a society cannot arrange inequalities to
maximise the share of the least advantaged whilst not allowing access to certain
offices or positions.
The Fair Equality of Opportunity principle maintains that "offices and
positions" should be open to any individual, regardless of his or her social
background, ethnicity or sex. It is stronger than 'Formal Equality of Opportunity' in
that Rawls argues that an individual should not only have the right to opportunities,
but should have an effective equal chance as another of similar natural ability.
The Difference Principle regulates inequalities: it only permits inequalities
that work to the advantage of the worst-off. This is often misinterpreted as trickledown economics; Rawls' argument is more accurately expressed as a system where
wealth "diffuses up". By guaranteeing the worst-off in society a fair deal, Rawls
compensates for naturally-occurring inequalities (talents that one is born with, such as
a capacity for sport).
Rawls summarized these two principles of justice as fairness thus; All social
goods - liberty and opportunity, income and wealth, and the bases of self-respect - are
to be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution of any, or all, of these values is
to everyone's advantage.
The theory of justice as fairness proposes a method of arriving at principles
governing the distribution of social goods that rational individuals will accept and
draws the institutional consequences of such a conception of justice. Its end result, as
Rawls stated; "a common understanding of justice as fairness makes a constitutional
democracy".
The lexical priority of liberty demands that liberty be first afforded to all
before any other principle comes to play. As Rawls enunciates, "if liberty is less
extensive, the representative citizenmust be find this a gain for his freedom on
balance; and if liberty is unequal, the freedom of those with lesser liberty must be
better secured. Any decrease in liberty is justified only if this decrease results in an

increase in liberty for each citizen on balance. For example, in some circumstances it
may be necessary to restrict the liberty of movement of citizens for their safety- and
thus for the amplification of their liberty on balance. The liberties accorded the media
in regard to a discussion of public issues and even public figures may be greater than
that allowed the ordinary citizen, but it is this relative inequality that allows greater
freedom of information for the ordinary citizen. A society that puts limits on certain
liberties is not necessarily unjust then; it is only unjust when curtailments do not result
in greater liberty.
Rawls' theory of justice goes further: it proposes a theory of actualizing
justice. Rawls discusses institutions tasked with making justice happen and he refers
to a just system that takes the ideal of justice away from the fickle moods and
inclinations of individual citizens. He thus advocates a just structuring of society
provided with the institutions that see to the fulfillment of the demands of justice.
Also, the very structures that are designed to bring about justice also encourages the
formation of the individual member of the society. As rawls states, "they must be not
only just but framed so as to encourage virtue of justice in those who take part in
them". In terms of Berger's social theory, the structures of justice must be internalized;
they must form the consciousness of the society.
Rawls theory of justice indicates a combination of procedural and
institutional justice. Procedural in so far as it is desired that whatever circumstances
may come into play and no matter how things turn out, the distribution itself is just. It
is institutional as the desired end can be achieved only by setting up the necessary
institutions that guarantee a regime of justice. Underlying these institutions, is a just
constitution that guarantees, among others, liberty of conscience and freedom of
thought. Law, in Rawls scheme, will be the guarantor of liberties, and the legal system
will be the steward of the just constitution. Law becomes the limit on liberty for the
sake of ensuring the widest possible range of liberties for all. Furthermore, it will
preserve the lexical order between the principles, allowing as legal only those
principles of just distribution after the cause of expansive liberty is served.