Essay about the theory of justice in John Rawls.

Seminar: Einfürung in die Praktische Philosophie.

Roberto Jiménez Méndez. SoSe 2013

The question of how to build a just society has found a variety of answers. Accordingly,
have developed a set of theories that attempt to explain how criteria supported by
each other take shape in the performance and behavior of the basic structure society.
But what exactly is it that theories of justice regulate? This is a question worth
addressing before starting with the description of any of them. A first approximate
answer is: the system of freedoms and obligations and income distribution. With
various approaches, most theories match this approach. To be sure to mention the
income distribution we mean both the distribution direct taxes, transfers and
subsidies, as the distribution of the income generated by resources productive or
generated by consumption of articles or personal property (tangible goods, services,
respect for one self, being, knowledge, health, mental abilities or physical, etc.). Justice
theories differ in the importance they attach to this class of goods. Thus, for the
utilitarian welfare is key while Rawls emphasizes respect one same. The description of
the various approaches is beyond the scope of this work, soonwards we will focus on
the theory of Rawls.

In the preface to the Theory of Justice Rawls presents at the same time the basic
objective and the parentage of his thought. Its aim is to introduce a moral theory,
faced widespread skepticism at the time (largely inherited marxism and
neopositivism), offered a foundation sufficiently solid. The moral issues are certainly
difficult, but he´s convinced that it is possible to give correct answers. This theory,
which may be called "moral realism", was also offered as an alternative to both
utilitarianism (which must be recognized as a doctrine "truly awesome in scope and
sophistication") as to intuitionism, apparently the only alternative acceptable
possibilities. Rawls is declared follower of the contractarian tradition represented by
Locke, Rousseau and, especially, for Kant, which recognizes feel very close.

For Rawls, as well as the truth is the priority of every system of thought, justice
must be the first virtue of social institutions, above even the welfare of society. Thus
establishing the principle that the loss of freedom for someone can´t be justified by the
fact that a majority achieves gain some good that haven´t it before. As in the case of
truth, justice can´t be a subject to transactions. Justice is therefore the only value that
can define a "well-ordered society." In a society of this kind, the principles of social
justice provide a way to assign rights and duties in the basic institutions of society, and
define the appropriate distribution of the benefits and charge of social cooperation.

One point worth noting is that the primary object of justice is not addressed, in
principle, to institutions or social practices, but to the "basic structure of society", ie
the most important social institutions. By "major social institutions" Rawls understands
the political constitution and the principal economic and social setup, which take the
form political rights such as freedom (voting, holding public office), freedom of
expression and assembly, the legal protection of freedom of thought and conscience,
market competition, private ownership of the means of production or the
monogamous family.

The fundamental principles governing the basic structure of a well-ordered society

are the object of an original agreement. These principles would be accepted by free
and rational persons, interested in promoting their own interests and they would be in
an initial situation of inequality, called "original position". These principles regulate all
subsequent agreements, specifying the type of cooperation that can take place and
the most appropriate forms of government. In this way of understanding justice Rawls
calls it "justice as equity".

The "original position" of which our author speaks corresponds to the "state of
nature" in the traditional theories of social contract, such as Hobbes and Rousseau.
Himself explains that his "original position" is not meant as "a historically accurate
state of affairs, much less as a primitive condition of culture." This is a purely
hypothetical situation characterized so as to lead to a certain conception of justice. A
fundamental feature of this unique situation is the "veil of ignorance" that affects all
who are in this situation: no one knows his place in society, his class or social status, no
one knows either what is his luck with regarding the distribution of benefits or natural
abilities as their intelligence; means, even, the members of the group don´t know their
conceptions of the good or their special psychological tendencies. This situation that
the natural random contingencies or social circumstances don´t give to anyone
advantages to agree on the principles. His definition of the "original position" also
explains the appropriateness of "justice as equity" (or impartiality): "transmit the idea
that the principles of justice are agreed in an initial situation that is just."

In a starting situation as described, individuals would choose two principles that can
be established as criteria for determining if the basic structure of a society is just.
These two principles, although have been reformulated several times, could
materialize as follows. The first principle means that everyone has the right to enjoy a
system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar set of liberties for all. The
second principle permits the possibility of social and economic inequalities provided
that two conditions: a) equal opportunities for access to offices and positions, and b)
duty to attempt maximum benefits to the least advantaged members of society
(principle of the difference).

The application of these principles is subject to an order (Rawls calls "lexical") which
states that the second law only applies if the first is true, which ultimately means the
priority of liberty over any other right. Another interesting aspect affects the
difference principle, as embodied in a rule called "maxi-min" (minorum maximun
contraction) and isn´t other thing than a distribution criterion. One might well ask:
unequal distribution of wealth and authority could be just, but only if it does not find
any other way able to improve the prospects of disadvantaged group. This distribution
rule affects "social primary goods" that, unlike the "natural primary goods" such as
health or intelligence which are distributed according to a "natural lottery", depend on
the articulation of social relations, the privileges associated with the authority, income,
wealth, etc.

Naturally, these principles should be applied, and thereby does Rawls, establishing
details contentious issues such as the limits of tolerance, the intervention in the case
of criminal peoples, the just war conditions, to what extent is due the helps
disadvantaged people, etc.. Ultimately, Rawls's work is the expression of the sincere
belief that if the history of humanity is full of unjust wars, religious persecutions, the
oppression of peoples and citizens, slavery, countless cruelties, is due to political
injustice, but if this injustice disappears, also disappear ills that have accompanied.
 Given the exposure that I have made of the fundamental ideas of Rawls maybe
someone might think that his work is, before of all, a theoretical formulation by
approach on too abstract principles general, or on classical problems which is not
always present. In some ways, this was an accusation which faced after the publication
of A Theory of Justice. Rawls recognizes that while his work is directed to some classic
problems such as religious and political freedom, basic rights of citizens in a civil
society, economic and social inequalities, along with other less general as paternalism,
civil disobedience or conscientious objection, it is also true that other issues such as
democratic demands in the business, issues related to restorative justice, protection of
the environment and wildlife, inequality and oppression of women, they had deserved
attention. Rawls responds to this criticism from a theoretical position: "Once we
acquire correct conceptions and principles to face basic historical issues, these
conceptions and these principles should also be applicable amply to our problems.

To Rawls is did criticized him from positions that, following the conventions
ordinarily used, could be considered more devastating or more progressive, but both
have had to admit that his work managed to install firmly theories about justice in the
heart of ethics, political philosophy and, ultimately, in the modern social sciences. As
also unanimously recognized, his work is the work of a life of an honest man,
courageously committed with not always majority ideas with which he lived.