Rawls’ Theory of Justice

Nozick’s Theory of Justice

Comparison with the Concept of Justice in Islam

RAWLS’ THEORY OF JUSTICE

Rawls- holder of the chair in philosophy at Harvard, produced, in 1971, A Theory of
Justice, which called for a new look at the principles of social justice. His theory is
focused on the basic structure of society, political constitution, the legal system, laws,
institutions and social systems. He wants to seek and find a set of principles of justice
which should determine how the basic structure of the society should distribute burden
and benefits to achieve justice.
Rawls theory of justice provides a radical alternative to utilitarianism. His concern is a
concept of justice which considers moral judgment in deciding whether laws, politics or
actions are right or wrong. He is concerned with social justice dealing generally with
laws, institutions and social systems, rather than particular decisions judgments or
attitudes.
All in all, his starting point is “social contractarianism”.
Rawls’ Theory of Justice: = MARXISM
It is to be noted that Rawls is concerned with the question of justice relating to
distribution or social justice. Hence, Rawls bases his theory on a contract or social impact
which people have made for their society.
Rawls deduces his principles of justice as found by the people while they were in an
‘original position’. He asks to consider a hypothetical society. Its members want to
formulate some principles of justice to govern the basic structure of their society and to
determine basic rights and duties of the members. The idea of social contract has been
used to show that it is the rational persons who are going to choose the principles. In this
‘original position’, persons will select principles which will not take into account any
particular interest; they are to define principles which are objectively just.
• Furthermore, the persons involved in the selection of principles will hold their
discussions ‘behind a veil of ignorance’, so as to achieve objectivity. They will not
know how the choice of various alternatives will affect their own particular lives;
hence they will have to evaluate principles solely on the basis of ‘general
considerations’. No member of the group will know his place in society, his class
position, social status, his conception of what is ‘good’ the generation to which he
belongs, society’s economic or political situation. They must choose principles the
consequences of which they are prepared to live with, whatever generation they turn
out to belong to’.
• it would suffice to note that the ‘original actors’ under the ‘veil ignorance’ will
decide the nature of the society that they would like to live in. The persons who
would choose what kind of society they would want to live in would have or like to
have ‘certain primary goods’.
According to Rawls, “principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance,”
but it is not possible to adjust these principles to the circumstances of an
individual’s own case.
• Still on Rawls concept of the ‘original position’ and the role it plays in formulating
principles of justice, attention should not only be paid to the notion of the ‘veil of
ignorance’ possessed by the selectors, but reference must also be made to the two
conditions set by Rawls.‘objective conditions’ are found in the concept of
“moderate scarcity” of available resources. If these things are in plenty, then there is
no question of their distribution. On the other hand, ‘subjective conditions’ are
found in one’s own feelings and attitude. Persons in original position have an
attitude of “mutual disinterest”. They are concerned with only promoting own ideas
of good or bad. They are not interested in advancing the ideas of others. They have
got their own life plans and their own requirements, which are different from those
of others.
• it is equally important to point out that Rawls also came up with the notion of
“rationality of the parties” as a further explanation to the operation of his concept
of the ‘original position’. According to Rawls, the persons in the original position
are impelled to carry out their plans for life, in a manner which is rational. This
condition of rationality is associated with “subjective conditions” and assumes “a
sense of justice”. The sense of justice requires adherence, by self and others to the
principles worked out.
• Apart from ‘rationality of the parties’ being part and parcel of the ‘original position’
discussion, Rawls also came up with another component in explaining the operation
of the concept of the ‘original position’. To Rawls, there are constraints of justice as
well. For example, the people in the original position choose between principles of
justice, but these principles of justice have five restraints i.e. these principles must
be general; they must be of universal application; they must be capable of
being published; they must adjudicate the competing claims; and they must be
recognised as a final court of appeal.
Rawls equally paid attention to the idea of ‘primary goods’. These are goods which are
wanted by every person in the original position, whatever plan he may choose for
himself or herself. ‘Primary goods’ are described as basic rights, liberties and
powers. Hence, these ‘goods’ are things every rational person is presumed to want
in relation to his minimally tolerable life-plan. At a later stage, Rawls suggested that
the most important ‘primary good’ is self respect. For every person, ‘the good’ is
the satisfaction of his rational desires; ‘primary goods’ are the necessary means to
that end.
Thus, Rawls suggested that the decision of those in ‘the original position’ would be that
all social primary goods should be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution of
any or all of them is to the advantage of the least-favoured members of the society.
The Objective (s) of Rawls Theory of Justice:
Rawls is concerned with the question of justice relating to distribution or social justice.
Rawls enunciated two fundamental principles of ‘justice as fairness’. They will be
compatible with different kinds of democratic regime; the decision as to which system is
best for a given people will reflect their circumstances, historical traditions and
institutions. Two vital principles will emerge, according to Rawls, from the discussions
of those in the original position’: (a) First Principle & (b) Second Principle.
‘First Principle’ is that of equal liberty. It is aimed at achieving the primary social
goods. It is described as basic rights and liberties which are to be protected from
encroachments. They consist of freedom: to take part in the political process, by voting
and holding public offices; of speech and assembling; of conscience and thought; of
person not being subjected to arbitrary arrest; and to hold personal property.
To Rawls, liberty are to be maximised. This principle can be contravened in two ways: (i)
liberty is unequal when one class of persons has a greater liberty than another, and
(ii) liberty is less extensive than it should be. To Rawls, liberty can be restricted only
for the sake of liberty.
‘Second Principle’ Rawls argued that social and economic inequalities are to be
arranged so that they are both: (i) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged,
consistent with the just savings principle, and (ii) attached to offices and positions
open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. It is important to note that
the ‘Second Principle’ has two parts. The first provides for the ‘difference principle’
which means people are to be treated differently only if it is to the benefit of those so
treated. For example, experience shows that if the conditions of the worst off are
improved slightly, the inequalities in wealth are justified. On the other hand, if the
position of the worst off worsens even slightly, the increase in wealth is not justified. The
second provides for the principle of fair equality of opportunity. For example, the best
possible education and instruction must be within the reach of all. To do away with
disparities, caused by family or social background, remedial education must be given. In
other words, to achieve fairness, all persons must be provided with an opportunity to
develop their individualities and true worth.

it is important to note that the ‘First Principle’ has lexical priority over the ‘Second
Principle’. Or to put it simply, the people in the original position put liberty above
equality. Hence, in Rawls’ scheme, basic liberties are supreme. Justice is fairness, but,
fundamentally, liberty is all-important.
All in all, Rawls suggested a four-stage model of the transition to ‘the just society’ which
would embody within its constitution and political and legal structures the principles of
justice which he favours. The first stage would comprise ‘the original position’ from
where an articulation of the principles of justice will emerge. This will be followed by the
creation of a constitution embodying an appropriate structure of government and citizens’
rights. In the third stage legislation incorporating the second principle of justice will
appear. The fourth, ‘the judicial stage’ will be marked by the role of the judges, courts
and administrators in applying and protecting the community’s laws and rules.
Distributive Justice:
We are to imagine ourselves in what Rawls calls the ‘Original Position’. We are all self-
interested rational persons and we stand behind “the Veil of Ignorance”. To say that we
are self-interested rational persons is to say that we are motivated to select, in an
informed and enlightened way, whatever seems advantageous for ourselves.
To say that we are behind a “Veil of Ignorance” is to say we do not know the following
sorts of things: our sex, race, physical handicaps, generation, social class of our parents,
etc. But self-interested rational persons are not ignorant of (1) the general types of
possible situations in which humans can find themselves; (2) general facts about human
psychology and “human nature”. In other words, although the hypothetical actors are
denied specific knowledge of their own position they necessarily have a conception of the
good which underlies the distribution to be taken. Each person will have, upon emerging
from behind “the Veil of Ignorance”, an individual conception of good in the shape of
rational life plan.
• Furthermore, self-interested rational persons behind “the Veil of Ignorance” are
given the task of choosing the principles that shall govern actual world. Rawls
believes that he has set up an inherently fair procedure here.
• In addition to the above issue or point, a self-interested rational person behind
“the Veil of Ignorance” would not want to belong to a race or gender or sexual
orientation that turns out to be discriminated-against. Such a person would not
wish to be a handicapped person in a society where handicapped are treated
without respect. So principles would be adopted that oppose discrimination.
• Likewise, a self-interested rational person would not want to belong to a
generation which has been allocated a lower than average quantity of resources.
So (s)he would endorse the principle: “Each generation should have roughly
equal resources” or “Each generation should leave to the next at least as many
resources as they possessed at the start”.
Based on the ‘distributive justice’ discussion, Rawls proposes two principles of justice:
(1) Each person has an equal claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic rights
and liberties, (2) Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: (a)
They are to be attached to positions and offices open to all under conditions of fair
equality of opportunity; and (b), they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least
advantaged members of society. It should be noted that under Rawls' proposed system
Principle (1) has priority over Principle (2).
All in all, the original actors are concerned to secure the optimum system of distribution
of benefit for their own advantage. Hence, the starting- point for the working out of
principles of just distribution is thus set out in a ‘thin theory of good’. In other words,
though the people in the original position may have different plans, desires, and
objectives, there are certain common features of all desires which Rawls cover under ‘the
thin theory of the good’. Thus, the idea of ‘the thin theory of the good’ is to make people
believe that primary goods will be wanted by the participants in the original position,
whatever and howsoever diverse their plans may be.

Criticisms
The ‘original position’ is so highly-artificial that it is very difficult to accept it as the
basis of a credible hypothesis. In other words, it is difficult to think of the people, who do
not know anything of the developments of their society, but know the principles of
general psychology and social science. Further, what is the guarantee that people in ‘the
original position’ will choose the ‘social primary goods’ as enumerated by Rawls?
several critics have doubted whether the people in the original position would necessarily
opt for Rawls two principles of justice and, even if they did, why should they prefer
liberty to equality?

There is an inherent conflict between the principles of justice formulated by Rawls. In

other words, critics have also argued that it is unclear how conflicts between basic
liberties are to be resolved. Some have even detected a conflict between Rawls’ first and
second principle themselves.
Rawls maintains that people in ‘the original position’ will make some rational decisions .
But the question is: Why should they choose liberty and reject power?

Finally, some have doubted whether Rawls has provided a theory of justice at all!
According to certain critics, justice is about deserts: it is just that we should get what we
deserve. Thus, if you work hard at studying jurisprudence you deserve the reward of
doing well. But, in Rawls theorem, hard work need to be rewarded in order only to secure
that the worst-off do as well as possible.

Regardless of the criticisms Rawls theory of justice to a certain extent provides a radical
alternative to utilitarianism. He is concerned with social justice dealing generally with
laws, institutions and social systems, rather than particular decisions judgments or
attitudes.
Nozick’s Theory of Justice: CAPITALISM
Nozick has written a book, Anarchy, State and Utopia (1974) in which he has expounded
his concept of justice. The key to understand Nozick’s ideas, lies in his theory of the
minimal state, a state which interferes the least, to the minimum. In other words, Nozick
proposes a “minimal state”, with limited functions of a night watchman, whose main
concern is protection of citizens against force, theft, fraud, enforcement of contract and
the like. If the state goes beyond these functions, it would be in violation of the freedom
of an individual. In his view, a powerful state will violate principles of justice and
individual rights. Thus, the demonstration he adopts is to imagine a state of nature and
then he deduced a minimal state from the state of nature which in his opinion is better
than a powerful state.

The central theme of his theory of justice is that of entitlement. According to him, at all
times, people have possessed things and thus, the theory of entitlement is a historical
theory. Nozick things that the individual must have rights to his entitlements. And if his
rights are violated, he must be compensated. Thus, Nozick holds that the violation of the
individual rights cannot be justified on any utilitarian ground including maximisation of
aggregate welfare. To him, rights are sacrosanct and not to be violated.

In addition to the above, Nozick argued that in a just society, the rights of the individuals
are honoured. Each human being has an individuality, separateness and distinction from
all others. Each individual is entitled to enjoy his natural rights which comprise: (a) right
to life, health, liberty, possessions; and (b) right to compensation. Thus, no one is allowed
to do acts which harm the natural rights of others. This constraint is termed as “moral
side constraint”.
Furthermore, in addressing Nozick’s theory of justice which is built on the minimal state
and entitlement concepts, it is of paramount importance to pay attention to the features of
his theory of justice such as: rights and compensation discussion; justice in holdings,
beyond minimal state, etc.
Firstly, Nozick argued that an individual has a natural right to possession (i.e. justice in
holdings). It is also known as theory of entitlement based on these dealings of property:
(a) acquisition- Persons acquire “justice in acquisition”, when they acquire the property,
which was not held by anyone else. (b) Transfer- Persons transfer the property to the
present holders of it, by means which are legal, e.g., as sale or gift. This is known as
“justice in transfer (c) Rectification- If there is invalid transfer or unjust acquisition of
property, the transfer should be rectified and the property restored back. In other words,
rectification of breach would imply that no person is entitled to a holding save by
application of the above entitlements.

Secondly, Nozick argued that rights are moral side constraints and must be honoured
under all circumstances as far as the theory of justice is concerned. Hence, the
concept of rights as “moral side constraints”, leads one not to accept notions such as: (i)
traditional utilitarianism- This is rejected because the violation of the rights of an
individual, cannot be an adequate ground for the utilitarian principle that it is going to
better the lot of the largest number of people. (ii) Rawls’ difference principle- It is
rejected because it forces some persons to contribute for the well being of other people. It
is forcible transfer of goods to get at distributive justice. Nozick criticises the theories of
distributive justice as theories of recipient justice, that ignore giving completely. (iii)
Permitting any violation of rights. This is rejected because it would lead to a number of
violation of rights in a social set up. This would indirectly import a “utilitarianism of
rights”.

Nozick argued that the concept of justice holds that a person’s individuality should be
respected and his interests should not give way for the benefit of another person. But
there are conditions under which there is legal justification to place restraints on the
rights of a person, provided that person as such is awarded compensation.

Thirdly, an appropriate political and legal background for the society in which
Nozick’s favoured type of justice would flourish is ‘the minimal state’, protecting life,
liberty and possessions. In practice, the minimal State would carry out ‘night
watchman functions’ only. It would act to protect against force, fraud, theft, and would
enforce contracts. Essentially, the minimal State, argues Nozick, is designed to protect
the rights of individuals to hold what they possess. To act so as to redistribute resources,
e.g., through compulsory taxation, is unacceptable and immoral. The ‘difference
principle’, enunciated by Rawls, which would allow a patterned redistribution of
wealth to the advantage of the poorer members of society, is a violation of individual
liberties. Indeed, suggests Nozick, some aspects of taxation of the earning of labour
are akin to forced labour. The creators of wealth have inviolable rights over its
possession and use. Hence, any growth of the State so that it takes on a supra-minimal
character is, generally, unacceptable.

Fourthly, Nozick in addressing his theory of justice further came up with the concept of
‘beyond minimal state’. According to Nozick, any state which is more powerful than the
minimal state, would interfere in private transactions. This interference would lead to
violation to fundamental rights to liberty and property.
To the critics, ‘the minimal state’ is impracticable.
In addition to the above, Nozick argues that ‘the minimal state’ with limited functions of
a night watchman, emerge from a state of nature and without infringing the rights of
individuals. Lloyd: “How is the minimal state to be controlled?
There is no explanation given by Nozick of the actual derivation of the so-called
‘fundamental rights’. How, why and where they originated is not made clear.
According to Nozick, in a just society, each individual is entitled to the enjoyment of
one’s natural rights comprising life, health, liberty and possessions. Each of these rights
is subject to a side restraint in respect of the rights of others. But it is doubtful whether
the list is exhaustive. It does not include the right to relief from poverty or suffering, in
other words, food and medicine. To this Nozick’s answer is that no one has a right to
something which is obtained by uses of things and activities over which other people
have rights and entitlements.
Nozick’s theory of justice leaves out the rights to welfare. Nozick’s reply to this attack is
that such rights would imply that certain persons have got a right to be assisted by others.
Despite this reply, exclusion of the rights to welfare abandons the weaker sections of the
society and does not at all consider their interests.
His emphasis on individualism results in rejection of paternalism in any form. His
argument is that individuals should use their bodies in the way they like, because they are
the masters of their own bodies.
The implication of his views as they relate to the distribution of social resources have
been questioned. There are suggestions that Nozick is providing a justification for a
society without compassion or philanthropy.
The comparison of forced labour and taxation is a simplistic approach to reality. Forced
labour is a denial of human dignity and basic rights; it arises from no free choice.
Nozick’s theory of justice as opposed to the one of Rawls raises fundamental questions
about the general concept of justice in society. See the example of President Obama and
his ‘health care bill’ in America and how it has divided the society some being in favour
and others not in favour of such an idea altogether..

Comparison with the Concept of Justice in Islam:

-Notion of accessibility to justice- Looking at both the theories of justice of Rawls and
Nozick, they seem to have developed conceptions of justice to articulate how a just rule
can be realized for those who are affected by the law (rule of law). In contrast, the
Islamic conception of access to justice is more based on establishing justice rather
than the accessibility of justice. For example, the Qur’an provides: “God commands
justice and fair dealing...” (Quran 16:90).
-The source of justice- In Islam the source of justice is the Qur’an and Sunnah of the
Prophet. In other words, justice cannot just be understood like the way Rawls and Nozick
puts it.
Rawls understanding the theory of justice is by making reference to individual in the
original position.
Nozick started the discussion by way of making reference to a minimal state approach.
Islamic concept of justice is not based on philosophical debates but rather the Qur’an and
Sunnah.
-Operation of the concept of justice- Justice in Islam is not only limited to certain aspects
like the notion of ‘distributive justice’, treating like cases and many more but it covers a
variety of aspects. In other words, Qur’anic concept of justice also extends justice to
being a personal virtue, and one of the standards of moral excellence that a believer is
encouraged to attain as part of his God-consciousness.  God says: “…Be just, for it is
closest to God-consciousness…” (Qur’an 5:8).
Rawls paid more attention to the concept of justice by limiting it to two important
principles i.e. the first principle (that is of equal liberty, which is aimed at achieving the
primary social goods & described as basic rights and liberties which are to be protected
from encroachments) and the second principle (which Rawls argued that social and
economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both: (i) to the greatest benefit
of the least advantaged, consistent with the just savings principle, and (ii) attached to
offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity).
Nozick i.e. theory of justice is that of entitlement.

-Justice in Islam is viewed as a trust- Justice is a trust that God has conferred on the
human being and, like all other trusts, its fulfillment must be guided by a sense of
responsibility beyond mere conformity to set rules. 
Rawls deduces his principles of justice as found by the people while they were in an
‘original position’. He asks to consider a hypothetical society. Its members want to
formulate some principles of justice to govern the basic structure of their society and to
determine basic rights and duties of the members. The idea of social contract has been
used to show that it is the rational persons who are going to choose the principles.
Hence, in western jurisprudence justice may not be viewed as connoting the idea of trust
that God has conferred on the human beings.
-Rendering justice is an act of devotion- To ‘render justice’ Sarkhasi: ‘ranks as the most
noble of acts of devotion next to belief in God. Hence, justice in Islam is considered as an
act of devotion or as a basic principle of Islam since it has its roots in God Himself. To
the secular jurist who sees it as an end in itself this may seem an alien concept.
Note: both concepts call for equal treatment or equality in justice. In other words, the
approach of the concept of justice both from Islamic and also western perspective do
share some common similarity. In the Islamic worldview, justice denotes placing things
in their rightful place.  It also means giving others equal treatment.  In Islam, justice is
also a moral virtue and an attribute of human personality, as it is in the Western tradition. 
Justice is close to equality in the sense that it creates a state of equilibrium in the
distribution of rights and duties, but they are not identical. 
Conclusion:
Rawls and Nozick came up with different theories of justice advocating for different
ends. Nozick’s theory of justice is concerned not with distribution of wealth or benefits as
between individuals, but with the material holdings of each individual.
Rawls principle of justice seems to be in favour of distribution of wealth i.e., social and
economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both: to the greatest benefit of
the least advantaged, consistent with the just saving principle. Islam attaches the highest
importance to concept of justice e.g. justice which is part and parcel of equity portrays
the backbone of the whole act of creation. Allah commands us to do justice. Hence Islam
recognises absolute equality between people in terms of equity, justice and freedom for
all irrespective of their race, nationality..