2018889638

2LM2

CRITICAL ESSAY

5. Rawls argues for an account of justice as fairness, and gives us two principles of justice.
According to Rawls, what attitude should we adopt to the worst off and why? Do you think
that this is a compelling argument?

Rawls argued his idea of the theory of justice by introducing that every individual is
inviolable. Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of
society as a whole cannot override (Rawls 1971, p. 3). Because of this, Rawls takes into
consideration the equality of everyone. In a just society the liberties of equal citizenship are
taken as settled; the rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or to the
calculus of social interests (Rawls 1971, p. 4). He believed that life should not be sacrificed
for the sake of the majority, contrary to consequentialist ethics, specifically utilitarianism.
This essay will talk about the strengths and weaknesses of Rawls’s theory of justice, the
philosophy behind the original position and the veil of ignorance and what attitude should we
adopt to the worst off, according to Rawls. Furthermore, I will discuss on how the maximin
principle is a compelling argument and how relevant it is in the contemporary world. Lastly, I
will supplement more ideas as to how this attitude is a compelling argument, among other
principles.

According to Rawls, his theory of justice aims to be an alternative, or be a better version of

traditional philosophy. He pointed out that his guiding aim is to work out a theory of justice
that is viable alternative to doctrines which have dominated the philosophical tradition.
Rawls’ theory of justice has many strengths that can support the state’s welfare and people’s
way of life. To start, his theory resembles the whole statue of the lady justice, on how justice
should be. His theory forces us to think about justice as being fair. As to how everyone
should have equal access to the basic human needs, rights and liberties. This contradicts the
utilitarian way that it is in terms of the greatest good for the greatest number. In Rawls’
theory of justice, everyone should be equal. Second, Rawls’ emphasized on the original
position and the veil of ignorance. In the original position, we decide what the basic structure
of society is just, and we should view these contracts under a veil of ignorance. Among the
essential features of this situation is that no one knows his place in society, his class position
or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and
abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like (Rawls 1971, p. 12). Moreover, it is assumed
that the principle of justice is chosen under a veil of ignorance. In addition, Rawls’ theory
attempts to reconcile liberty and equality, instead of opposing them. Freedom as equal liberty
is the same for all; the question of compensating for a lesser than equal liberty does not arise.
But the worth of liberty is not the same for everyone (Rawls 1971, p. 204). He stated that
instead of equality and liberty are opposing ideas, it can be achieved as though it would
complement each other by his theory of justice. Lastly, Rawls’ theory of justice is
comprehensive and systematic. It’s not a day-to-day practical application, but a big picture
review of society’s institutions.

However, there are a few problems about Rawls’ theory of Justice. First, the idea behind the
“Original Position” and the “Veil of Ignorance” may exclude some morally relevant
information. The theory excludes in order to promote rationality and is biased in favor of
rationality (Sullivan and Pecorino, 2002). In reality, some may not adopt this theory since
others are not rational. It is difficult if not impossible for people to place themselves under
the Veil of Ignorance in the Original Position in order to formulate what conduct would be
required of them by the Maximin principle (Sullivan and Pecorino, 2002). Because of this, it
would not achieve the idea of everyone being ignorant about their circumstances. The theory
was developed more to handle problems within society and there are difficulties in applying
the principles to individual decision-making involving specific others (Sullivan and Pecorino,
2002). Because of the theory being centered in liberty and equality, it mainly addresses
problems about society in particular. It may have issues with the individual person since
Rawls prioritized citizens and groups instead of the individual point of view. Furthermore,
although different in context, people criticize Rawls’ theory of justice as similar to
Utilitarianism. Some criticize it for being similar to Utilitarianism in as much as these two
principles could permit or demand inequalities and suffering in order to benefit the least well
off (Sullivan and Pecorino, 2002). With the utilitarian’s philosophy of the greatest good for
the greatest number, critics compared it to what the difference principle tells that social and
economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both to the greatest benefit of the
least advantaged.

I argue that in order to help the worst off, Rawls’ difference principle or the maximin. The
maximin rule tells us to rank alternatives by their worst possible outcomes; we are to adopt
the alternative the worst outcome of which is superior to the worst outcomes of the others
(Rawls 1971, p. 152-153). This idea of Rawls means that the society shall maximise the
minimum prospects, that leads to Rawls’ ideology of justice as fairness. According to Rawls,
the difference principle means that social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that
they are both: (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged (b) attached to offices and
positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. It tells us that society
should produce outcomes that would greatly benefit the lowest in the society. All social
values-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 (Rawls 1971, p. 62).

I think that this is a compelling argument because it isn’t very realistic, as to what our
contemporary world depicts it to be. As much as Rawls’ theory of justice is as good as it can
be, it is only hypothetical. During the pandemic, I have come to realize that there is a wide
gap between the rich and the poor. It is very evident especially in the Philippines, since most
are having problems with basic needs such as food, water, shelter, and more. According to
Rawls, A scheme is unjust when the higher expectations, one or more of them, are excessive.
If these expectations were decreased, the situation of the least favored would be improved
(Rawls 1971, p. 79). If people were to act under original position and the veil of ignorance,
Rawls’ theory of justice would be achievable as it is of equal importance that everyone
should be ignorant of their circumstances before adopting this theory. In addition, Rawls
argued that choosing an economic system, we would adopt a maximin strategy. Thus,
maximizing the minimum possible position that we take and so we then choose difference
principle. We do not know the probabilities of ending up rich or poor, and the maximin
principle guarantees the minimum rights and livelihood to partake in a productive society. It
is simply about the basic structure of institutions that they should be organized in a way that
the ones better off have the least advantage. While Rawls has been controversial, others
believe that not everyone will follow the original position, and would oppose them into
having other ideologies. But even though the Rawls’ theory of justice is not necessarily
followed by all, we can see how other societies are influenced by this theory. Because of this,
nations help others by assisting them through donations, loans, etc. One example would be
how countries who are well off aim in assisting countries who are badly hit by the pandemic.
Donations of vaccines, PPEs and more from other countries to the Philippines is an example
of how the work of others can be beneficial to the least advantaged.

In conclusion, there are advantages and disadvantages to Rawls’ theory of justice. The
principle of justice as fairness may only be achieved if everyone would be in their original
position, governing the idea that principles that free and rational persons concerned to further
their own interests would accept in an initial position of equality as defining the fundamental
terms of their association. If people were to cover themselves in a veil of ignorance, there will
be a uniform principle of justice. The theory’s strength and weaknesses may be categorized
as to how it would affect the principles that underlie beneath the real issue. Although the
theory might be hypothetical in nature, it makes you think what if the world stimulated
Rawls’ theory of justice. Because privilege exists, it would be hard to impose this theory of
justice since the reality of the rich getting richer, and the poor getting poorer is prevalent in
our world today. Lastly, as long as the capitalists are gaining more and more money, there
would be no chance for Rawls’ theory to be accepted.

Words: 1500
BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Rawls, J. A. (1971) A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Stephen O Sullivan and Phillip A. Pecorino (2002), ‘ETHICS: An Online Textbook’

< https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/ethics_text/CONTENTS.htm>

Ethics Unwrapped (2021), Veil of Ignorance,

<https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/veil-of-ignorance>