Page |1

NAME: ELSA SHAIKH

SUBJECT: POLITICAL SCIENCE

SAP ID: 81012100612

TOPIC: JOHN RAWL- THEORY OF JUSTICE

SEMESTER: IIND

YEAR: 2021 – 2026

BATCH: B.A. LLB (HONS.)

SUBMITTED TO: MR. RAYEES BHATT SIR

 Page |2

TABLE OF CONTENT

S.NO. HEADING PAGE NO.

1 ABSTRACT` 3

2 JOHN RAWL 3

3 INTRODUCTION 4

4 STRUCTURE OF 5
SOCIETY
5 IDEA OF JUSTICE 5
AS FAIRNESS
6 PRINCIPLE OF 6
JUSTICE AS
FAIRNESS
7 THOUGHT 8
EXPERIMENT
8 CONCLUSION 9
 Page |3

JOHN RAWL THEORY OF JUSTICE

ABSTRACT
When is it a moral obligation for citizens to follow the government and support society's
institutions? This is a crucial question in political philosophy. John Rawls' theory of justice,
"Justice as fairness," in the book A Theory of Justice, released in 1971, was one of the key
responses of the twentieth century. Justice as Fairness, a revised and condensed version of
Rawls' theory, was released in 2001 with editing assistance from Erin Kelly, a former pupil.
Rawls' introduction is divided into eight sections. Part 2 outlines the allocation principles he
supported after a brief biographical introduction. As an introduction to the rest of the
argument offered in part 4, part 3 outlines Rawls' theory of society and the person. Section 5
delves into his justification theory, while section 6 highlights three places where his more
recent work Justice as Fairness varies from A Theory of Justice. Section 7 discusses some of
the objections, while Section 8 highlights some of Rawls' theory's lasting achievements.1

ABOUT JOHN RAWL

John Rawls was born in 1921 in Baltimore, Maryland. President Franklin D. Roosevelt and
the New Deal were backed by his father, a business lawyer. His mother was a proponent of
women's rights. Rawls, the second of five boys, developed and passed on contagious ailments
to two of his brothers, both of whom died as a result. Before joining Princeton in 1939, Rawls
attended mostly private schools. He had no idea what he wanted to do with his life and ended
up majoring in philosophy. This piqued his interest in religion, and he explored pursuing
ministry training. He entered in the Army after graduating with a degree in philosophy in
1943 and served in an army intelligence unit in the South Pacific for two years. Following his
retirement from the Army at the end of the war, he went to Princeton to earn an advanced
degree in philosophy via the GI Bill of Rights. In 1948, he received his doctorate. Rawls was
employed as a philosophy department faculty at Princeton in 1950. He did, however, pursue
his own studies, particularly in economics. Rawls received a Fulbright grant at Oxford in
1952, when he initially conceived of what would become his famous "thought experiment."
He returned to the United States and joined the philosophy departments at Cornell, MIT, and
Harvard. From 1962 through 1991, he was a professor of philosophy at Harvard University.
Rawls was primarily an intellectual, focusing on abstract thought and writing. He did,
however, lead a movement at Harvard during the Vietnam War to challenge the justice of
student military draught deferments. Why, he wondered, should college students, many of
whom had social and economic advantages, be exempt from the conscription while others
who did not had to fight? He advocated a lottery method, which was subsequently
implemented by the US late in the Vietnam War. He spent the 1960s primarily working on A
Theory of Justice, which was published in 1971. This difficult project aimed to create social
justice criteria or principles that could be applied to real-world situations.2
1
A Theory of Justice, John Rawls, 1971
2
'John Rawls, Justice and a Well-ordered Society', by Peter Lass man in Political Thought Since 1945:
Philosophy, Science and Ideology edited by Leonard Tivey and Anthony Wright , 1992
 Page |4

INTRODUCTION
Political philosophy, according to Rawls, serves at least four functions in a society's public
culture.
1. The first is practical: when strong political divides threaten to lead to violent
confrontation, philosophy may give reasons for reasoned consensus. Rawls cites
Hobbes' Leviathan as an attempt to solve the problem of order during the English civil
war, Locke's Letter on Toleration as a response to the Wars of Religion, and the
philosophy that emerged from debates over the US Constitution and the extension of
slavery prior to the American civil war as sources of inspiration.
2. A second function of political philosophy is to assist individuals in orienting
themselves within their social environment. Philosophy may contemplate what it
means to be a member of a particular society—in a democracy, an equal citizen—and
provide a unifying framework for addressing difficult problems about how persons
with that political standing should interact.
3. A third function is to test the boundaries of political possibility. Political philosophy
must offer practical political systems that may elicit public support. Within these
bounds, however, philosophy may be utopian: it can portray the highest possible
social order. Philosophy imagines rules as they may be given humans as they are.
4. A fourth function of political philosophy is reconciliation: "to quiet our irritation and
wrath against our society and its history by showing us the way in which its
institutions... are rational, and developed over time to achieve their present,
reasonable shape" . Philosophy may demonstrate that human existence is not just
about dominance and brutality, prejudice, foolishness, and corruption, but that it is, at
least in some respects, better as it is.3
Rawls sees his own work as a practical contribution to addressing the long-standing
contradiction between liberty and equality in democratic theory, as well as defining the
boundaries of civic and international tolerance. He provides a positive picture of a stable, just
constitutional democracy doing its part within a peaceful international community, and he
offers people of democratic nations a means of viewing themselves as free and equal citizens
of a society that is fair to everyone. Rawls presents the comforting concept that variety of
worldviews originates from, and may promote, a social order with more freedom for all to
those who are dissatisfied that their fellow citizens and fellow humans do not understand the
complete truth as they do.4

BASIC STRUCTURE OF SOCIETY

Justice as fairness refers to a fair arrangement of a liberal society's fundamental political and
social institutions, such as the political constitution, the judicial system, the economy, and the

3
Political Theory An Introduction, Edited by Rajeev Bhargava and Ashok Acharya, First Edition, (2008) Pearson
Publication
4
Political Thinkers From Socrates to the Present, Edited by David Boucher and Paul Kelly, (2009) Oxford
University Press
 Page |5

family. The arrangement of these institutions is referred to by Rawls as the society's basic
structure. Because these institutions distribute the main benefits and burdens of social life,
such as who will receive social recognition, who will have which basic rights, who will have
opportunities to get what kind of work, how will income and wealth be distributed, and so on,
the basic structure is the location of justice. The basic framework of a society will have a
significant impact on inhabitants' lives. The fundamental framework will have an impact on
residents' life chances, as well as their objectives, attitudes, relationships, and personalities.
Institutions that will have such a profound impact on people's lives must be justified. Because
most individuals cannot leave their society, the reasoning cannot be that citizens have
accepted to a fundamental framework by remaining in the nation. And, because the rules of
any fundamental organisation will be imposed by coercion, frequently with severe
consequences, the need to justify the imposition of any specific set of rules will grow even
stronger.5
When defining justice as fairness, Rawls presupposes that the liberal society in issue is
characterised by tolerable pluralism as defined above, as well as that it is operating under
generally favourable conditions: that there are sufficient resources to meet everyone's
fundamental requirements. Rawls adopts the simple premise that society is self-contained and
closed, with citizens entering and exiting only through birth and death. He also concentrates
his efforts on ideal theory, ignoring non-ideal theories such as criminal justice.

IDEA OF JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS

Citizens must participate in some type of social collaboration in order to live good lives.
Citizens, on the other hand, are not unconcerned about how the advantages and liabilities of
collaboration will be distributed. The basic liberal notions that cooperation should be fair to
all citizens seen as free and equals are articulated in Rawls' principles of justice as fairness.
Rawls' unique understanding of these notions might be seen of as a combination of a negative
and a positive thesis. Rawls' negative thesis begins with the notion that citizens do not
deserve to be born into a wealthy or impoverished family, to be born naturally more or less
gifted than others, to be born female or male, to be born a member of a certain ethnic group,
and so on. Citizens are not entitled to additional advantages of social cooperation merely
because of these characteristics of people, which are ethically arbitrary in this view. The fact
that a citizen was born wealthy, white, and male, for example, is no grounds for social
institutions to favour this person.6
This negative thesis does not
provide recommendations for how
social goods should be allocated; it
simply clears the decks. Equality-
based reciprocity is Rawls' positive
distributive argument. Unless an
uneven distribution will benefit
5
Western Political Thought, O P Gauba, (2011) Laxmi Publications
6
https://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-23-3-c-justice-as-fairness-john-rawls-and-his-theory-of-
justice
 Page |6

everyone, all social products must be allocated equally. The key notion is that, because
citizens are inherently equal, thinking about justice should begin with the assumption that
products generated jointly should be distributed equally. Any inequities must therefore
benefit all citizens, particularly those who will have the least. Equality is the starting point;
from there, any inequalities must better everyone's status, particularly the poorest. Rawls'
theory of justice is defined by these stringent equality and reciprocal benefit conditions.7

PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS

The two principles of justice provide institutional structure to these guiding notions of justice
as fairness:
First Principle: Everyone has an inalienable right to a completely sufficient system of equal
basic rights, which is consistent with the same scheme for everyone.
Second Principle: Inequalities in social and economic terms must meet two criteria:
They must be connected to offices and positions that are available to all under fair equality of
opportunity; they must be to the greatest benefit of society's most disadvantaged members
(the difference principle).8
The first concept of equal basic rights should
be enshrined in the political constitution, but
the second principle should be applied
exclusively to legislation controlling
economic organisations. The first principle
takes precedence over the second principle,
and under the second principle, fair equality
of opportunity takes precedence over the
concept of difference.
The first principle states that all people should have the same basic rights and liberties as
everyone else: freedom of religion and association, freedom of speech and expression, right
to vote, right to hold public office, right to be treated fairly, and so on. The first principle
ensures that all citizens have equal access to these rights and privileges.
The first principle of Rawls affirms prevalent beliefs in the significance of equal basic rights
and liberties. This concept is distinguished by two additional characteristics. The first is its
priority: fundamental freedoms and rights must not be sold off for other societal values. For
example, the first principle forbids granting conscription exemptions to college students on
the basis that educated citizens will boost economic production. The draught is a significant
infringement on essential rights, and if one is enacted, all those who are able to serve must be
subject to it equally, even if this implies slower progress. Equal liberty for all citizens must
take precedence above economic policies.9

7
Western Political Thought, O P Gauba, (2011) Laxmi Publications
8
An Introduction to Political Theory, O P Gauba, (2014) Macmillan Publishers India Ltd
9
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
 Page |7

The second distinguishing aspect of Rawls' first principle is that it demands that political
liberty be valued fairly. The right to occupy public office, the right to influence the outcome
of national elections, and other political rights are a subset of the basic liberties. Rawls
demands that citizens be not only officially but also substantively equal in order to enjoy
these rights. That is, persons who are similarly equipped and motivated, regardless of wealth
or poverty, should have equivalent possibilities to occupy office, influence elections, and so
on. As will be described below, the necessity of a fair value for political liberty has
substantial consequences for how elections should be funded and administered.
Rawls' second principle of justice is divided into two halves. The first element, fair equality
of opportunity, needs individuals with similar abilities and determination to put them to use
to have comparable educational and economic prospects, regardless of whether they were
born affluent or poor. "Those who are similarly motivated and gifted will have essentially the
same chances of culture and accomplishment in all sections of society."
So, for example if natural endowments and willingness to use them are evenly distributed
across children born into different social classes, we should find that roughly one quarter of
people in that occupation were born into the top 25% of the income distribution, one quarter
were born into the second-highest 25% of the income distribution, and one quarter were born
into the second-lowest 25% of the income distribution. Because citizenship is a morally
arbitrary truth, justice does not allow citizenship to lead to uneven chances for education or
meaningful labour.10
The difference principle, which governs the distribution of wealth and income, is the second
component of the second principle. Allowing wealth and income inequalities can result in a
bigger social product: higher pay, for example, might cover the expenses of training and
education and give incentives to fill more in-demand occupations. The difference principle
allows for inequalities in wealth and income as long as they benefit everyone, particularly the
poorest. The difference principle dictates that any economic imbalances be to the greatest
benefit of those who are least advantaged.
To illustrate, consider four hypothetical economic structures A–D, and the lifetime-average
levels of income that these different economic structures would yield for representative
members of three groups:11

Econom Least-Advantaged Middle Most-Advantaged

y Group Group Group
A 10,000 10,000 10,000
B 12,000 30,000 80,000
C 30,000 90,000 150,000
D 20,000 100,000 500,000

10
Dr Vijay Ghormade, jurisprudence and legal theory, Hind Law Publication, Pune, 2016, P. 203
11
O.P.Gauba, western political thought,Shivani art press, Delhi, 2018, P.161
 Page |8

Here the difference principle selects Economy C, because it contains the distribution where
the least-advantaged group does best. Inequalities in C are to everyone’s advantage relative to
a completely equal distribution (Economy A), and relative to a more equal distribution
(Economy B). But the difference principle does not allow the rich to get richer at the expense
of the poor (Economy D). The difference principle embodies equality-based reciprocity: from
an egalitarian baseline, it requires that any inequalities are good for all, and especially for the
worst-off.
The difference principle is based in part on the negative premise that natural asset allocation
is unequal. A citizen does not deserve more of the social product merely because she was
born with the ability to develop talents that are in great demand right now. However, this
does not imply that everyone must get the same amount of shares. The fact that citizens
possess a variety of talents and abilities may be utilised to benefit everyone. Citizens in a
society governed by the difference principle consider natural endowments distribution as a
collective asset that may benefit everyone.
Others who are better off are free to utilise their advantages to better themselves, as long as
their actions also benefit those who are less fortunate.

As a result, the difference principle represents a positive ideal of societal oneness. Citizens in
a community that follows the difference principle realise that their economy benefits
everyone, and that those who were born with higher natural ability are not growing wealthy at
the cost of others who were born with less. Rawls' positive ideal can be compared to Nozick's
libertarian freedom ideal, or to meritocratic ideals about economic fairness that are prevalent
in many democracies. "Men agree to share one another's fate in justice as fairness," Rawls
adds.

THOUGHT EXPERIMENT
A hypothetical form of the social contract was created by Rawls. It's been dubbed a "thinking
experiment" by some (Rawls called it the "Original Position"). This wasn't a real meeting
with actual individuals trying to reach an agreement. Instead, it was a fictitious discussion
held under stringent guidelines that allowed people to debate exclusively using logic and
reason. Their mission was to assess social justice ideas and select the best. Their decision
would have eternal consequences for their culture. Rawls added a stipulation that the
selection of social justice principles be really unbiased. Under a "veil of ignorance," the
participants in this mental exercise had to pick their justice ideals. This meant that these
people would be completely unaware of their social status. It was as if a force had taken these
folks out of society and left them with acute amnesia.12

These fictitious persons would be completely unaware of their own age, gender, colour,
social status, religion, talents, interests, life objectives, or anything else. They'd have no idea
of the civilization from which they originated. They would, however, have a basic
understanding of how institutions like economic systems and governments functioned. Only
under a "veil of ignorance," Rawls contended, could human beings make a fair and unbiased
12
T.R.Sharma, Rawlsian Justice:Disjunction between choice and observation, 50 IJPS 28, 1989, p 33-34
 Page |9

agreement (contract) as real equals, unaffected by their social status. They would have to
depend only on human reason to determine social justice standards for their society.13

Rawls set up his "thought experiment" using various different social justice systems. Under
the "veil of ignorance," the members of the imagined organisation had to pick one set of
ideals for their own civilization.

Rawls was primarily interested in seeing how the group would choose between his own idea
of Justice as Fairness and another termed "Average Utility." The goal of this idea of justice
was to maximise people's average wealth.14

CONCLUSION
Closer examination reveals that several criticisms of Rawls' theory are based on skewed
readings of his theory. In order to arrive at his theory of justice, Rawls attempted to unify
several value systems. Some of these value systems' precepts are regarded to be incompatible
with one another. In fact, Rawls' theory of justice is a synthesis of libertarianism,
egalitarianism, and communitarianism. To begin with, Rawls is a libertarian because his
vision of persons bargaining in the original position envisions each of them attempting to
maximise his own self-interest. This is consistent with the libertarian viewpoint. Second, his
primary principle of justice prioritises liberty, which must never be sacrificed for any other
reason. Rawls is an egalitarian because he grants everyone equal liberty. He also maintains
that socioeconomic disparities can only be tolerated if they meet the criteria of fair equality
for everybody. He also rules that every prize for excellence and work must fulfil the criteria
that benefits the least fortunate the most. Why should the well-off accommodate the needs of
the less fortunate? Rawls uses the notion of 'chain link' to describe how various persons
interact. He demonstrates how society may be strengthened by gradually strengthening its
weakest elements. The concept of chain link conjures up images of Rawls as a
communitarian. Thus, it may be inferred that, in the past, justice was defined in a way that
ignored the lives of the underprivileged, and as a result, the society's most vulnerable
individuals were habitually subjected to violence, prejudice, and oppression. As a result, such
persons faced several challenges, yet the law did not effectively address their issues until
recently. However, shifting societal requirements and changes in the social fabric brought
about by the process of social transition pushed the legislature to establish legislation that
would address the concerns of the impoverished while ensuring social justice for everyone.15
In society, social justice refers to the equitable allocation of resources, opportunities, and
advantages. The idea of social justice as defined by John Rawl entails making decisions
behind the veil of ignorance. Imagine yourself in a situation where you have no idea what
caste you belong to. Then make a selection based on religion, gender, and other factors. The
idea is that when we don't know where we stand, it's difficult to make decisions. It is more
13
Dr. N.V. Paranjpe, Studies in Jurisprudence and legal theory, Central law agency, 6th Edition, 2011, P 207
14
K.K. Ghai, Indian Government and Polity, Kalyani publishers, Noida, 12th Edition,2018, P.99-101
15
Dr. Awasthi, The Constitution of India, Dwivedi Law Agency, Allahabad, 2012, P 18-25
 P a g e | 10

probable that we will make a sensible decision for the greater good of society. This gives us
an advantage chance to tackle problems objectively and logically. As a result, it can be stated
that defending the rights of society's underprivileged people must be firmly established in
each country's legislation and must be founded on international human rights norms.
Equally vital is ensuring laws are adequately administered, such as through easy access to
courts and a fair hearing expectation. People who are less fortunate must be aware of their
rights and have the ability to assert their rights. With the passage of time, social attitudes and
preconceptions must be questioned and modified. All nation-states have a moral obligation to
cooperate together for the overall development of the underprivileged, as millions of them are
exposed to numerous hazards on a daily basis. The Indian legislature has made significant
efforts to ensure justice.