4. What is justice? Critically examine John Rawls’ theory of justice.

Ans: What is justice

The term 'justice' originates from a Latin word jus, meaning a tie or a bond in English. Ernest Barker
says: “The function of justice may be said to be that of adjusting, joining or fitting the different
political values....it is the reconciler and synthesizer of political values in their union in an adjusted
and integrated whole...” Barker also says: “The idea of justice resides in all minds, and it has been
created and developed through the ages by a process of historical social thought, which has made it
a common inheritance ... it is not an abstract conception but a social reality: an actual content of
actual minds...”
Justice, in its broadest sense, is the principle that people receive that which they deserve, with the
interpretation of what then constitutes "deserving" being impacted upon by numerous fields, with
many differing viewpoints and perspectives, including the concepts of moral correctness based on
ethics, rationality, law, religion, equity and fairness. The state will sometimes endeavour to increase
justice by operating courts and enforcing their rulings.

Consequently, the application of justice differs in every culture. Early theories of justice were set out
by the Ancient Greek philosophers Plato in his work The Republic, and Aristotle in his Nicomachean
Ethics. Throughout history various theories have been established. Advocates of divine command
theory have said that justice issues from God. In the 1600s, philosophers such as John Locke said
that justice derives from natural law. Social contract theory said that justice is derived from the
mutual agreement of everyone. In the 1800s, utilitarian philosophers such as John Stuart Mill said
that justice is based on the best outcomes for the greatest number of people.

Theories of distributive justice study what is to be distributed, between whom they are to be
distributed, and what is the proper distribution. Egalitarians have said that justice can only exist
within the coordinates of equality. John Rawls used a social contract theory to say that justice, and
especially distributive justice, is a form of fairness.

Robert Nozick and others said that property rights, also within the realm of distributive justice and
natural law, maximizes the overall wealth of an economic system. Theories of retributive justice say
that wrongdoing should be punished to ensure justice. The closely related restorative justice is an
approach to justice that focuses on the needs of victims and offenders.

John Rawls’ theory of justice.

The Theory of Justice as propounded by John Rawls in his book ‘A Theory of Justice’ (1971)
presented a conception of justice which generalised as to what is justice and tied to carry it to higher
level of abstraction rather than in defining in concrete form.

According to John Rawls, there are some principles of justice which are running as an undercurrent
in the building of a society which is well organised and working in a particular fashion. These are
such principles which would be adopted by ‘free and rational’ persons to further their own interest
in an initial position of equality. This is ‘the equality’ which is fundamental to their association. And it
is this principle which regulates their further agreements. By agreements here, he meant the laws
which will be passed at later stages will be working on this very principle. So this is what he regarded
as ‘justice as fairness’.

The Concept of ‘Original Position’:

John Rawls explains that they are principles of justice which actually establishes the basis of an ideal
society. According to him, the principles of justice are best derived from a hypothetical contract
carried out in ‘original position’ of equality behind the veil of ignorance. These principles are those
principles which are chosen by every individual if every individual were in a so called ‘original
position’ of equality with respect to the rights and duties and where all the individuals who were
acting rationally in a mutually disinterested manner. This 'original position' is a hypothetical situation
in which every individual is acting behind a 'veil of ignorance' as to his or her own social position,
class status, individual assets, and personal aptitudes or abilities. Therefore, according to Rawls’ all
individuals acting in their ‘original position’ are free from all biases of both of which he is conscious
of and of which he is not conscious of.

Rawls explains that in ‘justice as fairness’ the original position of equality corresponds to a state of
nature. It is a pure hypothetical situation which leads to a certain conception of justice. Some of the
essential characteristics of a people who are involved in finding out the principles of justice in their
original position are:

1. They are not aware of their place in society, his class position or social status.

2. They do not know their fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities.

3. They are also unaware of their natural assets and abilities and their intelligence, strengths and
their likes.

4. They also do not know their conception of the goods or their special psychological propensities.

So there exist a ‘veil of ignorance’ behind which every like, dislike, advantage, interest, strength,
weakness, abilities, social status are hidden.
The principles of justice are chosen behind the veil of ignorance. This ensures that no one is
advantaged or disadvantaged in the choice of principles by the outcome of the natural chance or the
contingency of the social circumstances.

This situation ensures that there is no one advantaged or disadvantaged. All are similarly situated
and no one is in a position to design principles to favour his/her own particular situation. Therefore,
the principles of justice are chosen in such circumstances where the people involved are rational as
well as so unaware of their own self that they are not in a position to accept such principles which
will favour them.

THE CONCEPT OF ‘JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS’: a more focussed approach

Rawls discusses the applicability of utilitarianism and of social contract theory to the theory of
justice, and he argues that social contract theory provides support for equality of basic rights for all
individuals. While utilitarianism may try to justify infringements upon the rights of some individuals
if these infringements produce a greater happiness for a larger number of other individuals, the
theory of justice as fairness (which is a social contract theory) denies that infringements upon the
basic rights of individuals can ever be morally justified. The theory of justice as fairness argues for
equal rights for all individuals, and denies that injustice toward any particular group of individuals is
justifiable unless this injustice is necessary to prevent an even greater injustice.
Critism

INCLUDING ONLY ‘fully cooperating members of the society over a complete life’:

The fiction lays in that the social contract theories which imagine that contracting agents who design
the basic structure of society are “free, equal and independent” and the citizens whose interests
they represent are fully cooperating members of the society over a complete life.

The disability recognizes two basic issues:

1. Fair treatment to people with impairment. Many of them need a different kind of environment to
lead productive life.

2. The burden on people who provide for care – the recognition of their work.

Problem With Social Contract:

Rawl’s version adds a representation of moral impartiality in the form of a veil of ignorance, behind
which all information about the parties is hidden. Another important part is that the members of the
society are aware that their abilities lie within the ‘normal range’.

No Participation of Disabled: Principles already chosen.

Rawls has completely ignored the people in extreme forms of need and dependency that human
beings may experience, both physical and mental, and both permanent and temporary.

The Problem With ‘Original Position’:

If a closer look is taken, it is arbitrary that Rawls parties in the original position deny the knowledge
to themselves of their castes, culture, position, etc. but allow themselves knowledge that their
physical abilities fall within the ‘normal range’.

Conclusion:

The Theory of Justice as propounded by John Rawls has played a significant role in defining the
principles of justice which was almost impossible to define. The two principles of justice given by
Rawls can be proved to be very successful in lightening the effect of nature which makes some
people luckier and more capable than others. Rawlsian theory though has been criticised by many
other thinkers, who have given some very strong objections but the impact of Theory as given by
Rawls cannot be minimised.