Term Paper

Q- How does the theory of 'justice as fairness' address the issue of inequality and difference in its
conception of a just, well ordered society? Critically discuss.

Abstract: The paper critically examines John Rawls' theory of 'justice as fairness', particularly
scrutinizing it’s treatment of inequality and differences in the construction of a just, well-ordered
society. Rawls posits the original position and the veil of ignorance as essential components, ensuring
impartiality in the establishment of principles of justice regulating social and political institutions.
Within this theoretical framework, the analysis focuses on the intersectionality of social and
economic disparities.

Rawls’s approach to distributive justice becomes a focal point, addressing how his theory navigates
and mitigates various forms of inequality. The abstract emphasizes the delicate balance between
recognizing legitimate differences among individuals and promoting a just social structure that
rectifies systemic disparities. Rawls’ contention that societal institutions should work to the
advantage of the least advantaged receives particular attention, as does his consideration of basic
liberties and fair opportunities.

The critical discussion engages feminists and Nozick’s understanding of Rawls directing us to aspects
that have been, intentionally or unintentionally, ignored by Rawls and examining theory’s
applicability in diverse real-world contexts.

Introduction:

Rawls claims that his theory of justice(justice as fairness) firstly, is framed for democratic society, that
is, for society which views it’s citizens as ‘free’ and ‘equal’ within fair system of social cooperation.
Secondly, Rawls focuses on ‘fairness’ of social and political institutions given that people live their
whole lives within the influence of these institutions. So, he endeavours to propound values that can
be applied to political and social institutions of democratic society. Rawls qualifies that political
society is closed society in which an individual can enter only by birth and exit only by death.(1)

The fundamental question Rawls ask is this: What should be the principles of justice that are
appropriate for citizens who are free and equal and that at the same time regulates social and
economic inequalities in citizens life prospects? The task for Rawls then is to identify what choices
people would make behind the ‘veil of ignorance’ to regulate social and economic inequalities
provided that their equal basic liberties and fair equality of opportunity is already secured.

Rawls has identified two principles of justice; (a) “each person has the same indefeasible claim to a
fully adequate scheme of ‘equal basic liberties’, which scheme is compatible with same scheme of
liberties for all” and (b) Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: first, they are
to be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of ‘fair equality of opportunity’
and second, they are t be to greatest benefit of least advantaged members of society(the difference
principle). (2)

The first principle applies that everyone should have same basic liberties such as freedom of thought
and conscience, right to vote, right to participate in politics and freedom of association. These basic
liberties cannot be replaced by another principle, say, to achieve greater economic efficiency. For
Rawls right to own means of production and right to inherit wealth are not part of basic liberty. (3)
This ensures that inequality does not get transferred from one generation to another.
In second principle Rawls has used the term ‘fair equality of opportunity’ and not ‘formal’ equality of
opportunity. By fair equality of opportunity, Rawls implies that certain conditions(such as equal
opportunities of education) must be imposed on basic structures to ensure that everyone(regardless
of their social class) have chance to attain public offices.

The principle of equal basic liberties and fair equality of opportunity aids in offsetting inequalities
and disadvantages originating from social class of person.

But what is more effective in addressing inequalities in just society is ‘difference principle’ which
implies that any kind of inequality in society can exist if and only if it improves the condition of ‘least
advantaged’ sections. By least advantaged Rawls indicates to persons with lowest income and
wealth. Rawls clarifies that least advantaged are not defined as men or women, black or whites, or
Indians or british. Least advantaged simply means individuals who are worst off under particular
scheme(and may not be in another scheme). It does not matter even if it is suggested that least
advantaged(on the basis of income and wealth) are individuals who are born into least favoured
social class or experience more misfortune and bad luck. (4)

It must also be noted that first principle of justice and first part of second principle have priority over
difference principle insinuating that difference principle would be applied in background institutions
where basic equal liberties and fair equality of opportunity is already secured.

Difference principle essentially implies that however great inequalities in wealth and income may be
and however people are to work to earn their share of output, existing inequalities must contribute
effectively to the benefit of least advantaged, otherwise inequalities are not permissible. It should,
however, be noted that difference principle does not dictate people to engage in work that is highly
productive economically(so that general wealth of society increases) rather it requires that whatever
is the general level of wealth of society, low or high, the existing inequalities can only exist if they
benefit least advantaged as well as ‘other members’ of society(on the basis of belief that advantages
to more advantaged sections will contribute to advantage of least advantaged). In this way difference
principle is rooted in principle of ‘reciprocity’.

Further, difference principle also does not require that income of least advantaged grow in upward
manner over generations, what it requires is that if ‘legitimate expectations’ of more advantaged is
less, it should also be less for least advantaged.

Rawls also clarifies that difference principle would not act in a way that is unjust(in terms of low
wealth) either to more advantaged or to least advantaged sections because background social
institutions would ensure equal basic liberties and fair equality of opportunity coupled with greater
competition among well educated individuals that would not allow ratio of shares(of income) to
fluctuate to unacceptable range. Even if more advantaged members unite to exploit their power to
increase their income, certain limitations upon them, such as ‘taxation’ would transfer some part of
their wealth to least advantaged.

Difference principle addresses the question of inequalities already ‘existing’ in democratic society. It
is Rawls thought experiment(original position) that endeavours to ensure that any unjust principle
does not seep into principles of justice when it is being chosen behind the veil of ignorance.

The original position is an imaginary situation in which real citizens get represented by their
representatives who have come together to decide the principles of justice that would regulate social
and political institutions. Each citizen is represented as free and equal citizens, each representative
only want what free and equal citizens wants and tries to agree to basic structure which would be
treat everyone fairly. The design of original position thus models freedom, equality and fairness.
Equality and fairness is modelled in original position in the sense that no citizen’s representative is
able to threaten any other citizen’s representative.(5)

Veil of ignorance is most striking feature of original position which will not allows people to choose
biased principles of justice because they would be unaware of their social class, native endowments
and their good or ill fortune(Rawls considers these knowledge about ourselves as ‘morally arbitrary’,
that is, individuals do not deserve these features but have it only by luck). But one can ask and rightly
so, why are distinctions of race(slavery being result) and gender(unequal burden on women) not
explicitly included in three contingencies as they surely affect people’s fair equality of opportunity.

Rawls considers his theory as ‘ideal theory’ which generally does not deals with rectification of
justice but with “account of well ordered society of justice as fairness”(6). Moreover, Rawls argue, if
“fixed natural characteristics are used for assigning unequal basic rights then such inequalities will
single out relevant position”(7) Thus, if it is said that men have greater basic rights and opportunities
than women, these inequalities(from view of difference principle) can only be justifies if they are in
advantage of women but they are, Rawls conclude, never to the advantage of women. Same
argument can be given for unequal basic rights founded on race.

Three contingencies are what people do not know but they do know that everyone has their own
comprehensive doctrines, all citizens have interests in more primary goods, that society is under
condition of scarcity and general facts of common sense.(8)

Not knowing whether they are in favourable or unfavourable situation, Rawls concludes that people
would play it safe by adopting principles that would also benefit those who might end up to become
least advantaged. This, Rawls has called as ‘maximin’(maximizing freedom and liberty of all).

Therefore, justice as fairness deals with social and economic inequalities by propounding two
principles of justice that has been arrived by passing the test of veil of ignorance which in turn
ensures that these principles of justice are not biased.

Critical Analysis of Rawls:

Rawls theory of justice has been heavily criticised by feminists. A point of contention is with respect
to how ‘rationality’ in the original position is described as “self interested prudential rationality” of
parties who are “mutually disinterested”. Such characterization of people have led some feminists to
conclude Rawls theory of justice is ‘egoistic’ in nature. Alison Jaggar argue that despite Rawls’s
denial that his theory is not egoistic, nonetheless finds “egoism in the parties desire to have more of
primary goods than less”.(9) This criticism is extended to claim that even though in veil of ignorance
people don’t have knowledge of their self(such as their class of origin, sex, native endowments etc.)
but parties in veil of ignorance themselves are egoists because concern for others is merely because
of external constraints. (This is to say that principles of justice that would govern political institutions
come out to be fair only because parties are afraid that they might, after coming out of veil of
ignorance, be in disadvantaged positions. Therefore, concern for least advantaged is only because
there might be probability of being part of worst off section).

Rawls is further criticised for considering citizens, in well ordered society, not only as rational but also
as “fully cooperating members of society over complete life” (that is, everyone has sufficient
intellectual powers to play normal part in society). Considering that citizens have no unusual needs
ignores the fact that infants and people in old age are in state of extreme dependency. Many citizens
never acquire physical or mental powers to become independent. Nussbaum, therefore, argues that
any real society must be “care giving and care receiving”.

Not only by feminists, Rawls has also been criticised by Nozick on the ground that his (i) difference
principle is ‘unfair’ because it unfairly favour the “worse endowed” over the “better endowed”
members of society and (ii) Nozick understands difference principle to be specifying a particular
distributive ‘pattern’ as the one required by distributive justice, namely the maximal benefit of the
least advantaged or “maximin criterion”. By example of ‘Wilt Chamberlin’ Nozick shows how pattern
restricts liberty as it cannot be sustained without continuously interfering in lives of people(to ensure
the pattern).

Despite such criticisms Rawls’s justice as fairness remains eternal in ensuring fairness of social and
political institutions and a gentle push towards ‘equity’ from equality.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the examination of John Rawls’ theory of ‘justice as fairness’ regarding its treatment of
inequality and diversity within a just, well-ordered society reveals a multifaceted framework that
grapples with complex societal challenges. Rawls’ incorporation of the original position and the veil
of ignorance serves as a foundational pillar, ensuring impartiality in the formulation of principles that
navigate the intricate terrain of diversity

While Rawls’ ideas are influential, they are not without challenges. While Rawls acknowledges the
importance of recognizing legitimate differences among individuals, the practical implementation of
his principles raises questions about feasibility and adaptability in varied cultural and socioeconomic
contexts. Rawls’ theory appears to be ‘unencumbered’ from society, considering all individuals to be
“fully cooperating members” and ignoring the need for care giving and care receiving.

Despite these challenges, Rawls provides a solid foundation for thinking about justice, equality, and
diversity. His theory offers valuable insights for building a fair society. However, it’s essential to keep
adapting and refining these ideas as society changes. Rawls’ work remains significant in guiding our
understanding of how to create a just and well-ordered society.