Rawls on justice

Michael Lacewing
enquiries@alevelphilosophy.
co.uk
 Theories of distributive
justice
• Equality: everyone is equal, so
everyone gets the ‘same’
• Need: justice is everyone’s needs being
met
• Desert: justice is everyone getting
what they deserve
• Rawls: complex combination, but
starting from equality
 Rawls’ starting point
• Society is a system of cooperation for mutual
advantage between individuals
• Principles of justice should ‘define the
appropriate distribution of the benefits and
burdens of social co-operation’. (A Theory of
Justice, p. 4)
• Principles of justice must be ‘the 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’ (p. 11).
• So justice is fairness.
 The ‘original position’
• The ‘veil of ignorance’: For our agreement to secure a
fair, impartial procedure, we need to eliminate any
possible bias. So imagine that we come up with the
principles of justice without knowing what our position in
society will be or what we believe is ‘good’.
• The goods to be distributed by justice are only those that
we can assume everyone will want. These include rights,
liberties, powers, opportunities, income, wealth, and
self-respect.
• We will only agree to an equal distribution, unless a
certain amount of inequality will work to everyone’s
advantage. And we will value our basic liberties more
than other goods.
The two principles of justice
• ‘Each person is to have an equal right to the
most extensive total system of equal basic
liberties compatible with a similar system of
liberty for all; and
• social and economic inequalities are to be
arranged so that they are both
– to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged…
and
– attached to offices and positions open to all
under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.’
(p. 302)
 The difference principle
• All inequalities must benefit the worst
off: is Rawls right that we would choose
this principle? Consider the table below:
Richer Poorer Average
A: 50 40 45
B: 150 30 90

• Should we ‘maximise the minimum’ (A) or

‘maximise the average’ (B)?
 Self and society
• Rawls assumes that society is a cooperative
pursuit of what is in our individual interest,
which can be identified prior to our existence
in society.
• This assumes we are essentially separate, not
essentially social.
• Is the original position a position we can
adopt? Would I be me in the original position?
Not if my values are part of my identity.
 Self and talents
• Nozick: People are autonomous. They own
themselves, and their talents, and so they own what
they create with their talents. So it is wrong to tax
them on what they earn. But Rawls rejects any
inequality that doesn’t benefit the worst-off.
• Rawls: What people own and earn is the result of
their social position and their natural talents, both
of which are morally arbitrary. Therefore, any
inequalities in ownership are unjust.
– This treats talents as a ‘common resource’, not something I
own.
 Property rights and justice
• What rights people have to property
can’t be decided before deciding on
the principles of justice. People don’t
have a right to the earnings their
talents bring them, only to that share
which they keep according to the
principles of distributive justice.