Rawls social justice pdf

Specifically, Rawls describes the situation of the veil of ignorance as follows: 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, … their conceptions of the good or their special psychological propensities Rawls, What he means by this is that since no one knows their particular condition, it is impossible to design principles which favour their particular condition.

Rawls provides the example of a man is relatively wealthy Rawls, This man might find that taxes for welfare are unjust, and thus wish to advance a principle which does not take away his wealth. In contrast, a rather poor person would most likely propose the opposite principle: that taxes for welfare are necessary and completely just. Yet again, this individual does not know his own situation with regards to wealth, so he could not make this claim.

This seems similar to the question of how to ensure that a person cutting a cake does so equally. The answer to this scenario is that the cake cutter is made to choose his piece last. If he was to cut the cake unevenly in able to take the largest piece for himself , this would be unjust. However, if he was forced to be the last to choose his slice, being a rational self-interested individual, he would make it so that all slices were equal.

As a result of this, everyone would benefit, rather than one person taking a larger slice. In Rawls' case, the same is true of those choosing the principles of justice: we do not know our circumstances, so we cannot possibly choose principles which would benefit only us. Thus it is best to choose principles which benefit everyone. Although he is quick to announce that we should not base our reasoning off of this premise of an enemy in charge of society, as this is a false premise.

However, the analogy of the cake cutter as well as the example proposed by Rawls both demonstrate how we are to go about deciding which principles of justice to choose. There is a rather large burden of commitment here: these are the standards which will govern the life prospects of the individual, and so there is an incredible amount of pressure to ensure that the correct principles are chosen.

Indeed, Rawls writes that the parties must stick by their commitment no matter the circumstances, otherwise they will not have acted in good faith Rawls, The use of the word contract is essential here, because it implies a certain publicity to the agreement. If a contract is made, by definition, two or more people agree upon it and have knowledge of the details therein.

The most crucial aspect of this definition is that we as individuals are not left wondering whether or not others abide by the contract: if the principles are the outcome of an agreement, citizens have a knowledge of the principles that others follow. Having explained the original situation, I will now turn to Rawls' two definitions of the principles of justice. His first definition of the principles of justice is as follows: The persons in the initial situation would choose two rather different principles: the first requires equality in the assignment of basic rights and duties, while the second holds that social and economic inequalities, for example, inequalities of wealth and authority, are only just if they result in compensating benefits for everyone, and in particular for the least advantaged members of society.

It is important to note that these principles are lexical, that is to say, the first takes priority over the second Rawls, The final, full definition given by Rawls for the two principles of justice also takes into account the lexical priority and the distribution of social goods: In order to understand the first principle, it is necessary to examine what Rawls means by basic rights and duties.

Since the citizens of a just society are required to have the same basic rights, these liberties are all required to be equal. The second principle is a littler more difficult to understand. At first glance, it is jarring to hear Rawls claim that social and economic inequalities may be considered just under any circumstance.

Yet he clarifies this in the second definition listed above; the inequalities must be arranged in such a way that they are to everyone's advantage. What Rawls means by this is that inequalities are permissible when they maximize, or at least all contribute to, the long-term expectations of the least fortunate group in society Rawls, As a final definition for this paper, the first principle requires 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 Rawls, The reason for choosing Rawls' two principles of justice is simply that it is the best way of enabling a well-ordered society in which even the least advantaged benefit from social distribution.

These social goods in question include liberty and opportunity, income and wealth, and the bases of self-respect Rawls, He is claiming that his two principles of justice would lead to a society in which everyone was not only better off in terms of social circumstances, but also safer. On an individual level, Rawls states that the decision to choose his principles of justice is simply a rational one. It is not reasonable for someone to expect more than an equal share in the division of social goods.

This would be unfair and impractical, seeing as no one has any knowledge of their social circumstances or the amount of social goods i. Nor is it rational for someone to agree to less than an equal share, as this would intentionally place them at a disadvantage. This way, everyone benefits, but as Rawls insists, it is crucial to look at the system from the standpoint of the least advantaged representative man Rawls, If, from the perspective of the least well off member, society is considered to be just, than the principles of justice must necessarily be just.

Though this point is rather contentious, as Rawls is assuming men have a desire to treat each other as ends-in-themselves, Rawls' definition is far more simple than that: it means treating men in accordance with the principles to which they would consent in an original position of equality Rawls, Of crucial importance here is that we as individuals do not sacrifice our individual liberties in order to obtain greater economic or social gain.

Rawls creates a rule of First Priority, also known as the Priority of Liberty, which is as follows: The principles of justice are to be ranked in lexical order and therefore liberty can be restricted only for the sake of liberty. There are two cases: a an inequality of opportunity must enhance the opportunities of those with the lesser opportunity, and b an excessive rate of saving must on balance mitigate the burden of those bearing this hardship Rawls, These principles address the fact that there is a lexical priority to the principles of justice in which liberty the first principle takes precedent over the second principle.

Overall, individuals in the original position would choose Rawls' principles of justice because they are self-interested and they know nothing about their circumstances. Rawls contrasts this with utilitarianism and the concept of utility itself, in which we as individuals must be interested in the good of others.

Yet perhaps this is a major flaw in utilitarianism: while we are no doubt interested in the well- being of others, as Rawls demonstrated by claiming we have an interest in treating others as ends in themselves rather than means to an end, we also are more concerned with our own interests. We can define war but not peace; similarly, we can define injustice but not justice.

He is a Contractarian and hence designed his work based on the social contract theory. While designing his justice theory, Rawls has given two principles on which, according to him, is the core of the concept of justice. This group of people would agree upon the following principles for the realisation of justice —.

The first principle states that all the people are to receive the basic liberties and rights that are basic to human existence. Also, these liberties are to be provided equally to all the masses. Few liberties that are basic to all are — freedom of thought and conscience, liberties necessary to secure the rule of law, sanitation, health, and etcetera.

The second point of the second principle points out that society should provide all citizens with the basic means that would enable them to participate in the competition. Like education and health facilities. Considering these principles, Rawls also provided with a procedure to realise them and also directed his idea of justice based on psychology and philosophy.

This is to be done in order to bring forth a connection between the two principles and the day to day operation of society. He believes that all the justices in the society should be built on the two principles mentioned above. It is said that there should be a proper institutional set up after which the market should be brought into the picture which in turn decides the distribution patterns of the commodities.

The proper institutional setup here means the basic liberties that are to be provided as mentioned in principle one. Rawls approves the private property system over the socialist system.

He is of the notion that through the private property system, society can achieve justice in economic relationships. If provided with the right institutional framework, it would achieve greater efficiency. Rawls, in his book, also deals with the philosophical questions. According to him, rationality, as understood in economics, is only necessary, not a sufficient condition for moral choice and action. According to this principle, all the masses should be provided with facilities so as to begin at an equal footing while they try to realise their greatest happiness.

Rawls also considers the psychological viewpoint of his theory and states that the process of social and personal development is a necessity to acquire a sense of justice. He also says that family plays an important role to acquire the insight, motivation and detachment characteristic of a mature and just member of society. No theory passes without its share of critiques and neither does this one.

Kenneth E.