THEORY OF JUSTICE

byJOHN

RAWLS

Melvin A. GarciaPh.D. EM Student

Reporter

Dr. Maximo C. Aljibe, CESO IIIProfessor

Ethics in Educational Management

JOHN RAWLS

•Feb. 21, 1921-Nov. 24, 2002•1950-Ph.D. from Princeton•1955-Fullbright Fellow to Christ’ Church (Oxford University)•Taught at Cornell, MIT, Harvard•1971- “A Theory of Justice”

JOHN RAWLS: THEORY OF JUSTICE

The basis of a society is a set of tacit agreements. [“social contract”]

The agreed-upon principles must not be dependent on one’s place in society.

Rawls believed that rational, self-interested people with roughly similar needs would choose the following two principles to guide their moral interactions

RAWLS’S SOCIAL JUSTICE Rawls’s theory is Neo-Kantian because it

begins with a rational estimate of what everyone would think, believing that what everyone would think behind the veil of ignorance is the fair and just thing to do.

Kant believes “Virtue results from practical reason”

The guiding principle for determining

social justice is “Justice as Fairness.”

RAWLS’S “ORIGINAL POSITION” The “original

position” is a “hypothetical device” for developing and examining the justice of societal principles and laws.

A law, a political structure, a society, a government and people.

THE ORIGINAL POSITION

Behind the veil of ignorance, we assume hypothetically that we do not know anything about our possible position within the society for which we are developing laws.

THE ORIGINAL POSITION Behind the veil of ignorance, we

must assume we do not know whether we will be rich or poor, male or female, young or old, felon or victim, black or white within the state we are organizing or under the law we are proposing.

Our guiding principle is “Justice as Fairness.”

TWO GUIDING PRINCIPLES First, the Principle of Equal

Liberty--”each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with similar liberty for others.”

Second, the Difference Principle--”Social and economic inequalities are just only if they result in compensating benefits, particularly for the least advantaged in society.”

PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL LIBERTY

This principle guarantees as much liberty as possible to individuals. As long as my freedoms do not hinder the fundamental liberty of others, I should be free to act as I choose.

THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL LIBERTY

Whether the action protects our rights from invasion and provides rights for us equal to the rights of others. This principle goes beyond protecting us from invasions of our privacy to prohibiting force, fraud and deception. The latter would deprive us of rights equal to others.

This preserves the Kantian commitment – no one wants to be treated as a “mere means”

DIFFERENCE PRINCIPLE We can have economic and class differences if even the worst off in society are benefited in some way.

Social and economic inequalities must be such that everyone has a fair and equal opportunity of obtaining them.

THE SECOND PRINCIPLE HAS TWO PARTS PART 1:THE DIFFERENCE PRINCIPLE

There will be inequalities, but we are morally obligated to improve the worst off unless it would make everyone worse off. In business this guarantees an efficient

use of resources and competitive markets free of price-fixing and monopolies.

Preserves the Utilitarian belief in “net benefits”

PART 2: PRINCIPLE OF FAIR EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY

Requires that job qualifications be related to the job.

There must be equal access to training for the most desirable jobs.

These principles combine Kant [treating people as free & equal] & Utilitarianism [treating people equal]

UTILITY: focuses on all affected by a potential actionBentham -- Weighs the social costs and

benefits, looking for the action that provides the “greatest net benefits”

RIGHTS: focuses on the freedom & equality of individualsKant -- Decides on the basis of rights

that a person has that are necessary to provide freedom and equality for that person.

JUSTICE: focuses on the distribution of goodsRawls -- Looks for a fair distribution of

benefits and burdens. The question is which moral principles will ensure that.

“THE MAXIMIN SOLUTION” By combining the principle of equal

liberty and the difference principle, we can obtain the “maximin solution,” which means we will benefit the least advantaged in society.

The worst outcome of a decision must be better than the worst outcome of alternative solutions.

Substantive Social Justice To him moral system can be understood only in the context of class relationship and of ownership. It is a procedural theory of justice which maximizes the well being of the least advantaged. The natural assets should be distributed according to the principle of social Justice.

NEO-KANTIAN POSITION ON HUMAN WORTH

“Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. . . . Therefore . . . The rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interests.” (i.e., utilitarianism is wrong) (Rawls)

RAWLSIAN JUSTICE AT WORK: NATIONALIZE HEALTH CARE? THOUGHTS BEHIND THE VEIL.

Pro: Everyone would have equal access to doctors and specialists. No one would be turned away from a kidney transplant because they lacked funds.

Con: Those with the wealth to pay for costly treatment would lose that ability. Perhaps fewer and lesser qualified people might become doctors.

If a private health care system mandated that no one would be turned away and if the care were better, we could accept the inequality of private care.

OTHER APPLICATIONS

Should we increase the minimum wage? Should we pass a law requiring all

motorcycle riders to wear helmets? Should we legalize homosexual

marriages? Should we increase taxes on the

wealthiest Filipinos—those making over P150,000 per year and reduce the tax burden on those earning under 10,000 per year.

“Injustice then is simply inequalities that are not to the

benefit of all”“The sense of justice is

continuous with the love of mankind.” 

― John Rawls

THANK YOU FOR LISTENING!

END