John Rawls: Justice as Fairness - A Contractarian Approach

Rawls's theory is rooted in the idea of a social contract, but with a unique twist. Instead
of imagining individuals in a "state of nature" coming together to form a society, Rawls
asks us to consider a hypothetical situation he calls the "original position."
In this original position, individuals are behind a "veil of ignorance." This veil prevents
them from knowing anything about their personal characteristics, such as their:
• Social class or economic status
• Race or ethnicity
• Gender
• Natural talents and abilities
• Religious or philosophical beliefs
• Their conception of the good life
The idea behind the veil of ignorance is to ensure impartiality. By not knowing who we
will be in society, we are forced to choose principles of justice that are fair to everyone,
regardless of their particular circumstances.
The Two Principles of Justice
From this hypothetical original position behind the veil of ignorance, Rawls argues that
individuals would unanimously agree on two fundamental principles of justice:
1. The Principle of Equal Basic Liberties: Each person is to have an equal right
to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar
scheme of liberties for others.
o This principle guarantees fundamental rights and freedoms such as
freedom of thought, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, the right
to vote, the right to hold public office, freedom from arbitrary arrest, and
the right to a fair trial. These liberties are considered inalienable and
cannot be traded off for other social goods.
o Illustrative Example: Imagine a society where the government decides to
suppress freedom of speech for a particular religious minority because it
believes their views are disruptive to social harmony (a potentially
utilitarian argument). Rawls's first principle would strongly condemn this,
arguing that equal basic liberties must be protected for all individuals,
even if suppressing them might seem to lead to greater overall happiness
for the majority.
2. The Difference Principle: Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged
so that they are both:
 o (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, and
o (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of
fair equality of opportunity.
o This principle acknowledges that some social and economic inequalities
are inevitable in a complex society. However, it stipulates that these
inequalities are only just if they ultimately benefit the least well-off
members of society. Furthermore, opportunities for advancement must be
genuinely open to everyone, regardless of their background.
o Illustrative Example (Part a - Benefit of the Least Advantaged):
Consider a policy that introduces higher taxes on the wealthy to fund
social welfare programs like unemployment benefits, affordable
healthcare, and quality public education in disadvantaged communities.
While this might seem to create an economic inequality (wealthier
individuals have less disposable income), Rawls would argue it could be
just if it demonstrably improves the lives and opportunities of the least
advantaged members of society. The inequality is justified because it
ultimately benefits those who are struggling the most.
o Illustrative Example (Part b - Fair Equality of Opportunity): Imagine
two equally talented students, one from a wealthy family and one from a
low-income family. Fair equality of opportunity would require that both
students have access to comparable quality education, resources, and
support systems so that their life chances are not unfairly determined by
their socioeconomic background. Policies like scholarships, affirmative
action (designed to counteract historical disadvantages), and investments
in public education in underserved areas could be seen as attempts to
promote fair equality of opportunity.
The Priority of Principles
Rawls emphasizes that these two principles are not of equal weight. The first principle
(equal basic liberties) has priority over the second principle (social and economic
inequalities). This means that basic liberties cannot be sacrificed or traded off for
greater social or economic advantages. A society cannot, for instance, suppress political
dissent in the name of economic development.
Within the second principle, fair equality of opportunity also has priority over the
difference principle. This means that inequalities that do not arise from genuinely fair
opportunities are unjust, even if they might technically benefit the least advantaged.
Discussion Point 1: How does Rawls's approach to justice differ from the utilitarian
focus on maximizing overall happiness? What are the key distinctions in their underlying
philosophies?
Illustrative Examples and Applications
Let's consider some more scenarios to illustrate Rawls's principles:
• Affirmative Action: Policies designed to increase representation of historically
disadvantaged groups in education and employment are often debated through a
Rawlsian lens. Proponents might argue that these policies are necessary to
achieve fair equality of opportunity (part b of the second principle), even if they
might lead to some perceived inequalities in the short term. Critics might raise
concerns about whether these policies truly benefit the least advantaged (part a)
and whether they might infringe on the principle of equal basic liberties (the right
to be considered based on merit).
• Progressive Taxation: A tax system where higher earners pay a larger
percentage of their income in taxes can be justified under the difference principle
if the revenue generated is used to fund programs that benefit the least
advantaged, such as social safety nets, healthcare, and education.
• Universal Basic Income (UBI): Proposals for a UBI, where all citizens receive a
regular, unconditional income, can be argued for from a Rawlsian perspective as
a way to provide a basic level of security and well-being for the least advantaged,
potentially satisfying the difference principle. It could also be seen as promoting
greater autonomy and freedom (related to the first principle).
• Disability Rights: Ensuring accessibility in public spaces, providing
accommodations in workplaces and educational institutions, and protecting
individuals with disabilities from discrimination can be strongly supported by
Rawls's framework, as it promotes both equal basic liberties and fair equality of
opportunity.
Challenges and Criticisms of Rawls's Theory
Like any complex philosophical theory, Rawls's work has faced criticisms:
• The Veil of Ignorance: Some critics question whether it's truly possible for
individuals to reason impartially behind such a veil and whether the principles
Rawls derives are the only ones that would be chosen.
• The Difference Principle: There are debates about how strictly the difference
principle should be applied and whether it might stifle innovation or economic
growth. Some argue that other principles, focused on overall welfare or
meritocracy, might be more desirable.
• The Priority of Liberty: Some argue that in certain circumstances, basic
liberties might need to be weighed against other important social goods, such as
economic security or public safety.
 • Universality: Critics have questioned whether Rawls's theory, developed in a
Western liberal context, is universally applicable to all societies with different
cultural values and traditions.
Discussion Point 2: Consider a specific social or economic inequality in our society.
How would Rawls's two principles of justice help us evaluate whether that inequality is
just or unjust?
Conclusion: A Powerful Framework for Justice
John Rawls's theory of justice as fairness offers a powerful and influential framework for
thinking about what constitutes a just society. By emphasizing fairness, impartiality, and
the protection of fundamental rights and the well-being of the least advantaged, Rawls
provides a compelling alternative to purely utilitarian approaches. While his theory has
faced criticisms and continues to be debated, it remains a cornerstone of contemporary
political and ethical philosophy, offering valuable insights into how we can strive for a
more just and equitable world.
Final Discussion Point 3: How might the principles of Rawls's justice as fairness
inform our thinking about current social and political issues, such as income inequality,
healthcare access, or educational disparities?

Examples Illustrating the Principle of Equal Basic Liberties:

• Freedom of the Press: Imagine a government that tries to control the media by
censoring critical news reports. Rawls's first principle would deem this unjust
because it violates the basic liberty of freedom of the press, which is essential for
public discourse and holding power accountable. This liberty should be equally
available to all citizens and media outlets.
• Freedom of Religion: Consider a society where one religion is favored by the
state, and individuals practicing other religions face discrimination or restrictions
on their worship. Rawls's first principle demands equal freedom of conscience
and religion for everyone. The state cannot endorse or penalize individuals
based on their religious beliefs.
• Right to Due Process: If a legal system allows for arbitrary arrests or unfair
trials, it violates the basic liberty of security of the person and the right to due
process. Rawls's first principle requires that everyone has equal protection under
the law and fair legal procedures.
• Freedom of Assembly: Imagine a law that prohibits peaceful protests or
gatherings of certain groups. This would infringe upon the basic liberty of
 freedom of assembly, which is crucial for individuals to express their views and
advocate for change. This right must be equally protected for all.
• Political Participation: If certain groups of citizens are denied the right to vote
or run for office based on their race, gender, or socioeconomic status, this
violates the principle of equal political liberties. Rawls emphasizes that everyone
should have an equal opportunity to participate in the political process.
More Examples Illustrating the Difference Principle (Part a - Benefit of the Least
Advantaged):
• Universal Healthcare: A system where everyone has access to basic
healthcare, regardless of their ability to pay, can be justified by the difference
principle. Even though it might involve higher taxes on wealthier individuals, it
benefits the least advantaged who might otherwise be denied essential medical
care due to financial constraints.
• Social Security and Unemployment Benefits: These safety net programs
provide a basic level of economic security for those who are unemployed, elderly,
or disabled. While they involve wealth redistribution, they directly benefit the least
advantaged and ensure a minimum standard of living.
• Targeted Educational Funding: Investing more resources in schools located in
disadvantaged communities, providing scholarships for low-income students, or
offering early childhood education programs can be seen as benefiting the least
advantaged by improving their opportunities for social and economic mobility.
• Minimum Wage Laws: Setting a minimum wage aims to ensure that even those
in low-skilled jobs receive a living wage, thereby improving the economic well-
being of the least advantaged workers.
• Disability Accommodations: Requiring businesses and public spaces to
provide accommodations for people with disabilities (e.g., ramps, elevators,
assistive technologies) can be seen as benefiting a particularly disadvantaged
group by promoting their inclusion and participation in society.
More Examples Illustrating the Difference Principle (Part b - Fair Equality of
Opportunity):
• Public Education System: A well-funded and accessible public education
system, from primary school through higher education, aims to provide a
baseline of opportunity for all individuals, regardless of their family background.
• Anti-Discrimination Laws: Laws prohibiting discrimination based on race,
gender, religion, or other irrelevant characteristics in hiring and admissions
processes are crucial for ensuring that opportunities are open to all based on
merit and qualifications, not on arbitrary factors.
 • Outreach and Recruitment Programs: Initiatives designed to reach out to
underrepresented groups and encourage them to apply for jobs or educational
programs can help to level the playing field and ensure a wider pool of qualified
candidates.
• Eliminating Legacy Preferences: Discontinuing the practice of giving
preferential treatment in college admissions to the children of alumni can be seen
as promoting fairer equality of opportunity by ensuring that admission is based on
merit rather than family connections.
• Investing in Early Childhood Development: Providing access to quality early
childhood education for all children, especially those from disadvantaged
backgrounds, can help to address disparities in cognitive and social-emotional
development before they enter formal schooling, thus promoting fairer life
chances.
Discussion Point: Consider the ongoing debates surrounding income inequality or
access to higher education in our society. How can Rawls's principles of justice,
particularly the difference principle and the principle of fair equality of opportunity, help
us analyze these issues and propose potential solutions?
By exploring these additional examples, I hope you have a clearer understanding of
how Rawls's two principles of justice operate and how they can be applied to evaluate
the fairness of social and economic arrangements. Remember, the core idea is to
construct a society where everyone's basic liberties are protected and where
inequalities are structured to benefit the least advantaged while ensuring genuine
opportunities for all.