Critisism for Rawls Theory of Justice.

John Rawls was arguably the most important political phirlospher of 20 th Century.
When Rawls gave the theory of justice, he assumed that his theory of justice will
be seen as the most rational and universally accepted. However he has been
criticized by all scho0ls of thoughts.

Critisism

Feminists Feminist criticized his theory for the reason that he has taken
women for granted. He has not explicitly mentioned that women were also an
active partipant in the process of contract. It appears as if men are deciding the
principles and women will be accepting the principles

Susan Moller Okin in her book ‘Gender Justice and Family’ has criticized Rawls
on the basis that Rawls maintains the conventional view and doesnot recognize
that personal is political and there is a need to discuss the issue ;of justice at the
level of family.

According to Carole Petemen, social contract thinker Rawls contract is

patriarchal. In the original position, he mentions that heads of the families
participated. In most of the situations, the heads of families are men. He
should have explicitely mentioned the participation of woman also.

According to Carole Gilligan in her book “Ethics of Care” has criticized Rawls
theory as it is based on patriarchal view. There is difference in what men talk,
and what women talk. When men talk they talk about justice and liberty.
When women talk, they talk about responsibility, duty, care. Hence if women
had made the laws, world would have beena better place. May be if women
were active participant in the contract they would have given preference to the
third principle as it is often suggested that the nature of women is more loving
and caring and due to their compassionate nature women would have
preferred caring for the least advantaged over liberty.
Communitarian

Communitarian thinkers have criticized Rawls for the claims made in the Rawls
theory

Rawls claims his theory as purely rational, purely procedural which means, no
biasedness is involved.

Rawls approach is universalistic view, claims his ToJ to be most rational . Thus
he claims his theory to be grand theory of justice

According to Communitarians, Rawls theory is based on the wrong assumptions

about human nature and the neglect of the role of the community in shaping
our preferences. They believe that Rawls is biased in his approach with respect
to his concept of rationality. Communitarian believe that there cannot be any
single criteria of rationality or any grand theory of Justice that can be applicable
to all people in all societies in all contexts

Social Liberals like Amartya Sen criticized Rawls for being too particular about
the procedural aspect of Justice. A sen also believes that there cannot be any
universal notion of Justice.

Amartya Sen’s criticism. Although A Sen is also a social liberal like Rawls and is
influenced by Rawls’ idea of welfare he supports welfare function but he has
criticized Rawls for excessive importance to the procedure and universal
concept of justice in his book idea of Justice.

In his book ‘ The Idea of Justice” he has criticized Rawls for being too much
concerned with the procedural aspects of Justice. He also believes that there
cannot be any Universal concept of Justice. Conception of Justice vary from
person to person. People have their own notion of Justice. He gives the story of
three children Bob, ANN and Karla fighting for a flute. Bob wants because he
poor and does not have anything else to play. Ann wants it because she knows
how to play the flute, Karla wants it because she has made it. Hence it is not
possible to convince all of them or not possible to have the Pinciple of Justice
which is going to be accepted by all. He has criticized Rawls for giving so much
emphasis on right procedures and institutions. He is inspired by Indian tradition
of which makes distinction between Niti and Nyay. According to him Nyay is
prior to Niti. He has referred to the conversation between Krishna and Arjun-
that for the sake of Niti, Nyay should not suffer.

Basing on the life of Buddha, he suggests that it is difficult to conclude what is

just in ultimate sense but it is easy to recognize injustice. Hence, like Buddha
we should try to minimize or reduce human sufferings. Thus he gives a practical
and functional dimention to the Concept of Justice.

Sen though has criticized the notion of perfect justice and advocated the removal of injustice However,
both Rawls and Amartya Sen both are navigating on the same path and they have similar opinion in this
regard that utilitarianism only promotes welfare of majority or happiness of greatest number is not
correct. Sen using the analogy of old Hindu jurisprudence regarding the judgements of the fishes,
where big fish devoured small fish, is somewhat identical to the existing utilitarian principle. It is hard
to conclude that whether Rawls’s ‘Concept of Justice’ is better or Sen’s ‘Idea of justice’ However, it can
be to put forth that Sen’s ‘Idea of Justice’ appears to be completing and moving forward Rawls’s
‘Concept of Justice’.

Marxist Rawls theory is not purely a procedural theory. He is biased in favour of

liberal concept of Justice. As per Marxists the third principle should be the first
principle.

Libertarian like Nozik criticized Rawls for not doing enough Justice or not
protecting right to liberty and compromising liberty for the sake of welfare.
Robert Nozick in his famous book Anarchy, State and Utopia has blatantly rejected the idea of any more extensive form of state such as
those propagated by Rawls which calls for distributive justice i.e. through taxing individuals and redistributing them.