Social and Political Philosophy Spring 2010

A Theory of Justice – John Rawls

Background – A Theory of Justice as a “reconciliation of liberty and equality”

Liberalism versus Egalitarianism

Rawls’s Two Principles of Justice – Liberty and Equality

The Main Idea of the Theory of Justice

Social Contract Theory in the tradition of Locke, Rousseau, and Kant

Original position – hypothetical situation where people choose the principles that govern society

The people in the original position are assumed to be rational and mutually disinterested

The veil of ignorance keeps people in the original position ignorant of many characteristics about
themselves – such as their gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, economic class, etc.

What is the point of having people choose the principles of justice behind a “veil of ignorance”?

Why does Rawls think of his theory of justice as “Justice as Fairness”?

Principles of Justice guide the formation of political and social institutions

Why does Rawls believe that people in the original position would not be willing to be guided by
the principle of utility? Do you agree or disagree?
Social and Political Philosophy Spring 2010

Two Principles of Justice:

1. Each person has an equal right to the most extensive basic liberties compatible with similar
liberties for all.

2. Social and economic inequalities are arranged so that they are both
a. Reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage, especially to the least
advantaged
b. Attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of
opportunity.

Principle of Equal Liberty (#1) – each person’s liberties must be protected from invasion by
others and must be equal to those of others.

The Difference Principle (#2a) – a productive society will have inequalities, but inequalities must
be to everyone’s advantage and must improve the position of the worst off members of society.

The Principle of Fair Equality of Opportunity (#2b) – everyone should be given an equal
opportunity to qualify for the more privileged positions in society’s institutions.

An egalitarian conception of justice – dealing with inequalities of birth (or natural distribution)

Interpretation of the original position versus The principles that would be agreed to in it

The Original Position and Justification

Reasonable Restrictions on Arguments for Principles of Justice (veil of ignorance):

 Shouldn’t be advantaged or disadvantaged by natural or social fortune

 Shouldn’t tailor the principles to the circumstances of one’s own case
 Should rule out those principles that are based on things irrelevant to justice
 Should be consistent with the moral equality of people
Social and Political Philosophy Spring 2010

How does the process that Rawls refers to as “Reflective Equilibrium” affect how the principles
of justice are chosen?

Two Principles of Justice

Principles of Basic Liberties take priority over Principles of Economic Distributions

What does Rawls mean when he says that equality as a benchmark for judging improvements?

Applying the principles to institutions, not particular individuals

Democratic Equality and the Difference Principle

Rawls considers a case in which it is likely that the entrepreneurial class has better prospects
than those in the class of unskilled laborers. What does he think would have to be true to justify
this kind of inequality?

The Tendency to Equality

The “Natural Distribution”

The Principle of Redress

The difference principle is supposed to be a principle of mutual benefit. It may, however, appear
unfairly biased towards the least favored. How does Rawls respond to this criticism?

The Veil of Ignorance

What is Known under the Veil of Ignorance

Social and Political Philosophy Spring 2010

Some may object that choosing under a veil of ignorance is irrational, as “principles should be
chosen in the light of all the knowledge available” (488). How does Rawls respond?

The Reasoning Leading to the Two Principles of Justice

Why does Rawls believe that a rational and self-interested person in the original position would
agree to being part of a society governed by both of these principles of justice?