Lesson 9: JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS: PROMOTING THE COMMON GOOD

1. The Nature of the Theory

The concept of ‘justice as fairness’ as an ethical framework that addresses the

promotion of the common good is attributed to John Rawls. Like other moral theories, Rawlsian
Ethics is a reaction to previous moral theories as examined in relation to their relevance in
addressing contemporary moral issues.
Reacting to Utilitarianism’s greatest number principle, Rawls claims that justice as
fairness must be inclusive. Obviously, Rawls adheres to the universalizability principle of Kant’s
Categorical Imperative. In other words, the common good means the good of all, not merely of
the majority. This constitutes a sound moral theory of justice understood as fairness.
Rawls’ moral framework, more particularly, is focused on distributive or economic justice,
or the appropriate apportionment of resources to all. Rawl’s theory is egalitarian in nature.
Below, we will discuss justice as fairness as an alternative to the capitalist and socialist
economic systems.

2. Distributive Justice (Egalitarian, Capitalist and Socialist)

2.1. The concept of justice as fairness (distributive justice) questions social structures that
allow discrepancies, inequalities and mass poverty/inhumane living.
Ø Social structure refers to network of social institutions, i.e. political, economic,
religion, family, academic.
Ø Political and economic institutions for instance allow work conditions which raise
moral issues. Consider the difference between the two cases below:
The case of many (most?) farmers
The case of Maine Mendoza
many farmers who do hard manual labor for more than 8 hours a day, even under the
scorching heat of the sun. Yet, they live a hand-to-mouth existence (isang kahig, isang
tukang pamumuhay).

--Maine Mendoza is dubbed as highest paid endorser

--She got 2.6 million for her Mc Donald commercial alone (about 20 seconds running time)

Ø In the aforementioned cases, we see the huge discrepancy between many farmers
and Maine Mendoza with regard to difficulty of work in relation to the earnings gained
from their respective works:
Farmers
Maine Mendoza
>work so hard like kalabaw
>substandard/inhumane living
>taped the 20 second commercial for one day (perhaps)
>gets paid for 2.6 million
 Ø It’s ironic that farmers who produce food can barely put decent, nutritious food on the
table, while Maine Mendoza earns 2.6 Million in a day just for a 20 second TV
commercial. Social structures allow this type of economic disparity to happen. And
since many suffer from glaring poverty (an issue of human well-being and life), such
kind of social structures are ethically questionable.
Ø More particularly, the aforementioned situation is prevalent in a capitalist economic
system where the means of production as well as the greatest benefits there from are
controlled and feasted upon by the few elite.
Ø The opposite of capitalism is socialism which is guided by Marx’s principle of
distribution: “from each according to ability and for each according to need”.
Ø In other words, a socialist economic structure practically demands more work from
people with more talents, while in terms of sharing of resources, one has the right to get
as much as he needs. It is possible in this structure that one who works more may get
less as he needs less compared with a less talented person who works less but needs
more because of sickness.
Ø Socialism discourages the more talented to work harder and does not even
encourage initiatives for novel works because it does not offer rewards. You might as
well work minimally because in the end you only get what you need…not what you
deserve as fruits of your hard labor and talents.

2.2. Given the above considerations, we can say that Rawls is against social structures
and their corresponding ethical frameworks that discriminate some or many or even the
majority in favor of some. In particular, Rawls is against utilitarianism which allows some to
be neglected for the sake of the majority. If justice is to be really fair, it must be for the
benefit of all. It must be universal.
2.3. Universality indeed is a key concept to understand Rawls. He agrees with Kant that
morality is based on the principle of universalizability, i.e. based on reason which every
rational person can accept. We will see below that Rawls explored the contextual
applicability of the categorical imperative by way of his concept of overlapping consensus.
2.4. The goal of Rawls, in short, is to lay the principles of a social structure that is
universally beneficial to, and universally agreed upon by all. Since it is beneficial to all, it
proposes a corrective to the wide gap between the few elite and the poor majority that
exists in capitalism. But it does so with due consideration to the right of the individual to be
compensated well in relation to his or her hard work and innovations, in contrast to
socialism. This proposal constitutes Rawlsian justice as fairness.
2.5. How can we come up with moral principles governing a social structure characterized
by justice as fairness?
To do so, Rawls first suggests that we imagine (or do a thought experiment where) we go
back to a situation in which
Ø there are representatives of free and equal citizens
 Ø each representative speaks about what free and equal citizens want based on
what is rationally (or universally) acceptable to any free person who is treated as
equal of other free persons.
Ø These representatives will agree as to what principles would govern a social
structure that promotes justice as fairness. Doing so, they arrive at an overlapping
consensus…
This situation is called by Rawls as original position.
Second, in order to secure this original position, or to make it sure that the representatives
would not be affected in their job to speak on behalf of equal and free citizens, they must
practice the veil of ignorance.
What is the veil of ignorance?
Ø The veil of ignorance is about the representative’s lack of knowledge about the
respective profiles of the citizens he represents, e.g. profiles: race, gender, social
status, etc.
Ø Practicing the veil of ignorance, the representative reduces the essential
characteristics of citizens (in relation to justice/fairness) into being free and equal
only.
Ø Accordingly, he will represent only the concerns of free and equal citizens; doing
so, he/she will dialogue with other representatives in order to come up with principles
of justice that are advantageous to all free and equal citizens. Dahil wala naman
siyang alam sa profile ng inire-represent niya, hindi na niya isusulong yung concern
lang ng mga elite or super rich or anyone with high office or status (gaya ng mga Sy,
Ayala, Lopez) para sa kapakanan ng negosyo nila. Under the veil of ignorance,
he/she will simply represent Ayala as free citizen 1, our college janitor as free citizen
2, our university president as free citizen 3, and they are treated as equal persons.
And when they are represented as to what would be advantageous to them as free
and equal citizens, what the representative proposes ought to be true to these three
citizens and all citizens as well.
2.6. What are the moral principles inherent in justice as fairness?
With regard to the principles of justice as fairness, the representatives will most likely have
a consensus on two main principles that
Ø Guide rights and duties
Ø Manage distribution of social and economic advantages
The principles are:
a) Equality in freedom or fundamental liberties
b) Social and economic inequalities should be structured so as to
 be advantageous to everyone
 attached to positions that are accessible to or open to all
The first principle means that all have maximum rights and liberties. Here, there is
absolute equality with regard to rights, like right to life and right to free speech.
 The second principle recognizes the inevitability and even advantages of allowable
degree of inequality (i.e. more reward to those who perform better, thus encouraging others
to give their best shot in their work…if everybody does his/her best, society will be
benefitted with their best discoveries and innovations…but if this sort of
competition/inequality is discouraged, tatamarin pati ang mga magagaling, and society is
deprived of the possible innovations they could make).
The first of the second principle is called the difference principle, i.e. there are
inequalities, but these must be for everyone’s advantage...or better, for the utmost benefit
of the least advantaged.
Consider: If you give 100 million dollars to the one who can discover a cure to COVID-
19, more researchers will keep on trying with their very best. The more researchers
competing for the reward, the faster it is and more chances are there to find the cure. And
when the cure is found, the discoverer gains more, or will not be at equal footing compared
to others. But if this inequality would mean most if not all will be saved from death and
worsening poverty, then it is not only permissible but also inevitable.
Seen in the perspective of economics, the first part of the second principle would
basically mean that everyone is allowed to be as rich as possible, and not all may be equal
in this regard, BUT we must see to it that the poorest in society still enjoys a decent,
humane living. Ok lang na ang pinakamayaman ay may sariling maliit na isla, plane and
yacht, so long as ang pinakamahirap sa atin ay kayang bumili ng latest model ng SUV at
sports car, at namumuhay ng disente sa isang malaking bahay with swimming pool located
at the center of his 1 hectare farm. This, of course, may sound utopian, but it is an
emphatic way of illustrating what Rawlsian ethics envisions as a feature of an egalitarian
society where justice as fairness exists.
The second aspect of the second principle is about equality of opportunity. This means that
even if you are the poorest now, your opportunity to be as rich as the richest must be the
same, and this holds true to all people at that. Kung anuman ang oportunidad na naging
isa sa mga sanhi ng pagyaman ng pinakamayaman, dapat lahat, pinakamahirap, mahirap
at middle class ay posibleng magkaroon ng ganon na oportunidad.
NB: The activity on Rawlsian Ethics is given below, after the topic on Globalization and
Ethics. Keep Rawls in mind as you read the last chapter.