Module 7

MODULE 7
Ethical Framework: Justice

John Rawls on Justice as Fairness
Module 7 presents John Rawls’ concepts on Justice as Fairness as a framework in dealing

with moral issues. While there are many and different concepts of justice, this module simply
focuses on having a deeper understanding of Rawls’ moral philosophy. And most
importantly, the module aims to help students develop the ability to make moral decisions
that are grounded on reason and impartiality, as guided by the principle of justice as fairness.
Learning Outcomes:
At the end of Module 7, you should be able to:
1. describe the background with which Rawls’ theory of Justice is based;
2. explain the two principles inherent in the concept of “justice as fairness;”
3. justify the importance of undergoing the “veil of ignorance” when making policies
and moral decisions;
4. tell why the concept of justice as fairness is practical or not; and
5. recommend specific actions as solutions to certain specific problems currently faced
by our present government.
ENGAGE
Many Filipino citizens are dissatisfied with how our government officials respond to the crises
being faced by our country. Given the opportunity, if you were a government official in our
country, what would you be? Specifically, what position in the government would you be
taking - the President/DOH secretary/Baguio mayor/Presidential spokesperson? etc. etc.
etc....
_______________________________________________________
Given the “power” that you have (based from the government position you have
indicated) cite one specific problem or issue that the current government is facing and
then propose solution/s to such.
Property of and for the exclusive use of SLU. Reproduction, storing in a retrieval system, distributing, uploading or posting online, or transmitting in any form or by any
means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise of any part of this document, without the prior written permission of SLU, is strictly prohibited. 1
EXPLORE
Explore the following videos as supplements:

A visual review of Rawls’ theory of justice in just 2 minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1-J8huxT8E
A discussion presentation of Rawls theory of justice in 16 minutes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6k08C699zI
EXPLAIN
 7. Ethical Framework: Justice
7.1. John Rawls’ Theory of Justice

John Rawls (1921-2002) was an American political
philosopher in the liberal tradition. His theory of justice as
fairness describes a society of free citizens holding equal
basic rights and cooperating within an egalitarian
economic system. His theory of political liberalism explores
the legitimate use of political power in a democracy, and
envisions how civic unity might endure despite the diversity
of worldviews that free institutions allow. His writings on the
law of peoples set out a liberal foreign policy that aims to
create a permanently peaceful and tolerant international
order (Stanford.edu).
Rawls’ theory of justice starts from the claim of the
Original Position, a thought experiment in which the parties
select principles that will determine the basic structure of
https://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2013/12/0
the society they will live in. This choice is made from behind 7/episode-85-rawls-on-social-justice/
a ’veil of ignorance’, which would deprive participants of
information about their particular characteristics: his or her ethnicity, social status, gender
and, crucially, their conception of The Good. This forces participants to select principles
impartially and rationally. Let us try to elaborate how this goes.
Justice as fairness. Rawls focused on distributive justice and attempted to reconcile
the competing claims of the values of freedom and equality. In the thought experiment,
Rawls proposed to imagine humankind before society came into being – this meant to
imagine humanity in a natural state. People are then asked to create a society which
decides how wealth and goods are to be distributed.
In creating society, the proposed guiding principle is “Justice as Fairness”. Justice as
Fairness aims to describe an arrangement of the major political institutions of a liberal society,
the political constitution, and that of the legal system. The emphasis is on justice because
this is “the first virtue of social institutions.”
Veil of Ignorance. Before the people in the thought experiment make any decisions,
they are placed behind a “veil of ignorance”, which means that they do not have any idea
of how successful they will be, or how wealthy they will become, and so on. In Rawls’
concept of the Veil of Ignorance, the individuals have to step back from biases stemming
out of their own circumstances, and view the proposed situation (creation of a society) by
forgetting about race, class, gender, and similar factors so that fairness becomes the
fundamental basis for justice. To note, in negotiating social agreements based on equality
behind a veil of ignorance, risks are minimized and weaker parties are protected.
7.1.1. The Principles of Justice

It must be noted that Rawls developed a theory of the Good, where the Good is understood
as justice, and furthermore, where justice is conceived as fairness. This said, Rawls proposes
that there two Principles of Justice:
Principle 1: Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal
basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all, and
Principle 2: Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both:
a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just saving
principle, and
b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of
opportunity. (Rawls, 1971, p. 302).
7.1.1.1. The First Principle

According to John Rawls, the principles of justice that governs society must be acceptable
to everyone; otherwise, society will not be stable but subject to unrest. This is the principle of
equal liberty, and is meant to primarily govern society’s political institutions (its constitution,
government, courts, legislative system, and laws). It states that,
“Each person has the same indefeasible claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic
liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme of liberties for all.”
In Rawls’ first principle, the basic liberties for all citizens include:
Political liberty (right to vote and be eligible for public office);
Freedom of speech and assembly;
Liberty of conscience and freedom of thought;
Freedom regarding your own person;
Right to hold personal property; and
Freedom from arbitrary arrest and seizure as these are understood under the
rule of law.
The principle means that everyone must have as many political rights and freedoms
as possible. For instance, everyone must have the same voting rights, the same legal rights,
the same freedom of speech, the same freedom of conscience, the same freedom of the
press, and so on. In the political sphere, everyone must be equal and everyone must be
granted the maximum degree of freedom compatible with everyone else having the same
degree of freedom.
7.1.1.2. The Second Principle

Rawls’ second principle of justice holds two parts: the first part speaks of “fair equality of
opportunity”, and the second part involves the “difference principle”.
The first part (fair equality of opportunity) of the second principle, requires that
individuals with the same talents and willingness to use them have the same educational
and economic opportunities regardless of whether they were born rich or poor. “In all parts
of society there are to be roughly the same prospects of culture and achievement for those
similarly motivated and endowed” (JF, p. 44). Rawls’ fair equality of opportunity/principle of
opportunities is supposed to govern a society’s economic institutions. It states that the
desirable jobs and positions should be open to anyone who is qualified by his or her abilities.
This means that jobs qualifications should be related to the requirements of the job and
should not discriminate based on race, gender, and so on. It also means that society should
provide people with the training and education needed to qualify for desirable jobs.
Aside from the above, the fair equality of opportunity/principle of opportunities may
also be applied to positions of authority and selection of offices. For example, there may not
be hereditary positions; as well as “tests” based on wealth, status, or property. There may not
also be exclusions motivated by gender, race, etc. It must be noted that in this account,
allaying social and economic inequities in order to benefit everyone are less clear. However,
Rawls views on the original position and veil of ignorance may provide a possible model or
framework.
The second part of the second principle elaborates on Rawls’ “difference principle”.
The difference principle is primarily intended to govern a society’s economic institutions.
Unlike the political arena, where everyone’s rights are equal, the economic arena must allow
for some inequalities. Allowing inequalities of wealth and income can lead to a larger social
product or to greater production: higher wages can cover the costs of training and
education, for example, and can provide incentives to fill jobs that are more in demand.
There is also the incentive to work harder for better incentives.
The difference principle allows inequalities of wealth and income, so long as these will
be to everyone’s advantage, and specifically to the advantage of those who will be worst
off. The difference principle requires, that is, that any economic inequalities be to the
greatest advantage of those who are advantaged least.
7.2. Taxation in the Philippines vis-à-vis Rawls’ Theory of Justice

Tax law in the Philippines covers national and local taxes. National taxes refer to national
internal revenue taxes imposed and collected by the national government through the
Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and local taxes refer to those imposed and collected by
the local government. The Tax Code of 1997, Revenue Issuances and BIR Rulings, pertaining
to national taxes (VAT, income tax, donor’s tax, capital gains tax, excise tax, estate tax, etc)
are governed nationally and information is posted at the BIR website (bir.gov.ph).
Meanwhile, local taxation inclusions (like the payment of cedula, amusement tax, real
property tax, etc) is governed by the Local Government Code.
As a preface to the need for taxation, note that there are three (3) inherent powers
of the sovereign state:
police power - the power to protect citizens and provide safety and welfare of
society.
eminent domain power - the power to take private property (with just compensation)
for public use.
taxation power - the power to enforce contributions to support the government, and
other inherent powers of the state.
7.2.1. The Progressive System of Taxation

The 1987 Philippine Constitution sets limitations on the exercise of the power to tax. The rule
of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The Congress shall evolve a progressive system
of taxation (Article VI, Section 28, paragraph 1).
Progressive system of taxation

• tax laws shall give emphasis on direct rather than indirect taxes, or on the ability-to-
pay principle of taxation.
Primary requisite of equity principle:

• a progressive tax rate shall be applied equally to all persons, firms, and corporation,
and transactions placed in similar classification and situation.
“Equality in taxation”
• similar to progressive system of taxation.
• tax laws and their implementation must be fair, just, reasonable and proportionate to
one’s ability to pay.
All money collected on any tax levied for a special purpose shall be treated as a
special fund and paid out for such purpose only. If the purpose for which a special fund was
created has been fulfilled or abandoned, the balance, if any, shall be transferred to the
general funds of the Government. (Article VI, Section 29, paragraph 3)
The Congress may, by law, authorize the President to fix within specified limits, and
subject to such limitations and restriction as it may impose, tariff rates, import and export
quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts within the framework of
the national development program of the Government (Article VI, Section 28, paragraph 2).
The President shall have the power to veto any particular item or items in an appropriation,
revenue or tariff bill, but the veto shall not affect the item or items to which he does not
object (Article VI, Section 27, second paragraph).
The Supreme Court shall have the power to review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm on
appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders
of lower courts in x x x all cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll or
any penalty imposed in relation thereto (Article VIII, Section 5, paragraph).
Tax exemptions are limited to those granted by law. However, no law granting any
tax exemption shall be passed without the concurrence of a majority of all the members of
the Congress. (Article VI, Section 28, par. 4). The Constitution expressly grants tax exemption
on certain entities/institutions such as: (1) charitable institutions, churches, parsonages or
convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, and nonprofit cemeteries and all lands, buildings
and improvements actually, directly and exclusively used for religious, charitable or
educational purposes (Article VI, Section 28, paragraph 3); (2) non-stock, non-profit
educational institutions used actually, directly and exclusively for educational purposes
(Article XVI, Section 4(3)).
In addition to national taxes, the Constitution provides for local government taxation.
(Article X, Section 5) (Article X, Section 6) Parenthetically, the Local Government Code
provides that all local government units are granted general tax powers, as well as other
revenue-raising powers like the imposition of service fees and charges, in addition to those
specifically granted to each of the local government units. But no such taxes, fees and
charges shall be imposed without a public hearing having been held prior to the enactment
of the ordinance. The levy must not be unjust excessive, oppressive, confiscatory or contrary
to a declared national economic policy (Section 186 and 187) Further, there are common
limitations to the grant of the power to tax to the local government, such that taxes like
income tax, documentary stamp tax, etc. cannot be imposed by the local government.
7.2.2. Theory and Basis of Taxation

The power of taxation proceeds upon the theory that the existence of government is a
necessity; that it cannot continue without means to pay its expenses; and that for these
means, it has a right to compel all its citizens’ property within its limits to contribute.
7.2.2.1. Lifeblood Doctrine:

The lifeblood theory constitutes the theory of taxation, which provides that the existence of
government is a necessity; that government cannot continue without means to pay its
expenses; and that for these means it has a right to compel its citizens and property within
its limits to contribute.
7.2.2.2. Benefits Received Principle:

The basis of taxation is found in the reciprocal duties of protection and support between the
State and its inhabitants. In return for his contribution, the taxpayer receives benefits and
protection from the government. This is the so called “Benefits received principle”.
This theory bases the power of the State to demand and receive taxes on the
reciprocal duties of support and protection. The citizen supports the State by paying the
portion from his property that is demanded in order that he may, by means thereof, be
secured in the enjoyment of the benefits of an organized society. Thus, the taxpayer cannot
question the validity of the tax law on the ground that payment of such tax will render him
impoverished, or lessen his financial or social standing, because the obligation to pay taxes
is involuntary and compulsory, in exchange for the protection and benefits one receives
from the government.
7.2.2.3. Doctrine of Symbiotic Relationship:
This doctrine is enunciated in CIR v. Algue, Inc. [158 SCRA 9], which states that “Taxes are
what we pay for civilized society. Without taxes, the government would be paralyzed for
lack of the motive power to activate and operate it. Hence, despite the natural reluctance
to surrender part of one’s hard-earned income to the taxing authorities, every person who is
able must contribute his share in the burden of running the government. The government for
its part, is expected to respond in the form of tangible and intangible benefits intended to
improve the lives of the people and enhance their material and moral values.”
Note: The discussion on the Taxation in the Philippines vis-à-vis Rawls’ Theory of Justice was solely
provided by Atty. Mark Gil J. Ramolete
ELABORATE (First part)
This relates to Rawls’ second principle and involves its two parts.
Do you think the “equal opportunity principle” and the “difference principle” of Rawls’
theory of justice are seen/applied in our country’s taxation system? Justify your answer.
ELABORATE (Second part):
The Social Amelioration

Program (SAP) is a cash
emergency subsidy program
for Filipino families whose lives
were greatly affected by the
implemented community
quarantine. To the right is a
meme regarding this
program.
     
Accessed from:
https://pikapika.ph/pikadaily/look-
showbiz-inspired-quarantine-
memes-that-will-take-your-stress-
1. Applying John Rawls’ theory of justice in taxation, do you think it is fair for some taxpayers
not to receive this “ayuda”? Expound on your answer. 15 points.
2. Analyzing Kant’s moral philosophy, do you think he would still advise you to pay your taxes
even if you are not receiving an “ayuda’? Would you or would you not follow his advice?
Elaborate your answer. 15 points.
The following rubric shall be applied for scoring for each essay:
 Understanding of the ethical framework –------------------------- 10
Shows correct analysis (7-10)
Shows slight errors in analysis (4-6)
Several errors in the analysis are apparent (1-3)
Misinterpretation of concepts is clearly evident (0)
 Presence of supporting claims and/examples -------------------- 3
 Spelling and grammar ----------------------------------------------------- 2
TOTAL Score: 15 points
EVALUATE
Please refer to the Google Form uploaded to the Google classroom for the graded activity
of this module. Please answer the Google form quiz diligently. Do your Best!
References:
Adkins, A.W.H. (1972). Moral Values and Political Behaviour in Ancient Greece from Homer
to the End of the Fifth Century. London: Chatto and Windus.
Aquinas, Thomas. (1966). Summa Theologiae: “On law, eternal law, and natural law.” Vol.
28, edited by Thomas Gilby, pp5-97. Cambridge: Blackfriars in coordination with New
York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Aquinas, Thomas. (1966). Summa Theologiae: I-IIae, q. 95, a.2, and q. 96, a. 4. Translated by
Manuel Velasquez, 2004.
Carlson, Erik. (1995). Consequentialism Reconsidered. Springer.
Crisp, Roger. (2006). Hedonism Reconsidered, Philosophy and Phenomenological

Research, LXXIII (3): 619-645.
Crisp, Roger. (1997). Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Mill on Utilitarianism. Publish

London: Routledge.
Feldman, Fred (1997). Utilitarianism, Hedonism, and Desert: Essays in Moral Philosophy,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Frankena, W. (1963). Ethics. Foundations of Philosophy Series. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Glenn, Paul G. (1965). Ethics: A class manual in moral philosophy. USA: Herder Book Co.,
Missouri.
George, Robert P. (1995). Making men moral: Civil liberties and public morality. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Hursthouse, R. (1999). On Virtue Ethics. Oxford: OUP.
Ibana, Ranier & Tugade, Angeli (Ed). (1998). Comments on moral philosophy. Quezon City:
The Philippine Commission on Higher Education.
Kaplan, J. D. (Ed.). (1958). The pocket Aristotle. New York: Washington Square Press.
Kant, Emmanuel. (1950). Foundations of the metaphysics of morals. USA: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Larimore T.B. (1843-1929) “The Iron, Silver, and Golden Rules.” Ethics as a philosophy. (See
Srygley, pp. 190-207).
Montemayor, Felix. (1994). Ethics: The philosophy of life. Manila: National Bookstore.
Mill, J.S. (2002). Utilitarianism. Edited by G. Sher. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing
Company.
Mill, J.S. (2003). Utilitarianism and on Liberty: Including 'Essay on Bentham' and Selections
from the Writings of Jeremy Bentham and John Austin. Blackwell Publishing.
Mulgan, Tim. (2002). The Demands of Consequentialism. Oxford University Press.
Oakley, J. (1996). "Varieties of Virtue Ethics", Ratio, vol. 9.
Petrick, Joseph A. and John F. Quinn. (1997) Management ethics: Integrity at work.
(California: Sage Publications, Inc., 1997), pp. 89-91
Rachel, James (2004). What is morality: “Elements of moral philosophy” 4th Edition. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Rawls, John. (1996). Reason at work: Reading in philosophy. “A theory of justice” pp.262-
267, edited by Steven M. Cahn and Goerge Sher. Forth Worth TX: Hardcourt Brace
College Publishers
Scheffler, Samuel. (1994). The Rejection of Consequentialism. Oxford University Press.
Singer, Peter Albert David. (1993). A Companion to Ethics. (Blackwell Companions to

Philosophy) Blackwell Publishing.
Smart, J.J.C., and Bernard Williams. (1973). Utilitarianism: For and Against. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Smith, James and Sosa, Ernest (eds.) (1969). Mill’s Utilitarianism: Text and Criticism,
Belmont CA: Wadsworth.
Timbreza, Florentino. (1993). Bioethics and moral decision. Manila: De La Salle University.
Trianosky, G.V. (1997). "What is Virtue Ethics All About?" in Statman D., Virtue Ethics.
Cambridge: Edinburgh University Press.
Velasquez, Manuel. (2004). Philosophy, a text with readings. “Ethics,” chapter 7. 9th edition.
Australia: Thomson Wadworth.
West, Henry R. (ed.) (2006). The Blackwell Guide to Mill’s Utilitarianism, Oxford: Blackwell.
Electronic Sources:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/teleological-ethics
http://www.iep.utm.edu/hedonism/
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Teleological_ethics
https://www.balance.com/kimberly-amadeo-3305455 updated April 21, 2018
https://www.balance.com/law-of-supply-&-demand-defintion-xplained-example-3305707
heir,heiress, jet-setter
Bringing Ethics into the Capitalist Model: Amartya Sen's Approach to ...
https://journals.openedition.org/lisa/8233
prostratecategorizesurroundexert
https://www.wisdomquotes/quotes/robert-wrihgt.html

Module 7 - Gethics Short Term 2022-2023

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Module 7 - Gethics Short Term 2022-2023

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Module 7 - Gethics Short Term 2022-2023

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ethical Framework: Justice

Module 7 presents John Rawls’ concepts on Justice as Fairness as a framework in dealing

Explore the following videos as supplements:

A discussion presentation of Rawls theory of justice in 16 minutes:

 7. Ethical Framework: Justice

7.1. John Rawls’ Theory of Justice

7.1.1. The Principles of Justice

7.1.1.1. The First Principle

7.1.1.2. The Second Principle

7.2. Taxation in the Philippines vis-à-vis Rawls’ Theory of Justice

7.2.1. The Progressive System of Taxation

Progressive system of taxation

Primary requisite of equity principle:

7.2.2. Theory and Basis of Taxation

7.2.2.1. Lifeblood Doctrine:

7.2.2.2. Benefits Received Principle:

ELABORATE (First part)

The Social Amelioration

TOTAL Score: 15 points

Carlson, Erik. (1995). Consequentialism Reconsidered. Springer.

Crisp, Roger. (2006). Hedonism Reconsidered, Philosophy and Phenomenological

Crisp, Roger. (1997). Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Mill on Utilitarianism. Publish

Hursthouse, R. (1999). On Virtue Ethics. Oxford: OUP.

Mulgan, Tim. (2002). The Demands of Consequentialism. Oxford University Press.

Scheffler, Samuel. (1994). The Rejection of Consequentialism. Oxford University Press.

Singer, Peter Albert David. (1993). A Companion to Ethics. (Blackwell Companions to

You might also like