Unit 5 Juris

Introduction
Justice can seldom be defined. It has diverse interpretations. Justice for one may not be justice for someone
else. However, various jurists have attempted to define justice in the closest way possible. One such jurist
was John Rawls, who addressed the concept of justice in his famous book ‘A Theory of Justice.’ Let us try to
understand Rawls’ idea of justice.
Rawls’ theory
John Rawls was a firm opposer of utilitarianism, which held the view that just or fair actions are the ones
that bring the greatest amount of good for the greatest number. He condemned utilitarianism because he
opined that it paves the way for governments to function in ways that bring happiness to a majority but
ignore the wishes and rights of a minority.
Rawls’ theory of justice is largely influenced by the Social Contract Theory as interpreted by Immanuel Kant,
another political philosopher. A social contract is a hypothetical agreement between the government and the
people governed that defines their rights and duties. Kant interpreted the social contract as one which is
unanimously accepted and agreed upon by all the people, and not just a particular group. So, as for Kant, a
society under a social contract is a society based on moral laws.
Objective of the theory

The very purpose of Rawls introducing the theory of justice was to find a way to create a well- ordered
society. According to him, a well-ordered society should predominantly have the following two elements:
i. It should be designed to advance the good of its members and effectively regulated by a public
conception of justice;
ii. It should be a society wherein all people accept and know that all other people accept the same
principles of justice and that the basic social institutions satisfy those principles.
Now, to create a well-ordered society, Rawls calls to envisage ourselves as a group of competent moral
judges, able to decide between conflicting moral and political ideals from the perspective of reasonableness
and impartiality. This enabling is facilitated by two hypothetical devices – the original position and veil
of ignorance.
A well-ordered society
As discussed earlier, Rawls’ theory of justice is inspired by the Social Contract Theory as interpreted by the
political philosopher Immanuel Kant. Rawls extended Kant’s theory by taking the viewpoint of a hypothetical
contract wherein the decision-makers come together to formulate rules for defining the basic structure of a
well-ordered society, using set principles of justice. As per Rawls, this formulation is done by observing the
following conditions of the contract:
i. Circumstances of justice 2- Original position 3- Veil of ignorance Maximin rule
ii.
Circumstances of justice
As per Rawls, the circumstances of justice are the normal conditions under which human cooperation is both
possible and necessary. These circumstances are pertinent for any society to make just laws. Rawls described
two kinds of circumstances of justice objective and subjective circumstances.
Objective circumstances
Rawls opines that the most significant objective circumstance of justice is the one in which the resources
available to a society are moderately scarce.
Subjective circumstances
Subjective circumstances of justice refer to circumstances that give rise to a situation in which few members
of the society have conflicting interests in the resources available. When such interests contradict the
mutually advantageous social cooperation, a need for justice arises.
Original position
John Rawls calls upon the readers of his book A Theory of Justice to imagine a hypothetical scenario where a
group of people ignorant of their or others’ social, economic, physical, or mental factors come together to
make laws for themselves. This imaginary initial position of equality, perspective, or viewpoint of
impartiality is what Rawls calls an original position (OP). The original position in Rawls’ theory of justice
plays the same role as the state of nature does in the social contract theory proposed by political
philosophers Thomas Hobbes, Jean- Jacques, Rousseau, and John Locke.
In the original position, the parties have the choice to select the principles of justice that are to govern the
basic structure of society. These principles, as discussed further, are imperative to ensure that the benefits
and burdens of society are just or fair to all parties. Rawls proposed that the parties or decision-makers must
choose the principles for society as if they were behind a veil of ignorance.
Veil of ignorance
To achieve justice for all, it is vital to set aside personal interests and be rational while making rules or
decisions affecting society. To reach a rational mindset, Rawls argues that one must imagine himself as if he
is behind a “veil of ignorance.” This veil of ignorance is a theoretical device or hypothetical separation
between the decision-maker and the society he lives in. It prevents him from knowing any material facts
about himself or the people for whom he is making the rule. There are two main aspects of the veil of
ignorance: self-ignorance and public ignorance. Firstly, it abstains the decision-maker from knowing
anything about himself. It is essential for him to not know his own position in society, because knowing may
tempt him to make decisions that favour his future self-considering his private interests. For instance, a
legislator having shares in a company of a particular sector may strive to make laws favouring the future rise
of that sector, for himself to indirectly be profited by it. Secondly, it abstains the decision-maker from
knowing anything about the entities for whom he is making the decision. Such ignorance is crucial to avoid
the personal bias of the decision maker.=
Two principles of justice

1. The Principle of Equal Liberty
As per the principle of equal liberty, all the people in the society must be given certain liberties that are basic
for human existence. Such liberties cannot be infringed at any cost, even if they may cause greater benefit to
a larger mass of people. Some of the basic liberties as stated by Rawls were the freedom of speech, assembly,
thought and conscience, liberties required to secure the rule of law, sanitation, wealth, and health.
2. The Principle of Difference and Fair Equality of Opportunity
Rawls’ second principle of justice states that social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they
are both –
i. To the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, and
ii. Attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.
.

Unit 5 Juris

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unit 5 Juris

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

Unit 5 Juris

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Introduction

Objective of the theory

Two principles of justice

You might also like