A Theory of Justice - Book Report/Review Example

Assessment of Rawls One of the most prominent North American Philosophers of the twentieth century, John Rawls, has not only presented the world witha new take on liberalism through his work A Theory of Justice but has also brought about a different order that has radically changed the thinking of modern people (Peddle 1997: 166). Although his works have been equally acclaimed and criticised, the fact remains that ‘A Theory of Justice’ is used as the foundation in modern political philosophy and serves as the most fundamental text for students majoring in the different areas of philosophy alike. Where people exist, there is bound to be society as well as a laid down framework which they are to follow in order to live in that particular place. At the same time, these people are governed by the concerned authorities of that locality, and it is here that politics comes into play. Thus, in a society where each individual has different perceptions of justice, liberalism and such other elements, there will definitely be both agreements and disagreements regarding various related theories and philosophies. Therefore, Rawls is one an individual who, through one of the ‘most influential books ever written in political philosophy,’ showcases a different perception of justice to show how it affects the society and how it is involved in its functioning (Christie n.d: 1). Whereas on the other hand, Rawls’ theory of justice has been criticized by next generation political philosophers such as Michael Sandel who contends that the theory has its flaws regarding community aspects. However, despite the criticisms, both theories have their own rights and wrongs. Thus it is difficult to choose one over the other and this difficulty has paved the way for other revolutionary concepts to emerge in the future. In 1971, when The Theory of Justice was published, it was considered to be a turning point in the political philosophy and thus, Rawls was the main man behind the rebirth of political theory. Rawls finds the beginning of his philosophy in moral perception and he focuses on the current political institutions in the immediate surroundings. Different people perceive morality of humans in different manners. However, human beings since ancient times have drawn certain boundaries and named them ‘morals.’ Thus, it becomes the responsibility of the individuals living in that particular society to abide by those morals as well as follow them throughout their lives. On the other hand, these set of morals or guidelines which the individuals have to live by are most often formulated by political institutions acting in the society. Since it is these institutions which govern the people and have complete authority over them, individuals have no choice but to accept everything that is being enforced on them, whether it is just in their eyes or not. It is here that conflicts arise, as what may appear to be justice and just for the governing authorities, may not always be just for the people who are being governed. Therefore, there arises confusion so as to what is really just, and in this light, the general notion is to go with majority voting, that is, believe that justice is what is approved and accepted by the majority people in the society. However, this is not the case, as true justice is said to be served only when the “loss of freedom” for some individuals in the society cannot as well as will not ever be “made right by a greater good shared by others” (Rawls 1971). The motive of trying to help out the greater number of people by sacrificing the rights of a smaller proportion of people is never right, and it can be seen that Rawls is right in this light. Therefore, the base for his theory lies not merely in what the greater population agrees to be moral and acceptable behavior, but in what each individual views to be moral, and furthermore, he believes that it is the responsibility of the political institutions to cater to the needs of the individuals of the society, especially in terms of their rights. On the other hand, this issue paves way to a highly debated topic in the contemporary world, which is, liberalism and communitarianism. Liberalism deals with the individual and gives all preference to the needs as well as rights of a person as an individual, whereas the latter does not deal with the individual alone, but considers a larger community, that is, a group of individuals. Therefore, it becomes clear that Rawls supported liberalism, and Sandel did not agree with Rawls, and he was more interested in supporting republicanism. In the same light, it also becomes evident that Rawls is deontological in his approach, thus, he gives higher importance to ‘right’ when compared to ‘good.’ This again exemplifies the point that a greater amount of good which could happen when putting at risk certain individuals is simply not right. Thus, that greater good is forgone in order to achieve what is right in a particular situation. Furthermore, whereas John Rawls puts forth the “idea of public reason,” Sandel strives hard to formulate a kind of “new politics of the common good” (Baxter 2011: 1339). Therefore, Rawls’ statements and assertions are made crystal clear through his approach as well as style of presenting his ideas. Furthermore, when analyzing the Theory of Justice it becomes clear that it is basically a collection of “social democratic principles of justice” deftly woven together by a highly inspiring aspirant who wanted nothing more than to provide and make come alive true political justice (Pettit 1974: 311). On the other hand, it is to be noted how Rawls believes that “rational men would choose, under defined constraints, in an original position of social contract” these principles meant to bring about justice (311). However, while conducting an in depth analysis of his work, the reader will understand that Rawls has developed the above mentioned contractual theory keeping in mind the western democracy. Thus, it is in this light that Michael Sandel has argued and criticized Rawls’ work, as the theory is built by just considering the western community. Furthermore, it transpires that Rawls’ theory lacks universality as it cannot be applied to communities and societies all over the world. Moreover, Alan Bloom, one of the important contenders of Rawls’ theory, criticizes Rawls’ inability to “synthesize the utilitarian social contract tradition and austere Kantian morality” (Tampio 2007: 80). It does not come as a surprise that Rawls’ theory is fundamentally based on Kant’s views and conceptions, thus, in such a case, Rawls is supposed to consider all factors considered by Kant himself. However, Bloom finds that Rawls has retained “Kant’s ideas of freedom and rationality,” but, however, he has forgone the “principle of universality” (80). Therefore, it is understood that the criticisms held against Rawls find roots in not just its applicability to western society but also its non applicability to other communities. However, on the other hand, Rawls’ theory cannot be criticized so much as there is a “real risk of infringing individuals’ primary moral significance” when stretching the limits of “liberal toleration in order to accommodate political liberalism with multiculturalism in the international sphere” (Trifiró 2005: 1). Therefore, it is important to note that Rawls’ conception of liberalism or freedom of individuals is indeed agreeable to, as otherwise, when considering the factors of universality as well as difference in communities, the theory would be overstretched to the extent that the individual’s moral values and significance be put to risk. John Rawls’ theory of justice basically involves two main principles, which are principle of liberty and principle of equality. The former is concerned with every individual having an “equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others,” whereas the latter is concerned with the arrangement of “social and economic inequalities” so as to ensure that they are “reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage” as well as “attached to positions and offices open to all” (Rawls 1971). In the same light, it becomes clear, as examined by Tampio, that Rawls’ theory focuses on “deontology with a Humean face,” that is, Rawls strives to develop a theory which is built upon “Kant’s idealistic moral principles in an empiricist framework” (81). As for Michael Sandel, the main reason that he is against the theory of Rawls is because of the fact that a coherent political theory can have either the feature of deontology or the feature of moral principle, but not these both features at the same time. Upon examination of Rawls works, it is unavoidable to notice that first Rawls “entangles himself in the transcendental metaphysics” that he wanted to avoid, later Rawls places himself in the “contemporary political milieu but loses the ability to articulate principles that transcend that milieu” (81). In other words, it transpires that Rawls’ theory “either fails as deontology or recreates in the original position the disembodied subject it resolves to avoid,” thus earning the opposition of Sandel as well as the label put forward by Sandel, “philosophically incoherent” (81). The main reasons for criticizing the theory of justice put forward by Rawls lie in the nature of the theory itself, as Sandel and many others agree that the theory is “too metaphysical to be relevant for the understanding of human agency and political community in the real world” (Shaw 2010: 925). Thus, the theory was shunted away as it was merely theoretical and did not have the practicality to be applied in real world. Justice is a highly practical concept, “which requires that the contemporary societal circumstances are taken into account,” however, Rawls’ theory of justice reveals that his “idealistic conception” of justice as fairness is “inconsistent with the required practical notion” (Sinokki, Lukio & Filosofia n.d: 1). Therefore, it can finally be construed that it is also the fact of Rawls’ theory being built upon certain utopian characteristics that make it difficult to accept and follow in the contemporary society. On the other hand, it can also be seen that Rawls work supports deontological liberalism, which holds the “primacy of justice among moral and political ideals” (Sandel 1998: 1). However, it is indeed this primacy of justice that Sandel tries to refute in his Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. Sandel proposes that the liberalism of Rawls, which is directly based upon the ideals of Kant, is not suitable in the contemporary realm of political philosophy. Sandel admits that the limits he asserts against the liberalism of Rawls are not necessarily practical, but they are conceptual. It is not to be mistaken that he refutes the principle of justice because of its impracticability to be followed all over the world, but it is because of the flaws present in the innate concept of justice itself. Therefore, it can be seen that Rawls theory of justice is not fully impeccable but neither are the criticism, such as Sandel’s, that it received. Being one of the turning point in political philosophy as well as emerging contrary to the claim that political theories have met their end, John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice provides the contemporary society with a new perception of justice and liberalism. Whereas the theory takes into account several contemporary factors and works well with the ideals of Kant, the fact remains that it is not fully applicable or practical to the whole world. This is mainly because the theory lacks universality as well as it comprises of inability to be applied to different communities all around the world. Thus, these limitations of his work have been criticized upon, but on the other hand, supporters of the theory have also revealed that when taking into account the features of universality, chances are that individual freedom and identity is compromised. On the other hand, prominent political philosophers such as Michael Sandel have also found flaws within the theory of justice and it is not merely due to its not being fully achievable, but rather its flawed concept in itself. Therefore, it transpires that neither the developer of the theory nor the critics of the theory are fully correct, thus, this calls for the development of a new theory which can overcome all such problems and issues faced by the current theory. References Baxter, H. 2011. Sandel on Religion in the Public Square. Retrieved February 19, 2014, from Christie, I. n.d. A Marxist Critique of John Rawls’ Theory of Justice. University of North Dakota. Retrieved February 19, 2014, from Peddle, D. 1997. Liberalism, Republicanism And The Spirit Of American Politics: A Critique Of Sandel. Animus, Vol.2. Retrieved February 19, 2014, from Pettit, P. 1974. A Theory of Justice? Holland: D Reidel Publishing Company. Theory and Decision, Vol.4: pp. 311-324. Retrieved February 19, 2014, from Rawls, J. 1971. A Theory of Justice. UK: Oxford University Press. Sandel, M. 1998. Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. New York: Cambridge University Press. Shaw, C K Y. 2010. Civic Republicanism and Democratic Politics—Michael Sandel and Contemporary Theories of Political Community. EURAMERICA, Vol.40 (4): pp. 923-945. Retrieved February 19, 2014, from Sinokki, S., Lukio, T., and Filosofia. n.d. A Critique of John Rawl’s Hypothetical Contract as Means of Determining Justice from the Angle of Political Realism. Retrieved February 19, 2014, from Tampio, N. 2007. Rawls and the Kantian Ethos. Polity, Vol.39 (1). Northeastern Political Science Association. Retrieved February 19, 2014, from Trifiro, F. 2005. John Rawls’s Justice as Fairness: anti-foundationalism, deliberative democracy, and cosmopolitanism. Institute for International Integration Studies, Trinity College Dublin. Retrieved February 19, 2014, from Read More