Michael Sandel's critique of John Rawls' Theory of Justice - Essay Example

? Michael Sandel's critique of John Rawls' Theory of Justice Sandel’s thoughts on Liberalism and the Limits of Justice are the most comprehensive and extensive critique of John Rawls’s Theory of Justice. Sandel has a good understanding of Rawls’s views and therefore his analysis of the theory of justice is thorough with the challenges it poses on political philosophy. Michaels challenge is not perfect and it also has errors, his critique of Rawls is not as wrong as he assumes. He claims that Rawls theory is weak for presupposing an already existing community whose values and concerns are inherent in individuals reasoning therefore Rawls cannot claim that his principles of justice are a result of serious thought by independent individuals who have no specific social responsibilities or values. But Rawls completely acknowledged this by pointing out that his mission is not to provide a universal standard of justice but to determine which moral principles would be perfect for his society and its affairs. Keywords: Principles of Justice, principles, justice, liberalism, communitarian, utilitarianism, Original Position, moral, society, individual, rights, duties, responsibilities, mutual, social, balance John Rawls has an exposition of Justice as Fairness. He believes that justice should be the primary virtue of social institutions and any false theory must be rejected or revised however classic or economical it might be. The same applies to unjust laws and institutions which Rawls believes should be reformed or abolished however adept or well-organized they might be. A good society should therefore be based on principles of justice. Rawls (1999) assumes that, “a society is a more or less-sufficient association of persons who in their relations to one another recognize certain rules of conduct as binding and who for the most part act in accordance with them” (p.4). Despite societies being cooperative ventures for mutual advantage, they are usually characterized by conflict and a status of interests. The status of interests is present because societies make it a possibility for people to have better lives than they would have if every person was to live only by his own efforts. Sandel argues that the primacy of justice is problematic since justice is not just a single important value among other values that is to be measured and examined according to requirements of convenience. He states that, “it is rather the means by which values are weighed and assessed, the value of values is not subject itself to the same kind of trade-offs as the values it regulates” (Sandel, 1998, p.15). Justice as a standard reconciles conflicting values and accommodates competing conceptions of good when unresolved. Therefore with respect to such values and goods, justice deserves some priority. Rawls theory is against conceptions of utilitarianism as well as all other teleological theories. The deontological view of liberalism assumed by Rawls is misleading, this is because it emphasizes on extreme individualism and therefore fails to acknowledge positives that may be present in teleological theories. Individualism does not allow the role of a community in making up a person. It also does not allow the potential of a person’s concise individuality being more of a matter of perception than choice. Rawls (1999) states that, “a set of principles are required for choosing among the various social arrangements which determine the division of advantages and for underwriting an agreement on proper distributive shares” (p. 4). Rawls therefore proposes the principles of social justice that will provide a method of delegating rights and duties in the elementary institutions of society and determine suitable allocation of the benefits and burdens of social mutual effort. The principles of social justice allow selection of similarities and differences among people and are important in determining rights and duties and which division of advantages is suitable. Rawls distinguishes the concept of justice to mean an appropriate balance between competing claims from a perception of justice as a set of related principles for recognizing appropriate considerations which determine this equilibrium. Rawls assumes that those who take part in social mutual effort decide jointly the principles to be used in delegating fundamental rights and duties and defining the division of social benefits. People therefore decide beforehand how to manage claims against one another and the basic constitution of their society. Sandel dismisses Rawls presupposing of the existence of a community of people in his communitarian critique. He attacks Rawls’s and liberalism’s basic argument that a community is the result of an alliance by independent individuals and that the value of that community is assessed by the justice of the terms upon which the individuals associate. Sandel being a communitarian strives to support that it does not make any sense to think of a community as a product of the association of independent individuals. This is because the existence of people who can concede to form associations or comply to terms of agreement presumes the existence of a community. The description of a community being a product of a concession of pre-social individuals ends up being unintelligible, this is because the individuals in question may not have the capacity to calculate resonate and choose. Rawls theory fails in its effort to set up the principles of justice of a fair society by assuming it to be formed by equal independent persons. This is because such persons may be disorganized to zero for lacking ambition or measure for deliberation or choice. To reach the principles of justice, Rawls implores an impression which is contradictory with his theory; this is his assumption that there already exists a community in whose existence an individual is completely involved. Rawls believes that the principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance. Rawls (1999) states that, “no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength and the like” (p.11). He assumes that people do not know their perception of good or their unique psychological inclinations. When principles of justice are chosen behind this veil of ignorance no one gets to be advantaged or disadvantaged in the selection of principles by the consequence of natural chance or possibility of natural situations. When principles are chosen behind the veil of ignorance, people get to be in likewise positions and no one selects principles favoring his specific condition since the principles of justice are generated from fair judgment The principle of utility is therefore not compatible with the social mutual effort among people who are equal for common good. Rawls believes that utilitarianism is contradictory with the view of cooperation complete with the impression of a society that is well-ordered. It may be advantageous but not fair that some people should have less in order for others to succeed. Sandel does not support John Rawls idea about the veil of ignorance, he argues that individuals are not unencumbered selves who can go being John Rawls’s veil of ignorance and strip themselves off almost all their specific attributes and still somehow remain individuals with capacities to make choices. The same individuals said to make decisions behind the veil of ignorance have also been mentioned by Rawls to be individualistically oriented as they strive for fundamental rights and liberties, income and wealth, social opportunities and the social basis of respect. The individuals are also assumed to be abstracted form contexts making it difficult to meaningfully evaluate justice. Sandel therefore argues that Rawls’s theory has the problem of the understanding of the self. Sandel (1998) states that, Rawls theory is based on a “philosophical anthropology” (p.50). Rawls assumption that individuals in the original position are rational and strive for their own interests and not the interests of others does not go along with the nature of human beings as they live. Sandel says that in order for Rawls to justify the original position in reflective equilibrium he has to make specific individualistic anthropological assumptions to make his description of rational people valid. Since Rawls makes the assumption that his description of the original position is justified to the level at which principles considered match considered judgments, all weak assumptions relied on by people must go hand in hand with their understanding of the importance of moral subjects. Sandel (1998) therefore states that “ we must be prepared to live with the vision contained in the original position, mutual disinterest and all, prepared to live with it in the sense of accepting its description as an accurate reflection of human moral circumstance consistent with our understanding of ourselves” (p.48). Sandel insists that Rawls moral order is an unencumbered self that does not do the ethical experience of being self any justice. Sandel’s critique of Rawls theory concerning the self concentrates on what it means to have a qualitative self that allows self realization and specifically the relation between the self, its ends and perceptions of good. Sandel (1998) states that “Rawls self is a subject of possession that has ends, values and conceptions of the good and is not identical with these (p.55). The identity of the already individuated self is not connected with the world around it and mainly with other subjects. The good therefore becomes a genuine choice of a singly determined subject. The basis of equality by Rawls is taken from the assumption that human beings are equal and moral people who have an understanding of what is good for them and therefore have an ability and function of justice. Rawls theory of justice is represented as an alternative to utilitarian thought and other different versions of justice. He compares justice as fairness with well-known divisions of intuitionism, perfectionism and utilitarianism in order to highlight their differences. Rawls utilizes the strict classical doctrine of utilitarianism in his description. Rawls (1999) states that, “the principle for an individual is to advance as far as possible in his own welfare and his own system of desires, the principle of the society is also to advance as far as possible the welfare of the group and to realize to the greatest extent the comprehensive system of desire arrived at from the desires of its members” (p.21). The well-being of a society is therefore formed from the satisfaction of various desires of its individuals. This is because fundamentally every person act to achieve his own greatest good and forward his realistic ends as far as possible. A society acts on the same functions but for a group. Sandel attacks Rawls’s views of teleological theories. This is because according to Rawls, the principles of right are a result of assumed choices of equal and free individuals who welcome the thin theory of good but fail to support a specific full theory of the good. Sandel argues that the effort to define a position from which a topic with only a thin understanding of good selects right principles does not solve the problem. The use of such a principal only identifies existing wants and matches them with ways of satisfying them, this implicates dominating desires and perceptions of the good in the choice of principles. Since articles of consideration are unreasonably assigned desires similar to value, the principles selected are not as a result of serious analysis of the good of differing ways of life or value of various systems of desires but the product of the ‘impoverished account of the good’ ordinary to utilitarianism as well as justice as fairness (Sandel, 1998, p. 167). Sandel (1998) points out that “it becomes difficult to see why the highest of all social values should be the one that enables us to pursue the arbitrary conceptions as fully as circumstances permit” (p. 168). To reach a principle of utility Rawls argues that a society balances the satisfactions and dissatisfactions between individuals and optimizes the net balance of satisfaction. An extension of the principle of choice for one person therefore begets the principle of choice for a group of people. Rawls (1999) states that, “the utilitarian view of justice does not matter how the sum of satisfactions are distributed among individuals any more than it matters how one man distributes his satisfactions over time” (p.23). Utilitarianism for a society is arrived at when the principle of rational choice for one man is adopted. In a just society basic liberties are not considered and rights supported by justice are not subjected to political debate or division of social interests. This is because justice denies that the loss of the freedom of some is made right by a bigger good shared by other people. Justice as fairness tries to view common sense convictions in the priority of justice by exhibiting that there are underlying consequences of principles. Under the principle of utilitarianism notions of natural right are secondary. While utilitarianism extends the principle of choice for one man to the society, justice as fairness puts into consideration principles of social choice making principle of choice a fact of original agreement. Rawls identifies two principles of justice. The first principle guarantees every person equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal fundamental liberties compatible with the liberty of others while the second principle dictates that social and economic disparities should be disposed to everyone’s advantage and tied to positions and offices open to all (Rawls, 1999, p.53). Basic liberties include political liberty where every person has a right to vote and can hold a public office and freedom of speech and assembly where a person has freedom of conscience and thought and the right to possess personal property and be protected from injudicious arrest. The two principles of justice apply to institutions and therefore the basic rights and liberties referred to are those of public rules and organization. The order of natural liberty maintains that an elementary framework that satisfies the principle of efficiency has positions open for everyone capable and willing to contend for them and this ultimately leads to fair distribution. Assignment of rights and duties in this manner supplies a strategy which distributes income, wealth, responsibility and authority fairly. Sandel argues that if individuals are more concerned about their freedom and their organization as an entity that is more than the effective management of their specific desires and accessible means to satisfy them then Rawls theory of liberalism must be put aside as well as its conception of people’s nature. Individuals must view themselves as having the ability to conduct exhaustive thought. Individuals cannot be free subjects of control distinguished beforehand and given ahead of their limits, they must be subjects partly comprising their principal goals and connections and always remain open and vulnerable to development and complete change in light of correct self-understandings. Self-reflection means reflections by individuals on themselves not as independent isolated people but as members of a community. By this individuals can evaluate themselves and the nature of their good as well as the good of the entire community. Individuals should not stsnd back from their circumstances and judge their moral practices form an independent point of view, they should rather understand and discover themselves before evaluating the community which also comprises of them. Rawls (1999), states that “the principle of efficiency can be applied to the basic structure by reference to the expectations of representative men” (p.61). A basic structure in which it is impossible to change rules or the order of rights and duties to meet the desires of one representative man without ignoring the desires of another representative man has an effective organization of rights and duties. The principle of equal liberty or requirement of open positions must not be violated when changing the fundamental structure. However, according to Rawls administration of income and wealth and the way positions of authority and responsibility can coordinate social activities can be altered. Rawls believes that from a legal point of view, the aristocratic model is enforced in an open system and the more excellent position of those it esteems is seen as fair only when those below have less and for those above as well. He believes that liberal conception and natural aristocracy are not stable. Rawls gives an example of a flawed system of justice is demonstrated by criminal trials. The only time that a defendant should be announced guilty is only if he has really committed a crime in which he is accused. The purpose of the process of trial is to seek and establish the truth. However, it is clear that it is hopeless to draft legal standards in a way that they always advance to accurate results. “even when the law is carefully followed and proceedings fairly and properly conducted, it may reach the wrong outcome, consequently an innocent man may be found guilty and a guilty man may be set free” (Rawls, 1999,p.75). Such cases are translated as miscarriages of justice. The flawed system of justice has an autonomous test for the correct result but no attainable process to lead to the right result. Fair processes can only be attained when there are just fundamental structures comprising of a just political constitution and fair arrangement of social and economic institutions. Sandel’s critique of Rawls theory of justice is significant but uncertain. Although Rawls’s arguments are based on foundations that are not certain, the assumptions of Sandel are also questionable and yet Sandel is the only communitarian who seems to be against Rawls’s theory of justice. Communitarians oppose philosophical thinking that pose wrong questions like the case of Rawls who does not strive to solve a problem that is universal but rather individual problems. It is good to understand that problems are in the thinking of philosophers who do not focus on universal principles but uncover meanings inherent in people’s discussions and routines. Sandel argues that Rawls does not provide an effective answer to his question on the theory of justice and so his moral conclusions which are only an imagination should not be considered but Sandel himself has also not offered and answer to his questions. He does not suggest any rival theory of justice but rather suggests that Rawls theory of justice be replaced with the classical conception of friendship. In order to recover from criticism of his theory, John Rawls constantly develops recasts, revises and expands his theory of justice. His works despite being criticized cannot be discarded since there are no alternative theories provided by Sandel. Rawls will be commemorated for his impartial model of justice as fairness. He cultivates his theory through analytical political philosophy in a style that is separate from history and economics. Some characteristics of his thought are worth considering as they make him a hero among modern political philosophers but an unlikely chief of freedom. However, Rawls theory remains an imposing competition for theories suggested by classical liberals and libertarians He shapes the main discourse of political philosophy. Real liberals may assume his great legacy to understand him better and reinforce the standpoints they strive to defend. Despite John Rawls theory being open to criticism it is of great value. Rawls justice as fairness focuses on those who do worse in society and strives to establish principles that permit each individual to be a member of society rather than simply belonging to it. References Sandel M.J. (1998). Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rawls, J. (1999). A Theory of Justice. New York: Oxford University Press. Read More