A Theory of Justice by John Rawls - Essay Example

John Rawls was arguably one of the most important political philosophers of the twentieth century. Aligning his philosophy with political, religious, and other modern global worldviews, he defends the principles of Justice as Fairness, a term with numerous political connotations and applications. Hence it has its detractors and has caused his theories to be widely disputed.
Using the basic structure of society as subject matter in his work, A Theory of Justice, Rawls reinforces the idea of utilitarianism as a natural adversary that leads to cruelty and self-interest that is anathema to justice. He disputes the proponents of classical utilitarianism Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill and their philosophy of “the greatest good of the greatest number”—in Rawls view a philosophy leading to the tyranny of the majority.
In my view, Rawls is being too harsh in his criticism of utilitarianism and failing to see its positives that have essentially worked fairly well for America. Despite our utilitarian principles, we continue to seek the welfare of the disadvantaged in ways including charities, non-profits organizations and even employ Rawls Difference Principle (which we will discuss later) through government intervention with policies such as Affirmative Action. Other western democracies do the same, employing many socialist precepts to, let’s say, even things out. In terms of lesser advantaged as opposed to rich, powerful, and more advantaged, workers belonging to labor unions in Europe can shut countries down at the drop of a hat.
Agreeing with me would be James Wood Bailey in Utilitarianism, Institutions, and Justice who insists that the views of Rawls and others contain overstated misconceptions. “Given the amount of criticism that utilitarianism as a theory of justice has taken over the last few decades.... utilitarianism has a number of highly desirable theoretical attributes.” (28)
In a Theory of Justice Rawls designs, the social-contract thought experiment called the Original Position (OP), arguing that parties in the OP will prefer Justice as Fairness to utilitarianism and various other opportunistic views.
He has little basis for such contention since there are no empirical studies to prove this. Also, it is generally acknowledged that when “disadvantaged” people become advantaged, they take on the behavior of the advantaged people they formerly criticized. Their sense of “justice” appears to wan with the acquisition of material possessions and power.
The idea of the (OP) is perhaps the most lasting contribution of Rawls to our theorizing about social justice. The OP defined by Rawls in Theory of Justice appears interpreted in The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy as a direct extract:
Recognizing that social institutions distort our views (by sometimes generating envy, resentment, alienation, or false consciousness) and bias matters in their own favor (by indoctrinating and habituating those who grow up under them). (Rawls, 230-232).
While there is a certain validity in this statement, that our perceptions are colored by the social institutions we create, with the wealth of information available, and educational opportunities, it is clearly up to the individual to seek truth and act upon it. Unless we live in a primitive society where a sense of justice is ingrained in tradition, we are bound by, but not subject to the views that institutions impart.
And so (OP) is merely a hypothetical designed to reflect what principles of justice would occur in society based on free and fair cooperation among citizens, and with respect for liberty and an accepted code of reciprocity. How he knows this, one is not sure. Yet he loosely justifies these principles and more in relation to international justice in his Law of Peoples.
Professor David A. Reidy in his essay, Rawls on “International Justice: A Defense,” defends Rawls from critics who say arguments in Law of Peoples lack detail to support substantive conclusions; erroneously frame the problem of global justice as a problem of the relations between “peoples”; dispute Rawls addressing the question of global justice as a matter of ideal theory. (Reidy, 292-293)
I have already addressed my opinion about his lack of substantive conclusions. That he erroneously frames the problem...can be argued ad nauseum. It seems inconsistent, however, that he would cite social institutions as the main problem earlier, then switch blame for human misinterpretation of justice on relations between people.
The principles criticized--The Liberty Principle and The Difference Principle-- are detailed in Samuel Freeman’s book, Rawls, as follows: each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others (53); social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that (Rawls, 1971, p 303) (a) they are to be of the greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society (the difference principle; (b) offices and positions must be open to everyone under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. Read More