Argument of Rawls's Political Liberalism - Article Example

Aiming to solve the problems related to justice through the promotion of a social contract, John Rawls wrote the book on the Theory of Justice back in 1971.1 In order for a country to have a 'just' and 'morally' acceptable society, the Rawls' theory of justice highlighted two fundamental principles as: (1) 'the right of each person is to have the most extensive basic liberty compatible with the liberty of others' and (2) 'the social and economic situation in each country should put everyone on an advantage side and should be free to all.'2 Since 1971, John Rawls have been constantly modifying his own concept of justice as fairness. At first, he mentioned that a democratic society based on pluralism of reasonableness and moral views could promote justice for everyone.3 Along the way, Rawls noticed that his claim of a 'justice as fariness' is not compatible with the wide-range of principle that is present in ulitarianism philosophy and the theory of the Kantian moral. Basically, the thought of having a society that follows justice as fairness is not applicable within a democratic society. Given that justice as fairness is not suitable for a democratic society, John Rawls wrote another book on Political Liberalism as a new theory of justice. For the purpose of this study, the researcher will gather a literature review related to John Rawls' changing perception on the Theory of Justice to the need to promote political liberalism. As part of the main discussion, the researcher will conduct an argument as to whether or not the Rawls's promotion of a political liberalism could result to a departure from the theory of justice. Literature Review Short Introduction on the Theory of Justice John Rawls believes that the basic structure of a society is the politics.4 In line with the theory of justice, Rawls (1971) applied the both the utilitarian and Kantian philosophy as a way of evaluating the moral of political and social institutions.5 His initial belief that a fair institution could positively change the lives of the people made him conclude that changing the general structure of the society by enabling the country's significant social institutions and the way they practice their rights and duties through social cooperation could result to a better place to live.6 For this reason, he claims that promoting liberties, equalities as well as a fair and equal distribution of advantages can be solved by changing the constitutional and legal provisions within the country. In the process of discussing the promotion of a fair choice situation for all people, Rawls emphasizes in his original position the importance of unveiling the ignorance of the people to accept the way he presented the principle of justice. In line with this statement, he believes a person's place in the society; the class position or social status; or the distribution of natural assets and liabilities, intelligence and strength are usually remain unclear and unknown to most people within the society. Therefore, there is a need to apply 'the principles of justice' behind 'the veil of ignorance.' Considering the ignorance of people about himself, it is then possible to develop a scheme of justice that is applicable within a society in a way that it will be fair for everybody. In line with this matter, Rawls called his original position of developing a strategy that could maximize the position of the least advantaged people as a 'maximin strategy.'7 Upon introducing the Theory of Justice, his first position justified the theory by stating that a political setting could create justice as fairness within democratic institutions.8 However, his personal opinion changes when he realized that his first position of justice as fairness is not applicable in a democratic society. He noticed that his first theory of justice failed to distinguish two (2) kinds of moral conceptions known as: (1) the comprehensive moral theory which can be used in solving problems related to justice; and (2) a political conception of justice.9 The Two Principles of Justice According to Rawls (1971), the first principle of justice must consider that "all people must have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties that are compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others."10 When Rawls discuss about the basic liberties of citizens, he is actually referring to the political liberty of the people. For example: the equal right between men and women to vote or to run for office, freedom of thought and speech, etc. He takes his position for equality as 'egalitarian' such that equality should be achieved without the need to worsen the position of those people who are better-off. The second principle of justice is about the social and economic inequalities within the society.11 In line with this matter, Rawls suggest that offices and positions need to be open for everyone under a fair equality of opportunity and should before the greatest benefit of the less advantaged people within the society. In any circumstances, Rawls stated that the first principle of justice should never be violated not even for the sake of satisfying the second principle of justice. The Causes of Problems behind Political Stability and the Political Conception of Justice Rawls considers the framework of political conception of justice as the basic foundation on how we could solve the issues behind the political stability. The fact that a political culture greatly affects the political conception of justice makes this topic a non-debatable issue. For example: It is given that people in general have different ideas and thoughts that are usually conflicting of each other; however, we should consider a reasonable and more comprehensive outlook when discussing different subjects related to justice. According to Rawls (1993), the same concept should be applied when discussing the political conception of justice. Rawls (1993: 15) states that in order to achieve a political stability; there is a need to improve the 'overlapping consensus' which he describes as "the overlapping point-of-views coming from different religious group, philosophical arguments, and moral doctrines which is most likely to exist from one generation to another."12 Given that each individual has their own thoughts and perceptions, the overlapping issues on moral views should have a common ground when dealing with the principles of justice in order to avoid further complications such as the people's conflicting comprehensive views on political conception.13 He admitted that one major objection on the theory of justice is the fact that applies a consensus that is solely based on the interest of oneself rather than on the principle of justice.14 Rawls also explained that in order to have a sound political system within a democratic environment, it is critical to consider the three different essential ideas behind a democratic society. These are: (1) the central organizing idea; (2) the idea of citizens as free and equal persons; and (3) 'the idea of a well-ordered society as a society effectively regulated by a political conception of justice.15 Failure to do so will only create more political problems. Importance of a Comprehensive Moral Theory and Political Conception of Justice in Solving Problems Related to Political Conception of Justice Rawls stated that the application of a 'comprehensive moral theory' and 'political conception of justice' is essential when solving problems related to justice. He explained that for a moral theory to be comprehensive, "it should include conceptions of what is of value in human life especially on personal character and virtue as well as the non-political conduct in the society'"16 On the other hand, it is also important to take note the two essential features of a political conception such that: (1) "a person is not committed to doctrines or any other comprehensive theories"; and (2) "a political conception has its own basis for fundamental ideas.17 For a justice as fairness to work, the theory of justice should be based on the moral grounds instead of self-interest.18 Discussion: The Need to Change from the Theory of Justice to Political Liberalism There are several reasons behind the need to change the theory of justice to political liberalism. The problem with Rawls's theory of justice is the fact that he failed to recognize and incorporate the importance of a comprehensive moral theory as well as the political conception when discussing the justice as fairness. The failure of the first theory of justice to distinguish two (2) kinds of moral conceptions known as: (1) the comprehensive moral theory which can be used in solving problems related to justice; and (2) a political conception of justice19 made Rawls decide to write about a new theory on political libralism. Since Rawls has changed his position from the theory of justice to political liberalism, the process of justifying justice as fairness should also be changed. Rawls discussed the new process of justifying fairness under the political liberalism as having a two-stage process instead of one.20 Therefore, the new process of justifying justice as fairness is more effective than the previous process discused in the theory of justice. Aiming to give us a better understanding of the concept behind the overlapping consensus, Rawls made a comparison between the overlapping consensus and the modus vivendi. He said that the consensus made on the theory of justice is based on pure self-interest without considering the principles of justice whereas the political liberalism is composed of a social consensus that is based on modus vivendi. In line with this matter, he explained that a modus vivendi occurs only when people have the self-interests to follow the conditions stated on a treaty or a contract.21 In line with the statement on overlapping consensus, Martin (1994) states that for a consensus to work positively on justice related problems, the overlapping consensus should not only be based on politica conception but also on moral and religious grounds.22 Basically, the political libralism study and understand the political society in a more reasonble way by considering the different doctrines related to religion, philosophy, and moral issues23 that were not considered in the Theory of Justice. Stated in the book of Political Liberalism, Rawls made two significant changes in his views on the two principles of justice.24 First, each individual has an equal claim to an equal basic human rights and liberties. Second, the inequalities on social and economic condition within a society must satisfy two important conditions. It means that people behind the political liberalism should be attached to positions and offices that are open to everyone regardless of their socio-economic standing within the society; such that all people should receive an equal opportunity at all times. The social and economic inequalities should also be handled in a way that the less advantaged people within the social group should receive the greatest benefit.25 Lastly, the most influential reason behind the need to change from the theory of justice to the political liberalism is because Rawls stated on his original theory of justice that "each person should have equal right to any basic liberties that are compatible with a similar system of liberty for all."26 Written on his new book - Political Liberalism, Rawls made some changes with regards to the first principle. Instead of using the phrase 'each person has an equal right', he changed it to 'each person has an equal claim.'27 Another phrase that he changed is the "system of basic liberties" to "a fully adequate scheme of equal basic rights and liberties."28 Conclusion John Rawls has made several changes in his personal opinion with regards to the theory of justice. Overtime, he managed to develop a better way of solving problems within a democratic society in relation to the problem on equality and liberalism. Personally, I agree with Rawls' decision to consider a more comprehensive moral theory and a political conception of justice when solving problems related to political conception of justice. The moral, political and the study of the justice within the society are very much interrelated with one another. Therefore, failure to include one of these aspects in the study could result to a bias judgement or the development of an ineffective theory or concept. Despite some of the changes we have discussed between the Theory of Justice and Political Liberalism, it is still not clear as to whether or not the utilitarians could conclude that Rawls's second principle is better than the first one.29 With regards to these changes, I believe that Rawl's Political Libralism is not directly a departure from the Theory of Justice but a modification in order to make the Theory of Justice more effective and applicable to a democratic society. *** End *** References: Cavalier, Robert, Carnegie Mellon and Charles Ess. "John Rawls: A Theory of Justice (1971)." n.d. Drury College. 7 January 2008 . Martin, Rex. "Rawls's New Theory of Justice." Chicago-Kent Law Review (1994): Vol. 69:737 - 761. Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1971. -. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press, 1993. -. Political Liberalism. Rev. Ed. Columbia University Press, 1996. -. The Law of Peoples. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. pp. 59 - 88., 1999. Read More