Rawls' Framework

  

John Rawls was a political philosopher who is widely considered the father of modern political philosophy. In 1971, Rawls published his first work, A Theory of Justice, in which he set forth his theory of a liberal society, setting the groundwork for his work, Justice as Fairness. Most post-modernists subscribe to Rawls’ theories as innovative for their time. He sought to rehabilitate, or maybe rather even reinvent, the traditional social contract expressed by Locke, Rousseau, and Kant. He believed political philosophy had four roles: 1. A political philosophy must be practical; 2. Help citizens orient themselves; 3. Push the limits of political possibility; and 4. To seek reconciliation. Rawls did not subscribe to a universal moral principle, rather he believed that regulation depended on the nature of that which was to be regulated. Interestingly, his “theory of justice” is based on ideal theory, which completely ignores non-ideal conditions in developing political theories and principles, and which critics have argued is fatal to his theory.

Rawls’ Theory of Justice sets forth his concept of equality, which he refers to as the ‘difference principal.’ He asks his readers to imagine they are given the opportunity to engineer society before they are born into it. He calls this the ‘veil of ignorance.’ Rawls argues that if we do not know what our economic status, gender, intelligence, talents, height, health etc… will be then we would pick the most equal system. An example of this is allowing one child to slice the candy bar in half with the understanding the other child gets to pick what slice they want. It is worth noting this exercise imagines society is full of goods and resources unowned by anyone and free from any preexisting claims other than by the collective. It also presupposes that behind the ‘veil of ignorance’ everyone is egalitarian. Put differently, Rawls implies his system is desirable because of the potential to end up at the bottom of the distribution of resources and his system mitigates the distribution.

Though the focus of his work is seemingly totally inclusive, Rawls, however, does not argue for total equality because his theory eliminates incentives that benefit the least well off. Enter Rawls’ ‘difference principle.’ To illustrate the heart of this principle, let’s examine the following example. A medical doctor is “morally” entitled to receive a larger paycheck than others because it incentivizes people to do the work necessary to obtain the skills needed to help those who are the least well off. Imagine, in contrast a professional boxer whose skill set does not necessarily benefit the poor. The boxer is not entitled to a larger paycheck simply because he was born with the talent to be a proficient boxer. Under Rawls’ framework, it is also irrelevant that society finds entertainment value in the boxer’s work and talents. This is true even for an individual who works harder than average; he or she is not entitled to extra because they are considered predisposed to hard work.

Under the principles of determinism, Rawls argues against what he calls ‘moral desert.’ Simply, this means nobody deserves to benefit because of their luck, talent, family, or even personal disposition. In effect, this means a thief, a robber, and a struggling single mother are moral equals, entitled to the same distribution of resources. ‘Moral desert’ means the thief and robber are not deserving of a lower station in society than the single mother. According to Rawls’ argument, from behind the ‘veil of ignorance,’ a disposition toward crime is, after all, something you are born into against your will.

Though certainly not the only, arguments presupposing determinism always fail to account for the author, or in Rawls’ case, the social engineer. Rawls simply side steps this contradiction by introducing the fiction of the ‘veil of ignorance.’ He argues from the perspective of the voice behind the veil thereby arbitrarily granting himself free will to set up a framework that must exist because… there is no free will. The theory arbitrarily assumes the hypothetical person behind the veil has free will, while all of us alive now have predetermined dispositions.

Western thought can also be divided by two camps with regards to disposition toward the family. Those social planners who are hostile to families in the tradition of Plato through Rousseau, and those who view family as the building blocks of society in the tradition of Aristotle through Burke. Rawls is in the camp of anti-family social planners. In a Theory of Justice, he hedges against this harsh position by saying although families are not good for providing equality of opportunity, his ‘theory of justice’ as a whole means dealing with the family is not urgent.  

When applied to entire nations, Rawls’ ‘difference principle’ comes to some undesirable outcomes. His arguments against rewarding natural talents would seem to apply to countries rich with natural resources. The implication then is wealthy countries should divest their resources to benefit those poor countries. When faced with this question, Rawls says the ‘difference principle’ should not apply to entire nations. In doing so he pointed to Japan. It is a country that is low in natural resources yet has found prosperity. Perhaps if he applied the same logic to the individual his ‘theory of justice’ would make sense.

References:

https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2020/dec/20/john-rawls-can-liberalisms-great-philosopher-come-to-the-wests-rescue-again

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rawls/#LifWor

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2002/nov/27/guardianobituaries.obituaries

https://newrepublic.com/article/155294/john-rawls-missed-create-just-society

12 Posts, comments, and responses. Midterm presentation and post. Final post.

Christopher Hall Section 7