PDF Summary:A Theory of Justice, by John Rawls

What’s a definition of justice everyone can agree on? How should wealth and power be distributed in society? What obligations do citizens have to each other? These are some of the questions 20th-century American philosopher John Rawls confronts in his 1971 work, A Theory of Justice. Rawls tries to determine how government can distribute rights, opportunities, wealth, and power using only reason and logic. The result is a theory of “justice as fairness,” which merges liberalism’s emphasis on equal rights and individualism with economic equality and safety nets for the most vulnerable members of society.

We’ll explore how Rawls both defends and reimagines classic liberalism in a modern context, as well as how he defines an ideal government. In addition, we’ll examine critiques of his work, the intellectual basis for his arguments, and real-world examples of the politics he discusses.

(continued)...

In this section, Rawls justifies his own version of capitalism—he claims that inequalities of wealth (private ownership) allow a state to function more efficiently than in a state of complete equality. However, Rawls argues for a far more limited conception of capitalism, one regulated by the state to try and ensure fairness and general well-being. This is a middle ground between right-wing classic liberalism and its critics on the left: Classic liberals like Smith believe government interference in the market disrupts the generation of wealth in society and therefore disrupts general well-being, while leftist critics of liberalism like Karl Marx argue that capitalism is built on exploitation and therefore cannot work for the common good in the way Rawls wants it to.

The Conclusion of The Original Position

The result of the negotiations above is the theory of justice Rawls calls “justice as fairness.”

Justice as fairness has two principles:

1. All citizens have equal fundamental rights that nobody can take away.
2. Citizens can have unequal amounts of wealth and power only under the following circumstances:
   1. These unequal distributions benefit everyone in society and most benefit those with the least amount of wealth and power.
   2. Everyone has an equal opportunity to obtain wealth and power.

A Theory of Secular Christianity?

Many scholars have noted the connections between Rawls’s philosophical theories and his Christian religious beliefs, and they suggest that justice as fairness is his attempt to justify the Christian conception of equality and charity with secular logic instead of faith. Rawls was a religious man and even considered becoming a priest in his youth. However, his faith was shaken during his service in World War II, where he saw much of the horror and destruction that people are capable of. Some scholars see justice as fairness as Rawls’s attempt to argue that whether or not human equality and kindness come from God, everyone should work toward them on this earth.

Most notably, Rawls’s principles of justice as fairness seem like a secular interpretation of Matthew 25:40, when God says, “Inasmuch as you have done it to one of the least of these my brothers, you have done it to me.” In other words, anything you do to those with the least, you also do to God himself—which naturally would lead one to conclude that a moral and just society must take care of everyone, especially those with the least. Rawls’s two principles try to guarantee that happens, while the original position allows him to justify his moral claim by appealing to reason instead of scripture.

Part 3: Justice as Fairness in Society

After discussing how he arrives at the two principles of justice as fairness, Rawls then goes into more detail on what these principles mean for society—discussing how each principle might influence the rules and distribution systems of society. Specifically, Rawls outlines the following:

1. Principle #1: Everyone in society should have basic equal rights, liberties, and duties.
2. Principle #2: Unequal distributions of wealth and power are just under certain circumstances.

Principle #1: Everyone Should Have Equal Rights, Liberties, and Duties

Rawls’s first principle states that everyone in society should have basic equal rights, liberties, and duties. As previously discussed, this principle derives naturally from the original position, since everyone involved would want to guarantee they weren’t oppressed. To further explore this first principle, we’ll examine Rawls’s definition of rights and liberties as well as how he says social institutions can resolve conflicts between different rights and liberties.

Defining Rights and Liberties

Rawls frames rights, liberties, and duties in terms of limits on actions: what people are (or are not) allowed or able to do. He doesn’t define every single right, liberty, and duty that he believes is just, suggesting instead that this is the job of social institutions. However, he does note several important examples: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to equal political participation, and property rights. In addition, Rawls’s conception of political equality extends beyond detached formal rules to include the equal right to exercise political power (by holding office or voting in an election, for example). This right ensures that people who already have some degree of wealth and power don’t get a greater say in political decisions.

For example, a formal rule ensures that each citizen has one vote in an election. However, this doesn’t guarantee equality by itself—Prudence, who is wealthy, can spend far more money than the average citizen to organize people around her political platform and campaign for votes. In this situation, Prudence would, in practice, be able to exercise more political power than most. Therefore, Rawls believes the state must place limits on the role of wealth in political organization or provide resources to those with less so they too can organize around issues.

Liberalism and Money in Politics

The role of money in politics in liberal societies (like the one Rawls is proposing) is a hotly contested issue, with many different ideas of how or to what degree the government should control the political influence of private wealth. Here are a number of political perspectives on this issue ranging from right to left:

Right-wing perspective: Conservatives and libertarians believe that using private wealth to lobby politicians or organize political campaigns is perfectly acceptable and a form of free speech. Therefore, they argue the government shouldn’t restrict the role of private wealth in politics and should work to protect the right of private individuals and corporations to spend as much money on politics as they so choose.

Centrist perspective: Center-right and center-left politicians tend to argue that while private money has a place in politics, regulations should be in place to combat corruption (blatantly trading money for political favors) and prevent private individuals from gaining too much influence over government. They work toward moderate restrictions and regulations on the use of private money in politics—things like transparency in campaign financing, maximum limits on individual donations, and public funding for less well-off political campaigns. Rawls seems to fall into this category.

Left-wing perspective: Progressives and democratic socialists argue that money translates to political power. Therefore, for everyone to have an equal say in politics, the government has to play a strong role in limiting or eliminating wealth inequality. Many argue for the same regulations as centrists, but they believe these regulations have to exist alongside broader wealth-equality proposals like higher taxes on the rich or stronger labor power.

Rights, Liberties, and Conflicts

Sometimes, different rights and liberties will contradict each other, acknowledges Rawls—for example, if someone randomly threatens to kill a stranger on the street, the threatener’s right to free speech conflicts with the stranger’s right to personal safety. To address this conflict, Rawls says representatives in the original position would attach two additional rules to the first principle:

1) A society can restrict certain liberties but only if doing so creates greater liberty for everyone. For example, privacy laws restrict an individual’s liberty to spy on their neighbors, but these laws create a broader right to privacy for everyone in society. In addition, Rawls suggests that this rule makes it unjust for a majority in society to oppress a minority. While that may limit the right of the majority to freely exercise political power, it preserves many more crucial rights and freedoms of the minority.

Rawls acknowledges that in a real society, social and historical circumstances interfere with perfect equality—for example, a historically oppressed group might still struggle to obtain true equality even in a society that believes everyone should have equal rights. Or, a violent political faction might have fewer rights to express their views for the sake of public order. In these cases, Rawls suggests it’s the duty of society to continuously work toward the greatest overall liberty—addressing the largest injustices first and making decisions based on what makes everyone as equal and free as possible.

(Shortform note: To understand what Rawls means by “greater” or “lesser” liberty, we can look to the definition of liberty he uses—specifically, the “triadic relation” definition of liberty created by 20th-century American legal philosopher Gerald C. McCallum, Jr. Under this definition, liberty consists of three components: a subject, limiting conditions, and certain actions or goals. Any statement of liberty, or lack thereof, then involves these three components. For example: John (a subject) is prevented by the law (a limiting condition) from robbing his neighbor (an action). This means that we can understand “greater” liberty as the ability to do a greater number of important things rather than as an abstract state of being.)

2) Some people can have less liberty than others if they consent to it. There are circumstances where people need others to act on their behalf. In this case, it’s just for an individual to entrust some of their liberty in a guardian—so long as the guardian rationally considers what the individual would want if they could act for themselves. For example, a coma patient needs (and presumably wants) someone to act on their behalf. Therefore, it's just for someone they trust, like a doctor or family member, to temporarily act on their behalf, making decisions based on what they think the coma patient would want.

(Shortform note: Rawls suggests people use reason to act on behalf of others. However, such situations and disagreements that might emerge often depend far more on emotion than they do on reason. For example, in 1998, Terri Schiavo became the center of a complicated legal battle. Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state with little chance of recovery after suffering cardiac arrest, and while her husband believed she should be taken off of her feeding tube, ending her life, her parents wanted to keep her on life support. Their conflict led to a seven-year legal battle, showing that acting on behalf of someone else can be difficult to resolve or even debate through reason alone.)

Principle #2: Some Inequality Is Just Under Certain Circumstances

Rawls’s second principle argues that inequalities of wealth and political power are just under certain circumstances. We discussed two of these circumstances in Part 2:

1. Unequal distributions of wealth and power must benefit everyone and must provide the greatest possible benefit to those with the least wealth and power.
2. These inequalities come from jobs in society that everyone has equal opportunities to fill. They include public positions, like government bureaucrats, as well as private positions—everything from CEOs to dentists.

Rawls adds three rules to clarify his second principle:

Rule #1: Rights Have Priority Over Inequality

According to rule #1, unequal distributions of power and wealth aren’t just if they infringe upon people’s basic rights and freedoms. Rawls says that if there’s ever a time when universal rights and unequal wealth or power conflict, then society must prioritize rights. For example, an excellent leader has provided society with incredible benefits—so much so that many people want to make their leader an absolute dictator for life. While this increased inequality of power might provide society with the benefits of a skilled leader, it’s unjust because it would deprive everyone of their basic right to exercise political power.

(Shortform note: One of the common questions posed when balancing unequal power with basic rights is how to manage a nation’s security in times of crisis. Many classic liberal philosophers (like Rousseau, for example) believed protecting a nation took priority above all else—even basic rights. Rousseau suggests a system similar to that of the Roman Republic, where a political leader can temporarily become a dictator with absolute power during times of war or intense instability. Critics of such a measure argue that its potential for abuse makes it far too dangerous.)

Rule #2: Account for Talent and Class

Rule #2 states that to ensure equal opportunity, the state must account for differences in natural talent and social class. Rawls argues that society shouldn’t limit opportunities necessary for obtaining wealth and power (education, jobs, and so on) to those who already have wealth or to those who are naturally talented. The class a person is born into and their natural talents are determined by chance, and therefore shouldn’t decide moral questions of who gets what in society.

To account for differences in class, Rawls says the state must make education accessible to everyone—both in a technical or academic sense (medical school, for example) as well as in a cultural and experiential sense (an opportunity to network with practicing doctors, for example). To account for differences in natural talent, Rawls believes the difference principle must also apply to skilled versus unskilled labor—skilled laborers shouldn’t earn more than unskilled laborers, unless that would provide a greater benefit to those in the latter category.

(Shortform note: Instead of trying to mitigate the effects of natural talents, many philosophers believe that society should organize itself and create social classes around these differences. Ancient Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle, for example, believed the state should assign people to roles and classes in society based on whatever they’re particularly skilled at. In such a society, they said political leadership should go to the most morally virtuous citizens. Both Plato and Aristotle strongly believed moral virtue comes from extensive philosophical education—and therefore believed natural talent (in philosophy) can bestow the moral right to hold power.)

Rule #3: Some Unequal Opportunity Is Just

Rule #3 states that unequal opportunity is just as long as it benefits those with fewer opportunities more than it burdens everyone else. Society can provide additional opportunities to the less fortunate who otherwise struggle to gain wealth and power. This is just so long as the benefit to the unfortunate outweighs the burden on the fortunate. For example, New Zealand’s parliament reserves specific seats for Māori citizens—a historically oppressed group indigenous to the island. Rawls might argue that this unequal opportunity is just since it benefits an underrepresented group (the Māori) more than it harms an overrepresented group (non-indigenous New Zealanders).

(Shortform note: The practice of administering additional benefits based on race (through affirmative action in the US, for example) often provokes debate about the role of a liberal government. Some argue for an extension of Rawls’s veil of ignorance, claiming government should create laws without considering specific components of citizens’ backgrounds (like race). They claim that race-conscious legislation like affirmative action goes against the liberal ideal of all laws applying to everyone equally. Proponents (like Rawls, seemingly) argue that it’s just for the government to help the less fortunate—and if historical circumstances mean certain races have fewer primary goods, then the government can acknowledge race to address that.)

Part 4: Living Under Justice as Fairness

After outlining the full principles of justice as fairness, Rawls discusses citizenship under justice as fairness. Rawls argues a just society should allow people to live however they like. It shouldn’t define an “ideal” way to live or moral code—justice as fairness purposely avoids doing so by relying entirely on the rational and logical debate in the original position. Rawls’s view on life in society is clear from his definition of primary benefits that we discussed in Part 1: benefits that allow someone to live whatever kind of life they want.

(Shortform note: One common criticism of the liberal ideal of everyone living however they want is that within a society, strongly opposing moral viewpoints often conflict in a way that can’t be solved through rational debate alone. For example, contemporary debates over abortion rights involve strongly held differences in moral beliefs. Reason alone isn’t enough to solve the issue—if both sides of the debate sit down and have a rational discussion, they likely won’t come out agreeing with each other, because their arguments are based not on logic but on strong convictions about what’s right or wrong. Since the two perspectives are so different, one side will inevitably end up unable to live in the way that they like depending on how the state acts.)

However, there are some exceptions to Rawls’s rule of everyone living however they like—areas where he believes society should enforce certain duties and values. Let’s explore each of these exceptions in more detail:

Exception #1: Duties to Society

While Rawls argues that societies must have duties that fit their specific circumstances, he does emphasize three in particular. Rawls believes that these duties promote the common good while still allowing citizens to pursue their own self-interest. Let’s explore each and examine how they accomplish this goal:

Duty #1: Follow Existing Just Rules

The first duty is to follow existing rules and laws in society that are just. This duty ensures citizens will follow the main principles of justice as fairness, which Rawls believes work toward the common good.

In addition, this duty helps preserve social stability—something else that Rawls believes is a common good. It does so by ensuring citizens use existing political methods (voting, for example) to accomplish their goals instead of more radical, destabilizing methods that go against existing laws (violent protests or civil disobedience, for example). Rawls argues that citizens should only use these more drastic measures to address major injustices or violations of the principles of justice as fairness.

(Shortform note: By warning against radical methods of social change, Rawls argues for a version of “enlightened conservatism,” or the philosophy of pursuing social reform through gradual, stable changes. Enlightened conservatives like 18th-century Anglo-Irish politician Edmund Burke believed that the best way to improve society was through empirically proven gradual reforms—in other words, making many small political changes over time based on what people know will work in practice while maintaining the stability of society overall. Burke goes farther than Rawls, arguing against all radical social reforms regardless of the injustices they try to address, saying they are too destabilizing and unproven to be worth the risk.)

Duty #2: Create Just Rules

The second duty citizens have is to help create just rules if they don’t exist—as long as doing so isn’t at a great personal cost. This duty ensures citizens will continue working to make their society more just, another common good. In addition, it allows citizens to pursue the common good in a way that doesn’t interfere with their own personal interests, since they won’t have to give up too much in their pursuit of a just society.

For example, while citizens might have a duty to advocate or vote for a just public housing policy, Rawls doesn’t believe they’re obligated to allow homeless people to move in with them.

(Shortform note: While Rawls claims citizens aren’t obligated to make great sacrifices to address injustice, some philosophers go as far as to say people shouldn’t. This is a classic idea in liberal philosophy, one that today is sometimes known as “effective altruism”: the theory that people can do greater overall good for society by working toward their own personal (usually economic) well-being. Versions of this theory exist in the works of classic liberals like Adam Smith as well as contemporary philosophers like Peter Singer. The basic idea behind it is that by pursuing your own well-being, you have more wealth available that you can use charitably or contribute to society, thereby creating a larger positive impact on the world.)

Duty #3: Mutually Respect Fellow Citizens

Rawls’s third duty requires citizens to be polite and respect one another. This means making a genuine attempt to understand others as well as having a certain degree of honesty, integrity, and generosity. This duty provides everyone a common good—living in a society full of considerate and helpful people—without harming the personal goals and interests of citizens much.

(Shortform note: Some social theorists argue not only that individuals should mutually respect each other, but that the government should legislate mutual respect in some way—often through penalties on minor offenses and an emphasis on public order. For example, Singapore has a number of strict laws enforcing a kind of mutual respect through public order. These include significant fines and punishments for vandalism, chewing gum, littering, and even failing to flush public toilets. Lee Kuan Yew, the first prime minister of an independent Singapore, viewed these measures as part of a larger campaign to make the country orderly and clean, while critics view these measures as part of the country’s broad police and state overreach.)

Exception #2: Preferable Life

While Rawls doesn’t want to define an ideal way for someone to live their life, he does provide a broad sense of what kind of life might be preferable. Specifically, he argues in favor of a “rational life”: overall goals and values in life consistent with what someone would rationally choose. Unlike a specific idea of the best way to live, Rawls believes that the value of a rational life is self-evident instead of appealing to a broader sense of morality—after all, rational life is in service of what you yourself would choose in a moment of rational deliberation.

(Shortform note: Rawls’s idea of a preferable life is similar to Kant’s theory of moral development in his Critique of Practical Reason. Like Rawls, Kant also believes morality is developed and reinforced through rational choice—specifically, choosing to consistently follow universal moral rules. In his later work Political Liberalism, though, Rawls elaborates on the role of reason in morality according to his theory. He says that while citizens should be free to develop their own private moral codes according to whatever they wish—including their own personal backgrounds and circumstances—they should approach public moral issues from the perspective of rational and “universal” (or at least society-wide and generally agreed upon) moral rules.)

Exception #3: Shared Conceptions of Value

While Rawls believes in avoiding judgments on how people live their lives, he does acknowledge that some society-wide conception of excellence is important—shared ideas of what is and isn’t valuable help people cooperate and communicate. For example, if you want someone to build you a barn, then you’d want to have a shared idea of what makes an excellent barn. Rawls introduces a relatively bare-bones definition of excellence that he believes works within justice as fairness: A thing (for example, an object, idea, or activity) is excellent if a rational person determines that it’s better than others of its type for living a fulfilling life. Let’s break down this definition into three parts, using an example:

1. Randolph is trying to live a fulfilling life guided by reason. He wants to buy a new bike. He notices the Speedy Bike 100.
2. Randolph uses rational deduction (examining the bike, testing it out, and so on) to determine that the Speedy Bike 100 is faster, safer, and easier to handle than most other bikes. These are all qualities he wants in a bike and qualities that will help him live his life—it’ll keep him safe and get him where he needs to go quickly.
3. Therefore, the Speedy Bike 100 is an excellent bike—a rational person (Randolph) determines that it’s better than other bikes at helping him live a fulfilling life.

Rawls’s theory of a shared conception of value doesn’t just allow people to compare different objects—people can use the same process to evaluate how “good” a decision is based on all the options available and on the potential consequences of it.

(Shortform note: Keep in mind that for this process to work, people communicating have to have a shared definition of “rational choice” and “fulfilling life.” People who have different conceptions of a fulfilling life or who weigh options differently in their rational determinations can use Rawls’s process but still fail to communicate with each other effectively. For example, Portia highly prioritizes safety in her decision-making and lifestyle. Therefore, she wants a bike that’s sturdier but slower than the Speedy Bike 100. In this case, both Randolph and Portia use a rational process of decision-making to determine what’s best for a fulfilling life, but they still arrive at different answers.)