Gabriel Paulo R.

Uy Legal Philisophy

Atty. Antonio Jamon Jr. DLSU Law

http://www.writing.utoronto.ca/advice/specific-types-of-writing/book-review Book Review on A Theory of Justice by John Rawls In John Rawls book A Theory of Jusice he defends his theory called justice as fairness. It is primarily concerned in the way in which major social institutuons distribute fundamental rights and duties and determine the division of advantages from social cooperation. It is a theory designed to apply to the basic sructures of society. It provides a normative ideal by which we are to judge the political constitution of society and the principal economic and social arrangement. The just society is one governed by the two principles of justice. These are:

1.each person has the same indefensible claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties (equal and basic liberties principle) 2.Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions. First, they are to be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality and opportunity(Fair equality of opportunity principle);and second, they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society(difference principle)

This is arranged according to principle;the equal and basic liberties being the top priority. The method in which Rawls formulated these two principles is by starting with widely accepted principles,premises that reflect the considered judgement citizens of

democratic society have. These judgement serve as a moral data from which he construct and test a theory of justice. A theory that violates on of these convictions will fail to e a viable theory. Rawls does not appeal to values that violate what he calls the fact of reasionable pluralism,which is the irrecncillable difference in citizen comprehensive philosophical and religious conceptions of the world. Ergo, what he sought was a fit berween the principles of justice and our considered judgements. Rawls Posits the original position. Parties are given two task. First, parties are to choose the basic principles that are to govern society,And secondly, to choose the principles that are to apply to individials. This is to derive at the appropriate initial status qou in which all people are treated equals. In everyday life, there are a number of unfair factos that influence our agreements that we want to rule out in the original position. Thus, to ensure that the principles we choose in the original position are impartial,we need 2 contraints the formal contraints of the right and the veil of ignorance. The formal contraints of the right imposes 5 contraints on choosing the right principle which,among others, are that principle must be general in form and iniversal in application and that they are to be recognized as the final court of appeals for ordering the conflicting claims of moral persons. The second constraint,the veil of ignorance, aims to nullify the effects of special contingencies that tempt men to exploit social and natural curcumstances to their own advantage. From behind the veil of ignorance, the parties are denied certain information which will ensure tht they evaluate principles solely on the basis of general consideration. Examples would be class or social status,race,gender,generation they belong,and their

conception of good. The only thing they know are the general facts about society and that their society is subject to circumstances of justice. The next question would be how can they choose the appropriate principles w/oknowing the concept of good? Rawls claim that the parties have some rational plan of life. That is, once the veil is lifted, the parties will seek to secure the largest share they cab if what calls the social primary goods. These goods are rights and liberties,powers and opportunitie,income,wealth and self respect. Now that they are in a position to choose, Rawls concludes that they will choose the 2 principles of justice abovementioned among a shortlist of conceptions of justice. This ,says Rawls, will secure the largest share of social primary goods. Rawls claims that these two principles are the maximin solution to the problem of social justice. The maximin rule tells us that we should choose the principle wherein the worst outcome of which is superior to the worst outcomes of the others. Given that parties do not know ehat their sorical position will be, it is rational for them to adopt the conservative attitude adopted by this rule. Ergo, the two principles abovementioned guarantee the highest minimum payoff

Rawls, John (1971). A Theory of Justice (Original ed.). Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.