CRITIQUE ON THE BOOK OF JOHN RAWLS - A THEORY OF JUSTICE

John Rawls conceives a theory of justice which is encapsulated by the word fairness. Generally, he contends that social primary goods should be allocated equally except for circumstances in which an unequal allotment of these goods is for the benefit of the underprivileged. Rawls theory of justice seems to have sprung from the social contract theories propounded by the 17th and 18th century philosophers John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Immanuel Kant. He attempts to take the concept to a higher level of abstraction. According to Rawls, justice is what is agreed upon by free and equal individuals as fundamental terms of cooperation provided that those are fair for this purpose. He calls this justice as fairness. His book presents an explanation of this moral theory. A moral theory is defined as a set of principles that requires the information that is needed in order to decide what should be done. It also ascertains actions that should be done in any situation on the condition that the pertinent information regarding the situation is on hand. Also,

identifying whether the information is morally right is gauged by the set principles themselves; hence no other evaluation is necessary. With the knowledge of the principles and relevant details, a person can come to a decision on what to do. However, there are cases in which a persons morality consists of more than one value. It poses a problem for he has to avoid the need to measure these values against each other. Calling it the priority problem, Rawls suggests that a priority ranking of the different values which are closely related to the principles should be created. He puts

forward the lexical priority rankings. With that, everything should be done to ensure that the top-ranked receive the greatest resources. This theory of Rawls has been echoed by Crisolito Pascual in his book in discussing social engineering as a technique used by the government to allocate the limited resources over the competing demands of the people. This is further elaborated in Functional Perspective school of thought. Moreover, Rawls describes a well-ordered society. It is a kind of society that is well regulated by a public conception of justice and whose constituents understand and adhere to this public conception. Also, the former and the latter descriptions should be a common knowledge among all the constituents. He comes up with this notion because he reasons that the first-best theory should be well understood before anyone can be in a position to think through crises that arise when society is not just and some persons are disinclined to conform to the requirements of justice. Rawls then discusses the basic structure of society which, to him, is the primary concern of justice. He states, For us the primary subject of justice is the basic structure of society, or more exactly, the way in which the major social institutions distribute fundamental rights and duties and determine the division of advantages from social cooperation. By major institutions I understand the political constitution and the principal economic and social arrangements. Thus the legal protection of freedom of thought and liberty of conscience, competitive markets, private property in the means of production, and the monogamous family are examples of major social institutions. Rawls focuses on the basic structure because its effects are so profound and present from the start. He explains that people are born into different social statuses with different and unequal life prospects. These initial disparities affect peoples lives beyond their control.

For instance, a baby cannot choose her parents or their social class. Rawls contrasts deep inequalities with shallow inequalities, the kind that crop up due to individual plans and actions. Rawls asserts that the principles of social justice must be applied to these inequalities which are apparently inevitable in the basic structure of society. In his writings, another concept is brought about, and that is utilitarianism. Rawls appears to be not in favor of utilitarianism. He claims that, Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. He also mentions that, utilitarianism does not take seriously the distinction between persons. Utilitarianism propounded by John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham directs people to act in order to maximize common good. This, however, can be abused, which may lead to the "tyranny of the majority." Rawls' approach upholds the rights of each individual and guards against this plausible cause of injustice. Rawls expounds that the fact that deductions compulsory to a person are in utilitarian calculation overbalanced by collective gains to other people is not sufficient to show that it is morally acceptable to leave someone in a difficult position for the personal benefit of others. Even if the utilitarian has the right answer and the choice of acceptable social policy, he would be getting the right answer for the wrong reason. It was also explained that utilitarianism is an example of a teleological theory. It is a theory that identifies the good by fully disregarding what is right, and categorizes the right with maximization of the good. A different explanation is made by Crisolito Pascual regarding the teleological theory which he summarized that the theory is always

focused on what is the telos of the law or what is the end of the law - which should always be fairness. Going back to Rawls, in justice as fairness, the principles of right are identified completely independent of the good. Each person should then formulate a view of the good and a life map based on the set principles. It should not entail violation of rights in order to fulfill it. In establishing just social policy, the satisfaction of an individual which violates others rights should not be valid at all. Another concept associated with Rawls theory is called the reflective equilibrium. When a person is faced with a situation that requires making decision on which of competing moral conceptions is better and acceptable, Rawls advises that at any given time, a person has both particular beliefs about what should be done in specific situations and general beliefs for or against various principles. A persons moral beliefs can be variable, that is, some of his beliefs may contradict other beliefs that he has. In moral argument a reflective equilibrium is sought. In reflective equilibrium, the particular judgments can be drawn from general principles that are naturally attractive. A persons beliefs are then in reflective equilibrium after careful analysis. This equilibrium can be disrupted by further moral arguments. Thus, it can be stated that wide reflective equilibrium becomes apparent when a person has established his beliefs after subjecting his considered specific and general judgments to all the arguments. The extended reflective equilibrium in turn is what he would believe about morality within the boundaries of moral inquiry, after thorough consideration of all relevant arguments. Although Rawls does not anticipate the realization of the reflective equilibrium, he takes an approach heading to it.

In terms of liberalism and social cooperation, Rawls links liberalism with that which is considered good and worthy of pursuit in life but which cannot offer a shared basis for social cooperation in the present society. In his point of view, religion has a major role in developing the concept of liberalism viewing it to be rooted after the Protestant Reformation. But since individual persons have differing views on religious dogma, religion cannot serve as the foundation of unity. As in seeking and having different religions, people seek different goods. It is difficult to achieve an agreement about certain issues because of different points of view. People should agree to disagree. The concept of good is relative. Something is good for someone just because he likes it, and people have various wants. Rawls argues that although people may not have the same opinion about what is good, they may be in agreement that there are general means that will be useful in carrying out a wide variety of different plans of life. For example, a girl has some notion of what is good, what she considers worthy to undertake. However, she understands that things might change as she goes through life. Despite knowing this reality, she will take the opportunity to achieve her goals whatever the outcome might be. She can want certain general purpose goods. These are the things that any rational being will desire. These are deemed primary goods. Some of these primary goods are social primary goods. They can be distributed by means of social arrangements. The primary goods as the basis for interpersonal comparisons go well with the theory of justice. Taking social justice as a perspective, one may think that individuals are better off or worse off depending on their how many primary social goods they have. In a

part of the book, Rawls gives a definition of primary social goods different from the previously discussed notion. His definition says primary social goods are those things any rational person, who prioritizes developing and exercising her abilities for justice and for her good, would want whatever else she might want. Rawls declares, The primary social goods, to give them in broad categories, are rights, liberties, and opportunities, and income and wealth. He continues, A very important primary good is a sense of ones own worth, but for simplicity I leave this aside until much later. In that later section, Rawls emphasizes self-respect as the most important primary good. Two aspects of self-respect were discussed: it includes a persons sense of his own value, his secure conviction that his plan of life, his conception of his good, is worth carrying out. And second, self-respect implies a confidence in ones ability, so far as it lies within ones power to fulfill ones intentions. In some other part of the book, Rawls lists down specific primary social goods and it includes basic rights and liberties, freedom of movement and free choice of occupation against a background of diverse opportunities, powers and prerogatives of office and positions of responsibility in the political and economic institutions of the basic structure, income and wealth, and finally, the social bases of self-respect. In the Preface to the Revised Edition Rawls says a weakness in his presentation of his ideas in the first (1971) edition of his book is his description of primary goods. These are things rational persons want whatever else they want. A better statement should have been these are things any rational persons wants given that the person has a higher-order interests in developing and exercising her two moral powers the capacities for a conception of the good and for a sense of justice. An idea that is moral is shaped into the

idea of primary good. These are now characterized as what persons need in their status as free and equal citizens, and as normal and fully cooperating members of society over a complete life. However, it seems that the changes did not affect Rawls notions about the goods that are deemed primary. Thus with or without the revision, the specific goods that comply with the definition remain the same. The type of a person is assessed by the primary social goods they have, hence, these goods are the basis of comparison for a theory of justice. In order measure them, an index, which is a norm that tells how to weigh different primary goods against each other, is needed. In order to attain fair treatment, peoples access to primary social goods should be evaluated. There is some kind of individual responsibility upon being given these social goods. A persons way of living is his personal business and not the accountability of society. Rawls opposes the notion that society should regard individual lives according to the satisfactions individuals get. He writes, Justice as fairness however takes a different view for it does not look behind the use which persons make of the rights and opportunities available to then in order to measure, much less to maximize, the satisfactions they receive. Nor do they try to evaluate the relative merits of different conceptions of the good. Instead, it is assumed that the members of society are rational persons able to adjust their conceptions of the good to their situation (pp. 80-81). Rawls believes that the condition of a persons life, having been given a fair share of the primary social goods, is his own business, his own responsibility, and not of society or government.

Two general principles were discussed.

These are equal liberty and social

inequality. Equal liberty occurs when each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all; while in social inequality, social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both to the greatest expected benefit of the least advantaged and attached to positions and offices open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. In the principle of equal liberty, the specific aspects include political liberty, or the right to vote and to be elected; freedom of speech and assembly; liberty of conscience and freedom of thought; freedom of the person, which includes freedom from psychological oppression and physical assault and dismemberment; integrity of the person; the right to hold personal property and freedom from arbitrary arrest and seizure as defined by the concept of rules of law. This list of basic freedom should be bestowed equally to every constituent. Determining the limitations of these liberties is the task of a democratic legislator. According to Rawls, non-basic liberties can be exchanged in equally just societies so long as the justice of the basic social structure is not compromised. Economic liberty, though, has not been dwelt upon in the discussion of basic liberties. Any individual has the right to acquire properties but the extent to which the major means of acquisition should be privately or publicly owned is not a case of basic liberty anymore, hence, the social inequality principle. Part of the social inequality principle is called the difference principle. It happens when the greatest benefit is accorded to the least fortunate. Profits or benefits should be set that the least advantaged have the most benefits. These are calculated by the personal

share of primary social goods besides the basic liberties which are covered by the first principle. He suggests that the expected benefits should not be equally divided among constituents. Since the stock of goods cannot be predetermined, it might actually dwindle especially when a person might not contribute well enough knowing that he will receive the same share equally with others. The right rule is to arrange the distribution that does not maximize the share but the quantity of primary goods given to the top ranked. In an economy that allows private ownership, some people might argue that those at the bottom do not deserve to have a fair share of the goods because they do not work for it. Rawls says that the things a person acquires out of his own efforts are closely entwined with things that are inevitably out of his hands such as the genes that tell a persons potentials and inclinations to certain things. Thus the hard-working well off people do not fully deserve all they have worked for and there is nothing wrong with taking some of their goods to those at the bottom. Aside from the goods, there should also be equality of opportunity to every member of society. This includes having the career that people born to affluent families do have. Providing education to the underprivileged children by utilizing the taxes is also another way of giving equal opportunities. To end, Rawls states that there may be social inequalities but it can be morally acceptable when the principles are fully met. First, that they are to be of the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society, consistent with the just savings principle and offices and positions must be open to everyone under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. People will see the effect of this on the condition of every member of society in the long run.