Essay about the theory of justice in John Rawls. Seminar: Einfrung in die Praktische Philosophie. Roberto Jimnez Mndez.

SoSe 2013

The question of how to build a just society has found a variety of answers. Accordingly, have developed a set of theories that attempt to explain how criteria supported by each other take shape in the performance and behavior of the basic structure society. But what exactly is it that theories of justice regulate? This is a question worth addressing before starting with the description of any of them. A first approximate answer is: the system of freedoms and obligations and income distribution. With various approaches, most theories match this approach. To be sure to mention the income distribution we mean both the distribution direct taxes, transfers and subsidies, as the distribution of the income generated by resources productive or generated by consumption of articles or personal property (tangible goods, services, respect for one self, being, knowledge, health, mental abilities or physical, etc.). Justice theories differ in the importance they attach to this class of goods. Thus, for the utilitarian welfare is key while Rawls emphasizes respect one same. The description of the various approaches is beyond the scope of this work, soonwards we will focus on the theory of Rawls. In the preface to the Theory of Justice Rawls presents at the same time the basic objective and the parentage of his thought. Its aim is to introduce a moral theory, faced widespread skepticism at the time (largely inherited marxism and neopositivism), offered a foundation sufficiently solid. The moral issues are certainly difficult, but hes convinced that it is possible to give correct answers. This theory, which may be called "moral realism", was also offered as an alternative to both utilitarianism (which must be recognized as a doctrine "truly awesome in scope and sophistication") as to intuitionism, apparently the only alternative acceptable possibilities. Rawls is declared follower of the contractarian tradition represented by Locke, Rousseau and, especially, for Kant, which recognizes feel very close. For Rawls, as well as the truth is the priority of every system of thought, justice must be the first virtue of social institutions, above even the welfare of society. Thus establishing the principle that the loss of freedom for someone cant be justified by the fact that a majority achieves gain some good that havent it before. As in the case of truth, justice cant be a subject to transactions. Justice is therefore the only value that can define a "well-ordered society." In a society of this kind, the principles of social

justice provide a way to assign rights and duties in the basic institutions of society, and define the appropriate distribution of the benefits and charge of social cooperation. One point worth noting is that the primary object of justice is not addressed, in principle, to institutions or social practices, but to the "basic structure of society", ie the most important social institutions. By "major social institutions" Rawls understands the political constitution and the principal economic and social setup, which take the form political rights such as freedom (voting, holding public office), freedom of expression and assembly, the legal protection of freedom of thought and conscience, market competition, private ownership of the means of production or the monogamous family. The fundamental principles governing the basic structure of a well-ordered society are the object of an original agreement. These principles would be accepted by free and rational persons, interested in promoting their own interests and they would be in an initial situation of inequality, called "original position". These principles regulate all subsequent agreements, specifying the type of cooperation that can take place and the most appropriate forms of government. In this way of understanding justice Rawls calls it "justice as equity". The "original position" of which our author speaks corresponds to the "state of nature" in the traditional theories of social contract, such as Hobbes and Rousseau. Himself explains that his "original position" is not meant as "a historically accurate state of affairs, much less as a primitive condition of culture." This is a purely hypothetical situation characterized so as to lead to a certain conception of justice. A fundamental feature of this unique situation is the "veil of ignorance" that affects all who are in this situation: no one knows his place in society, his class or social status, no one knows either what is his luck with regarding the distribution of benefits or natural abilities as their intelligence; means, even, the members of the group dont know their conceptions of the good or their special psychological tendencies. This situation that the natural random contingencies or social circumstances dont give to anyone advantages to agree on the principles. His definition of the "original position" also

explains the appropriateness of "justice as equity" (or impartiality): "transmit the idea that the principles of justice are agreed in an initial situation that is just." In a starting situation as described, individuals would choose two principles that can be established as criteria for determining if the basic structure of a society is just. These two principles, although have been reformulated several times, could materialize as follows. The first principle means that everyone has the right to enjoy a system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar set of liberties for all. The second principle permits the possibility of social and economic inequalities provided that two conditions: a) equal opportunities for access to offices and positions, and b) duty to attempt maximum benefits to the least advantaged members of society (principle of the difference). The application of these principles is subject to an order (Rawls calls "lexical") which states that the second law only applies if the first is true, which ultimately means the priority of liberty over any other right. Another interesting aspect affects the difference principle, as embodied in a rule called "maxi-min" (minorum maximun contraction) and isnt other thing than a distribution criterion. One might well ask: unequal distribution of wealth and authority could be just, but only if it does not find any other way able to improve the prospects of disadvantaged group. This distribution rule affects "social primary goods" that, unlike the "natural primary goods" such as health or intelligence which are distributed according to a "natural lottery", depend on the articulation of social relations, the privileges associated with the authority, income, wealth, etc. Naturally, these principles should be applied, and thereby does Rawls, establishing details contentious issues such as the limits of tolerance, the intervention in the case of criminal peoples, the just war conditions, to what extent is due the helps disadvantaged people, etc.. Ultimately, Rawls's work is the expression of the sincere belief that if the history of humanity is full of unjust wars, religious persecutions, the oppression of peoples and citizens, slavery, countless cruelties, is due to political injustice, but if this injustice disappears, also disappear ills that have accompanied.

Given the exposure that I have made of the fundamental ideas of Rawls maybe someone might think that his work is, before of all, a theoretical formulation by approach on too abstract principles general, or on classical problems which is not always present. In some ways, this was an accusation which faced after the publication of A Theory of Justice. Rawls recognizes that while his work is directed to some classic problems such as religious and political freedom, basic rights of citizens in a civil society, economic and social inequalities, along with other less general as paternalism, civil disobedience or conscientious objection, it is also true that other issues such as democratic demands in the business, issues related to restorative justice, protection of the environment and wildlife, inequality and oppression of women, they had deserved attention. Rawls responds to this criticism from a theoretical position: "Once we acquire correct conceptions and principles to face basic historical issues, these conceptions and these principles should also be applicable amply to our problems. To Rawls is did criticized him from positions that, following the conventions ordinarily used, could be considered more devastating or more progressive, but both have had to admit that his work managed to install firmly theories about justice in the heart of ethics, political philosophy and, ultimately, in the modern social sciences. As also unanimously recognized, his work is the work of a life of an honest man, courageously committed with not always majority ideas with which he lived.