Justice as Fairness

Justice as Fairness

John Rawls (1928-2002) was an American philosopher who taught mainly at Harvard University. His theory of 'Justice as Fairness' was the main, but hardly only, focus of his scholarly work- aside from the initial paper, his 'A Theory of Justice,' as well as 'Justice as Fairness: A Restatement' deal with the subject. His work is generally regarded as having re-invigorated the seemingly dead English-speaking Political Philosophy.

Outline:

1. Rawls was concerned to devise the general principles of justice whereby social institutions could operate.
2. Rawls conceived of 'fairness' as being the fundamental principle of justice.
3. But, how do we determine what is fair to everyone?
4. Firstly, Rawls's project is to construct a 'contractual' conception of fairness, in order to guarantee that justice is indeed considers everyone. In this conception everyone (generally) looks out for their own interests. Each person, or their agent, will voice their general principles for determining justice. In other words, justice is fair to each person, because it is what each person would choose. However, since personal interests inevitably compete, there has to be a method of determining which interests to listen to and when.
5. In Rawls' essay, the strategy devised for this is to 'imagine yourself in the other's shoes.' Rawls develops this to the Original Position in which the contract takes place. This Original Position necessarily involves no irrelevant variables, through the Veil of Ignorance. This veil eliminates all particulars that would distract from, and bias, decision making: age, gender, 'race,' ethnicity, religion, social and economic status, psychological disposition, etc. In other words, it leaves room for a rational and unbiased decision to be made.
6. What are the advantages of a Veil of Ignorance? Firstly, as above, it would guarantee impartiality. Secondly, it does not necessitate 'goodness' in order to reach a fair outcome. Further, Rawls contends that it would be easier to achieve unanimity.
7. What principles would people devise from the Original Position?

1. The Liberty Principle- each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others.

2. The Difference and Opportunity Principles- Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that

a) offices and positions must be open to everyone under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. This is not just a meritocracy, as individuals must be provided the ability to acquire the needed skill sets.

b) they are to be of the greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society.

8. The Liberty Principle has lexical priority. Rawls claims that, as society progresses, the advantage of material gain to one's station becomes less meaningful. But this only shows that economic advantages are less desired, why is liberty desired? Either, because of Freedom of Conscience, or because of self-respect. Practically, liberty's lexical priority entails:

1. Only once issues relevant to the basic liberties are determined can issues pertaining to the Difference and Opportunity Principles be addressed.

2. A claim of items that are not basic liberties can never trump basic liberties.

9. In addition to the basic liberties, Rawls thinks that a minimum amount of wealth must be guaranteed as providing the 'worth' of these liberties (204)
10. How do we sort through conflicting interests? By the means of reflective equilibrium, whereby one 'liberty' is diminished for another. This can only occur where the 'greater liberty' is increased. Three types of cases are available: conflicting liberties, 'vacuous' liberties, and, liberties where the lesser party will benefit by a specific curtailment. (203-204)
11. The decision that a Rawlsian man would make in the Original Position highlights the difference between 'Justice as Fairness' and Utility. Whereas Utility would allow that certain individual rights be mitigated for the sake of the greater good, 'Justice as Fairness' never would. This corresponds to our notion of inviolable evil of slavery.

Some clarifications:

l Rawls' concept, 'Justice as Fairness,' is a political and not metaphysical one. This seems to answer certain possible objections about moral relativity, subjective morality, etc. As well, it is on this point that it differs significantly from, for example, utility. Utility is a universally applicable ethic, whereas Justice as Fairness is only applicable is the public realm, and even there, it is not the only value applicable.

l Rawls is pragmatic, not because realism is wrong, rather because it is disputed.

l Rawls is NOT proposing that fairness mandates compromise between each party in disputes.

l One of the major advantages to Rawls's theory is its plausibility. Disregarding the particular principles, Rawls seems to be correct that society's conception of justice is continually being revised, and specifically by claimants of unfair treatment.

l Though as such, there is also no idealized conception of justice. Rather, it roughly correlates to the concept already latent within society.

l Basic Liberties include:political freedom, free speech, assembly, conscience, thought and the (consistently applied) rule of law.