Rawls’ Theory of Justice

2019

This dissertation is a critical analysis of John Rawls’s theory of justice in its historical and philosophical context. To that end, his works from A Theory of Justice (1971) to Justice as Fairness: A Restatement (2001) are examined. Not only Rawls’s theory of justice but also his approach to metaphysics and metaethics are also tackled to understand justice as fairness deeply. While setting out Rawls’s main arguments and theses, a critical approach is adopted with his foremost critics. This study thus searches for answers to the questions such as whether Rawls’s theory is workable, what does he precisely defends, what does he aim at with justice as fairness, and whether it is consistent or not. Unfortunately, it is seen that Rawls fails to propose a coherent egalitarian as well as liberal theory of justice. Hence, he could not reconcile the ideas of freedom and equality.

Philosophy and Progress, 2022

The paper explores the logical structure of Rawlsian justice principles in order to see whether their justificatory or explanatory conditions are unproblematic. To facilitate this purpose, drawing on readers of Rawls, the author shows that the Aristotelian principle is used to explain the principles of rational choice, particularly the principle of inclusiveness. Then, on the basis of the Aristotelian principle, Rawls justifies his conclusion, via the principles of rational choice and the theory of primary goods. After figuring out the logical structure of justice as fairness, the author deals with the central objective of the paper, where he exposes some problems suffered by the motivational basis of the principles of justice. The foundation on which Rawls grounds his principles of justice is problematic, and consequently, they remain as matters of contention as of today.

Fordham Law Review, 2004

Would it be desirable to reform the global institutional order in conformity with the principles Rawls defends in A Theory of Justice? Rawls himself denies this and proposes a different moral theory (The Law of Peoples) for the relations among self-governing peoples. While sharing a questionable, purely recipient-oriented approach, his two theories differ importantly in substance and structure. The former gives weight only to the interests of individual persons, yet the latter gives no weight to these interests at all. The former theory is three-tiered and institutional, centering on a public criterion of justice that is justified through a contractualist thought experiment and in turn justifies particular institutional arrangements and reforms under variable empirical circumstances. Yet, the latter theory is two-tiered and interactional, deploying a contractualist thought experiment to justify rigid rules of good conduct for peoples. Poorly motivated, these asymmetries help Rawls's anticosmopolitan case. But they fail to vindicate his claim that global economic justice demands only a modest "duty of assistance." * Columbia University, Department of Philosophy. Professor Pogge is the author of Realizing Rawls (1989) and has written numerous important papers in ethics and moral and political philosophy, especially on global justice and on the work of Rawls and Kant.

Because of the original position and the veil of ignorance, the theory of justice as fairness permits justice to be indeed fair. It shows why people want a fair and equal spread of rights and duties, and also an equal distribution of benefits, to value a place in society. Any variation in the distribution of benefits will only be acceptable because they are within acceptable limits of tolerance, or because some inequality of distribution benefits everyone, especially those whose abilities and assets are below average. So, some members of society can be privileged as long as all others benefit—usually because they undertake onerous duties on behalf of society—but the reverse is not just—that some people can be exploited to the benefit of others. Any such exploitation must lead to social discontent and offer the potential for revolution.

Religious Inquiries, 2016

In this article, in order to demonstrate the pragmatic elements of Rawls's viewpoint, the developmental path of his A Theory of Justice shall first be investigated. This development has two phases: In the first phase, justice has an ethical-philosophical basis. In A Theory of Justice, this phase is specifically shown under the title of theory of justice. In the second phase, justice has no philosophical basis, but, as Rawls says, political justice is included. The main purpose of this article is to show the path of Rawls's theory of justice from an ethical viewpoint to a political one. Rawls, himself, points out this transition, but the main problem is how Rawls arrives at a pragmatic viewpoint. In Rawls's time, this viewpoint was brought to life by Richard Rorty in a particular way. Rawls is not interested in this viewpoint, but these elements indicate the above-mentioned transition. These elements are pluralism, society as a fair system of cooperation, public reason, and overlapping consensus. Although these elements are implied in A Theory of Justice and have Kantian basis, in his Political Liberalism, Rawls articulates these elements and eliminates metaphysical, religious, or any kind of doctrine from principles of justice and arrives at a practical viewpoint on justice.

This paper attempt to put forward, the concept of “Justice and fairness,” according to John Rawl’s proposition as a political theory. Upon the understanding of the theory in at it basic level, the paper attempt to differentiate the “Theory of Justice” from its principal opponent Theory called Utilitarianism. It is important to understand the fundamental differences between utilitarianism and the theory of Justice merely the fact that, Rawls conception of Theory of justice is the product of Utilitarian theory as a counter production of the theory. The paper also attempted to situate the theory of Justice in the egalitarian Tribal society in a simple way by citing some instance of the practices of decision making in the autonomy villages in the recent past

Revista da Faculdade de Direito do Sul de Minas, 2019

This article analyzes the rawlsian proposal of society as an equitable system of cooperation and the relevance of the notions of freedom and equality as guiding elements of the principles of justice. In this sense, securing stability and the formation of a public reason so that societies might develop in a more just way by reconciling the most varied conceptions of good present within a society is a challenge for the project of social justice in Rawls. Some possibilities for conciliation among these different conceptions of good emerge in this context, demonstrating that it is necessary to strengthen the sense of justice in each subject so that, in the conflict between a conception of unreasonable good, the principles of justice prevail and begin to serve as guide for the establishment of social justice. Thus, based on the hypothetical-deductive approach, using a theoretical basis present in the contemporary political philosophy, the article invites us to reflect on the supposed theorists who structure the rawlsian conception for a just political society. It remains evident that the basic structure, one of the foundations of Rawls’s ideal of social justice, is responsible for confronting injustices, challenging societies to review their actions. As complex as it may be the complete elimination of the contingencies that manifest within social life, it is the responsibility of the institutions to contribute to mitigating such intercurrences and promoting cooperation.

The Jahangirnagar Review Part C, 2021

John Rawls’ theory of justice has shown that the world is unjust and we have the responsibility to minimize the injustice that prevails. He has designed a model of justice in which ensuring the neutral choice of justice principle is required and liberty and equality of all should be preserved. His justice model bases on a hypothetical position named as original position and two basic principles. Apparently, it seems that Rawls’ model is a noble one to address the injustice issues in the existing world. But this theory has received several criticisms from many philosophers. This paper has analyzed the concept of liberty and equality in Rawls’ theory of justice and has shown that Rawls failed to uphold the promised equal liberty for all. This research has also considered the views of Robert Nozick and Amartya Sen regarding Rawls’ theory and has suggested that a proper theory of justice needs to include rectification principles along with the consideration of various contexts and alternatives.