John Rawls

1
John Rawls

• 1921 2002
• Professor of Philosophy at Harvard 1964-2002
  (emeritus 1996)
• Spent a few years at Oxford, where he studied
  under Isiah Berlin (who well read later
  regarding liberty).

2
Rawls

• Justice is defined as fairness. Fairness is
  determined by individuals in an original
  position behind a veil of ignorance The
  principles endorsed by the people in the
  original position are tested using the process of
  reflective equilibrium,
• Which really simply means that we adjust our
  beliefs until they are consistent with eachother.
  
• This process leads to two principles of justice
• Liberty principle society must provide each
  individual with the basic rights or
  liberties.
• Difference principle inequalities in wealth and
  power should be distributed so as to benefit the
  worst off.

3
Rawls contribution

• To Rawls or not to Rawls?
• His contribution to social / political philosophy
  cannot be underestimated.
• Prior to the publication of the paper form of
  Justice as Fairness in 1958, social / political
  philosophy in the Analytic tradition was, well,
  dead.

4
Conceptual Analysis

• Justice is X
• Fairness is Y
• If X Y, Justice Fairness.
• But that is not Rawls claim, his theory is for
  justice as fairness.

5
The project

• Rawls is putatively not offering a defense of a
  particular type of state or system of Government.
• Like, say Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau Goldman.
• He is offering an account of justice, by which
  various political systems can be judged.

6
Therefore,

• Fairness is X.
• The principles by which we judge states, laws,
  etc as just or unjust are those that would be
  agreed upon by people in a totally fair society.
• Therefore, the principles by which are those
  that would be agreed upon by people in a society
  that embodies X.
• The fair society the original condition, where
  we operate behind a veil of ignorance.

7
Reflective Equilibrium

• The principles endorsed by the people in the
  original position are tested using the process of
  reflective equilibrium,
• Which really simply means that we adjust our
  beliefs until they are consistent with eachother.
  
• Note there is some conflict on the
  interpretation of Rawls use of the notion. It
  might just be a adaptation of the coherence
  theory of truth, which dominated philosophy in
  the middle of this century. It is, however,
  currently in disrepute.

8
Ultimate conclusion

• There are two principles of justice
• Liberty principle society must provide each
  individual with the basic rights or
  liberties.
• Difference principle inequalities in wealth and
  power should be distributed so as to benefit the
  worst off.

9
OK, the details

• What is justice?
• The first virtue of social institutions.
• What is a first virtue?
• It is as truth is to a system thought
• What is a social institution?
• A society is a more or less self-sufficient
  association who in their relations to one another
  recognize certain rules of conduct as binding and
  who for the most part act in accordance with
  them (4)

10
The Rules?

• Social institutions the rules by which people
  in a society abide.
• ASSUMPTION that these rules are designed for
  mutual advantage.
• Society is typically marked by conflict as well
  as identity of interests
• Identity of interests because cooperation make
  life better for all (as opposed to living alone)
• Conflict because the benefits of cooperation need
  to be distributed.

11
The problem?

• Need to create a system for judging which method
  of distribution is the best the principles of
  justice. (4)
• In a well-ordered society
• Everyone knows accepts that everyone knows
  accepts the same principles of justice.
• The basic social institutions generally satisfy
  are known to satisfy these principles.

12
Hold on right there

1. OK, so what are we to do with sociopaths?
2. Autistics?
3. Idiots?
4. Children?
5. The Senile?
6. Insane?
7. Etc.

13
Cont

• OK, so what do we do when the basic social
  institutions are either
• Untrustworthy
• Untrusted
• Eg The Tuskegee experiment
• Smallpox blankets
• Eugenics Involuntary sterilization

14
Remember

• Rawls not at all concerned with reality in
  fact, he is so far from the reality of real,
  existing human society that four pages into the
  text, realists (those concerned with the
  practical) are incapable of following along!
• Rawls is concerned with a conceptual analysis of
  justice.

15
Competing views

• Plato Justice is a each part of society (the
  person) existing in balance
• Thrasymachus Justice is whatever those in power
  say it is.
• Mill justice is what ever produces the greatest
  good for the greatest number.
• Democracy justice is whatever the majority
  says it is.

16
So the question is

• When we say that was a just ruling, what do we
  mean?
• When we demand justice for, say, the victims of
  August Pinochet, what do we mean?
• When we say taxes are unjust, what do we mean?
• How do we settle questions like Is it just for ½
  the states to pay 1.4 trillion more in taxes then
  the receive, and the other ½ to receive 800
  billion more than they pay?

17
And the answer is

• the principles o justice for the basic structure
  of society are the object of the original
  agreement. They are principles that free and
  rational persons concerned to further their own
  interests would accept in an initial position of
  equality as defining the fundamental terms of
  their association. These principles are to
  regulate all further agreements they specify the
  kinds of social cooperation that can be entered
  into and the forms of government that can be
  established. (10)

18
Justice as fairness

• the original position is the appropriate initial
  status quo which insures that the fundamental
  agreements reached in it are fair. (15)
• Thus, a principle X is more just than another
  principle Y iff the people in the original
  condition would prefer X to Y. (I.e. in a fair
  society, X is preferable to Y) (15-16)

19
Two Principles

• No one should be advantaged or disadvantaged by
  natural fortune of social circumstances in the
  choice of principles (17)
• Thus, the veil of ignorance
• It seems reasonable to suppose that the parties
  in the original condition are equal (17)
• Together with the veil of ignorance, these to
  principles define the principles of justice

20
Two conflicting principles

• 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. (liberty)
• Social and economic inequalities are to be
  arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably
  expected to be to everyones advantage, and (b)
  attached to positions and offices open to all.
  (equality)
• How do we test the theory compare it to our
  intuitive notion
• Is that what we mean when we demand justice for,
  say, the victims of August Pinochet?(e.g.)

21
With a twist

• in the case of discrepancies between our
  commonsense notion of justice and the principles
  of justice agreed upon by the fair society We
  can either modify the account of the initial
  situation or we can revise our existing
  judgments, for even the judgments we take
  provisionally as fixed points are liable to
  revision. By going back and forth, sometimes
  altering the conditions of the contractual
  circumstances, at others withdrawing our
  judgments and conforming them to principle, I
  assume that eventually we shall find a
  description of the initial situation that both
  expresses reasonable conditions and yields
  principles which match our considered judgments
  duly pruned and adjusted. This state of affairs
  I refer to as reflective equilibrium. (18)

22
The two principles will be in conflict

• Solutions
• Utilitarianism Principle of Utility is to
  arrange social institutions in such a ways that
  it maximizes the net balance of satisfaction.
• If one has to suffer for the greater good, so be
  it (anti-equality)
• Unacceptable violation of fairness!

23
Intuitionists

• No higher-order principles by which we can judge
  something as fair, just, etc.
• That is right That Yeah!
• That is wrong That Yuk!
• Consider consensual, protected incest. Whats
  wrong with it? Its yucky.

24
Rawls

• Two points
• Intuitions often based on culture
• When these intuitions are in conflict, how do we
  resolve?
• To reach some measure of understanding an
  agreement which goes beyond a mere de facto
  resolution of competing interests and a reliance
  on existing conventions and established
  expectations, it is necessary to move to a more
  general scheme for determining the balance of
  precepts, or at least for confining it within
  narrower limits. (31)