John Rawls’ theory of justice

Justice can seldom be defined. It has diverse interpretations. Justice for one may not be justice for
someone else. However, various jurists have attempted to define justice in the closest way possible.
One such jurist was John Rawls, who addressed the concept of justice in his famous book ‘A Theory
of Justice.’

ohn Rawls was a firm opposer of utilitarianism, which held the view that just or fair actions are the
ones that bring the greatest amount of good for the greatest number. He condemned utilitarianism
because he opined that it paves the way for governments to function in ways that bring happiness to a
majority but ignore the wishes and rights of a minority.

Rawls’ theory of justice is largely influenced by the Social Contract Theory as interpreted by
Immanuel Kant, another political philosopher. A social contract is a hypothetical agreement between
the government and the people governed that defines their rights and duties. Kant interpreted the
social contract as one which is unanimously accepted and agreed upon by all the people, and not just
a particular group. So, as for Kant, a society under a social contract is a society based on moral laws.

Rawls was a political liberal, which is why he emphasised the need for a state that is neutral between
the various perspectives of values. He calls his conception “justice as fairness.” He argues that if all
the people in society come together to make collective principles of governing themselves, the
outcome would be the rules that are influenced by only certain sections of people. This is because a
variety of people exist in society; they may be rich, poor, educated, uneducated, etc. People of such
variety are bound to have differences in their opinions and interests. These differences would
eventually give birth to a situation wherein justice is compromised to satisfy the interests of the
influential sections of people. Ultimately, justice is not achieved.

Trying to figure out ways to achieve justice for all, Rawls proposed a hypothetical scenario where a
group of people ignorant of their or others’ social, economic, physical, or mental factors come
together to make laws for themselves.

The idea behind this hypothecation is that under such a circumstance, everyone will be virtually
equal. Rule-making will not be influenced by the self-centred desires of particular sections of society.
Then, there will be no hierarchy in the bargaining power within the collective idea of justice. Under
this state, there will also be equal sharing of burdens and benefits among all.

So, the theory of justice proposed by Rawls advocates for a system of rule-making that ignores the
social, economic, physical, or mental factors that differentiate the people in society.

The very purpose of Rawls introducing the theory of justice was to find a way to create a well-
ordered society. According to him, a well-ordered society should predominantly have the following
two elements:
  It should be designed to advance the good of its members and effectively regulated by a
public conception of justice;
 It should be a society wherein all people accept and know that all other people accept the
same principles of justice and that the basic social institutions satisfy those principles.
Now, to create a well-ordered society, Rawls calls to envisage ourselves as a group of competent
moral judges, able to decide between conflicting moral and political ideals from the perspective of
reasonableness and impartiality. This enabling is facilitated by two hypothetical devices –
the original position and veil of ignorance.

A well-ordered society
As discussed earlier, Rawls’ theory of justice is inspired by the Social Contract Theory as interpreted
by the political philosopher Immanuel Kant. Rawls extended Kant’s theory by taking the viewpoint
of a hypothetical contract wherein the decision-makers come together to formulate rules for defining
the basic structure of a well-ordered society, using set principles of justice. As per Rawls, this
formulation is done by observing the following conditions of the contract:

 Circumstances of justice
 Original position
 Veil of ignorance
 Maximin rule

Circumstances of justice
As per Rawls, the circumstances of justice are the normal conditions under which human
cooperation is both possible and necessary. These circumstances are pertinent for any society to
make just laws. Rawls described two kinds of circumstances of justice – objective and subjective
circumstances.

Objective circumstances
Objective circumstances refer to circumstances that give rise to a situation in which the members of a
society co-exist in some identifiable territory and are of some comparable strengths and weaknesses
so that no one has an edge over another.

Rawls opines that the most significant objective circumstance of justice is the one in which the
resources available to a society are moderately scarce. He stated that to achieve justice, natural and
other resources are not so abundant that schemes of cooperation are superfluous, nor are conditions
so plentiful that fruitful ventures must inevitably break down. This is because if resources are
abundantly and easily available for anyone to use then nobody will need anybody’s help, making
social cooperation unnecessary. Contrarily, if the resources are too scarce, there will not be enough
scope for social cooperation.

Subjective circumstances
Subjective circumstances of justice refer to circumstances that give rise to a situation in which few
members of the society have conflicting interests in the resources available. When such interests
contradict the mutually advantageous social cooperation, a need for justice arises.

Original position
As discussed earlier, John Rawls calls upon the readers of his book A Theory of Justice to imagine a
hypothetical scenario where a group of people ignorant of their or others’ social, economic, physical,
or mental factors come together to make laws for themselves. This imaginary initial position of
equality, perspective, or viewpoint of impartiality is what Rawls calls an original position (OP).

The original position in Rawls’ theory of justice plays the same role as the state of nature does in the
social contract theory proposed by political philosophers Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques, Rousseau,
and John Locke.

In the original position, the parties have the choice to select the principles of justice that are to govern
the basic structure of society. These principles, as discussed further, are imperative to ensure that the
benefits and burdens of society are just or fair to all parties. Rawls proposed that the parties or
decision-makers must choose the principles for society as if they were behind a veil of ignorance.

As per Rawls, the basic institutions of any society should be constructed in a way to ensure the fair
and continuous distribution of social primary goods to all parties. The social primary goods, as
described by Rawls, are those goods that individuals prefer to have more of rather than less. It
includes rights, liberties, opportunities, income, and wealth. He believes that these primary goods are
the most accurate representative factors of citizens’ fundamental interests.

Veil of ignorance
To achieve justice for all, it is vital to set aside personal interests and be rational while making rules
or decisions affecting society. To reach a rational mindset, Rawls argues that one must imagine
himself as if he is behind a “veil of ignorance.” This veil of ignorance is a theoretical device or
hypothetical separation between the decision-maker and the society he lives in. It prevents him from
knowing any material facts about himself or the people for whom he is making the rule. These
factors may be –

 Demographic facts – Examples of which may be age, sex, ethnicity, level of income,
colour, employment, personal strengths and weaknesses, etc.
  Societal facts – Examples of which may be the type of government, societal organisation,
culture and traditions, etc.
 Facts about the decision-maker’s view of the good – These are the decision-maker’s
values and preferences of how one’s life should be. It also includes specific morals and
political beliefs.
Rawls hoped that by ignoring these facts, one can avoid the biases that might otherwise come into a
group decision.

There are two main aspects of the veil of ignorance: self-ignorance and public ignorance. Firstly, it
abstains the decision-maker from knowing anything about himself. It is essential for him to not know
his own position in society, because knowing may tempt him to make decisions that favour his future
self considering his private interests. For instance, a legislator having shares in a company of a
particular sector may strive to make laws favouring the future rise of that sector, for himself to
indirectly be profited by it. Secondly, it abstains the decision-maker from knowing anything about
the entities for whom he is making the decision. Such ignorance is crucial to avoid the personal bias
of the decision-maker.

The veil of ignorance makes the parties just be their usual rational selves, instead of being influenced
by circumstantial factors. It prevents the privileged from pressurising the vulnerable or
underprivileged, as everybody is equal in the original position. The veil ensures that policies are
made in the best interest of the entire society, and not just a majority of it.

Maximin rule
As per Rawls, to achieve a well-ordered society, the decision-makers under the original position will
make choices under uncertainty. The uncertainty will lead them to rationally make rules by selecting
the best from a range of options of worst possibilities. They will strive to make rules that ensure that
the worst-off people in society do as well as possible.

Two principles of justice

Rawls stated that in the original position, the members of a society would be led by reason and self-
interest to agree upon the following two principles of justice;

1. The Principle of Equal Liberty

Rawls’ first principle of justice states that each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive
basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others.

As per the principle of equal liberty, all the people in the society must be given certain liberties that
are basic for human existence. Such liberties can not be infringed at any cost, even if they may cause
greater benefit to a larger mass of people. Some of the basic liberties as stated by Rawls were the
freedom of speech, assembly, thought and conscience, liberties required to secure the rule of law,
sanitation, wealth, and health.
However, Rawls does not consider the economic rights and liberties like freedom of contract or the
right to own means of production, etc. as basic liberties, because economic progress cannot happen
without the expense of the ones that do not happen to belong to the larger group.

2. The Principle of Difference and Fair Equality of Opportunity

Rawls’ second principle of justice states that social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so
that they are both –

1. To the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, and

2. Attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of
opportunity.
Clause(A) of Rawls’ second principle of justice is also called the difference principle. It provides that
in case of an unequal distribution of wealth and income, the inequality must be such that those that
are worst off are still better off than they would be under any other distribution. So, in one way,
Rawls opines that no society can exist without economic disparity. However, such a disparity must
be diminished as much as possible.

Clause(B) of Rawls’ second principle of justice is also called the fair equality of opportunity
principle. It provides that society must facilitate everyone with the most basic means to enable them
to participate in social competition. Everyone should have an equal opportunity to compete for the
public or private offices or positions that they wish for. This includes providing education, and
healthcare.

Criticism
Just like every other theory, Rawls’ theory of justice is also not free from criticism.

G.A. Cohen, a Canadian political philosopher, criticised Rawls’ theory in his book Rescuing Justice
and Equality (2008). He particularly condemned the impracticality of the theory. He opines that
society can not work hard without differentiating incentives.

Further, American philosopher Martha C. Nussbaum criticised the theory in her book Frontiers of
Justice: Disabilities, Nationality, Species, Membership (2007), stating that it does not consider the
disabilities and special requirements of people impaired in some way. Pointing at one of the
loopholes of the theory’s advocacy of equal rights and duties, she argued that people with
impairment need differential treatment to lead a normal life.

RAWLSIAN JUSTICE AND THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION

The Preamble The Preamble, which is more like a prologue to the Constitution, includes the words
“justice – social, economic and political" so that there is equality among the people. There should be
fairness in the distribution of opportunities, rights and resources. There should be no arbitrary decisions
and the rule of law should be upheld. These very principles form the basis of Rawls' theory.3
Incorporation of Distributive Justice in Other Articles Article 14 talks about equality before the law or
equal protection of the law within the territory of India. Positive equality is the equal protection of laws
i.e., protection of the citizens’ rights by the State.

Negative equality is the equality before the law so that no discrimination is made in the matter of justice
and the law applies to all. Article 15 says, “the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds
only of race, religion, caste, sex, and place of birth”. Here, any discrimination made only on the grounds
mentioned would be held unconstitutional. Article 16 talks about equal opportunity to all citizens in
matters related to employment in the public sector and prohibits discrimination on the grounds of
religion, race, caste, sex, descent, birthplace, residence, or any of them. It also talks about the
reservation in services for certain backward classes. This perfectly establishes Rawls' concept as he talks
about elevating the people who belong to the lowest level in society so that their needs are fulfilled first.
Article 17 talks about the abolition of untouchability and Article 18 talks about the abolition of titles,
both of which were perfect examples of unreasonable discrimination. Article 21 lays down that, “No
person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law."
Right to life does not imply breathing or mere animal existence. This right canopies several rights within
itself. Article 38 states that “the State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and
protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic and political shall
inform all the institutions of the national life” and “to minimise the inequalities in income, and
endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities for all”. Article 39 directs the
State to ensure justice is given to all and there is equal distribution of resources and equality is
maintained in terms of rights, duties and opportunities. Though our Constitution was framed way before
Rawls propounded his theory, it embodies all the principles of redistributive justice so that the
underprivileged are uplifted and given an equal footing in the society to ensure that justice and fair
opportunity is provided to all.

The “Creamy Layer” Concept According to Rawls' concept of the veil of ignorance, members of the
society who are the uninterested parties knowing social sciences would participate in the decision
making from the original position behind the veil so that they would not be biased or affected by any
human factor.