Note: Political Awareness never authorizes any candidate or their committees to publish its communication.
Rawls’ Two Principles of Justice
Rawls’ was known for changing the game when it came to his principles of justice. These ideas have permanently changed political philosophy. He will go down in history as one of the greatest thinkers of our time, up with those like Locke and Aristotle. In this article, I will be explaining each of Rawls’ two principles of justice. I will also explain both of Rawls’ arguments that he made to further his principles. Briefly I will bring up the principle of average utility, compare both and make an objection to one of his accounts. I will also be explaining why I object to that specific idea. In my sourcing, I will be referring to Rawls’ book, Justice As Fairness. As I will be using quotes from pages from his arguments and reasoning.
Rawls’ First Principle: Equal Basic Liberties
To start, the Two Principles of Justice as stated in the book are, “(a) Each person has the same indefensible claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties. Which scheme is compatible with the same scheme of liberties for all” (Rawls, 42). This basically means that every person has basic natural rights and liberties. These rights can be up to interpretation as many groups and types of people around the world interpret them differently. Here Rawls explains that those fundamental rights are, “freedom of thought and liberty of conscience, political liberties and freedom of association, as well as the rights and liberties specified by the liberty and integrity of the person, and finally the rights and liberties covered by the rule of law” (Rawls, 44). Rawls acknowledges the fact he uses the term liberty a lot when defining this.
He also explains that liberty has been thrown around in history and has been a “thought of focus” on achieving rights as well as achieving constitutional guarantees. He uses the bill of rights and declarations of the rights of man as his reasoning for liberty. But let me be more clear, Rawls is pointing out that his view of liberty is those famous documents of human rights. Therefore, he includes that specific term to support the fact that people are born with those rights and liberties.
Rawls’ Second Principle: Social and Economic Inequalities
In his second Principle he states, “Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: first, they are to be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; and second, they are to be the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society (the difference principle)” (Rawls, 42). He quickly states after this quote on page 43 that the first principle is prior to the second principle. He says as well that, “in the second principle fair equality of opportunity is prior to the difference principle” (Rawls, 43). We will get back to the difference principle soon, but in this paragraph Rawls makes it clear that we as a society should, “attend to the meaning of fair equality of opportunity” (Rawls, 43).
He states that it’s a hard thing to do and not quite an argument he feels is put together very well. He quickly explains that as a society we should all have a fair chance to attain fair equality of opportunity. To support his argument, He explains that people are different and some have specific talents based on how they are raised. He further goes on to explain that in his world people would have access to very similar opportunities and resources. But he does acknowledge that some people in society will have more than others just based on how they are born into.
The Principle of Average Utility and Its Critique
Rawls also brings up the Principle of Average Utility. This viewpoint is conservative compared to Rawls’ ideas. Rawls calls it out simply by saying that it doesn’t fit with his just society because the principle justifies sacrificing some rights for the greater overall good. These ideas have been made by Hobbes and since have been carried out around the world. But Rawls hates this idea for that specific reason.
The Maximin Rule and Rawls’ Justification
Rawls also brings up the maximin rule in which he claims to use the, “‘Difference principle’ to emphasize first, that this principle and the maximin rule for excision under uncertainty are two very distinct things; and second, that in arguing for the difference principle over other distributive principles. There is no appeal at all to the maximum rule for decision under uncertainty. Rawls believes people in society deserve to live a life with life and liberty without having to sacrifice any of their freedoms and rights for the greater good.
Objection to Rawls’ Account
Though I agree with everything Rawls is bringing into the world. My only concern and objection to his arguments is pretty simple. I believe that Rawls paints a very unrealistic picture in his arguments. Now don’t get me wrong. I love his arguments, and I completely agree with what he says in his Two Principles. What I see wrong in his arguments is that it’s really unrealistic in today’s society. Our governments aren’t gonna change, the world is never going to change enough to fit Rawls views- at least not in our lifetime.
Real-World Limitations and Practical Concerns
I think my reasonings for this objection is because we live in a built-in world where we have to sacrifice things for the greater good- nor human beings should have access to every single freedom possible. For example, (and these points are political) there are lots of issues with Gun Rights, Freedom of Speech and press, Freedom of Privacy, etc. These issues wouldn’t be solved if we listened to Rawls and had freedom. Another example would be Hate Speech and threats of violence. What would Rawls say about them? Because if he condemned it, then his principles wouldn’t work for him anymore.
Conclusion: Appreciation and Reflection
Though I disagree with this, I still agree with a majority of what he says. I think Rawls is a brilliant philosopher who knows what he is talking about. These ideas have permanently changed political philosophy. He will go down in history as one of the greatest thinkers of our time. Up with those like Locke and Aristotle.
Leave a Reply