Rawls on How to Build a Moral Theory (12-Nov-2003)

Reading : Western Philosophy VII.10 "A Theory of Justice"

Hobbes argued that the right of a state to enforce its rules can be justified based on the fact that individuals enter into a kind of contract with the state: in exchange for receiving the benefits of living in an organised society, they forgo certain freedoms. Locke said that states gain their power through the tacit agreement of individuals: by choosing to live in a society, we implicitly agree to its laws.

Kant described a constructive relation between justice and reason: that is to say, his explanation of moral goodness depends on examination of what a rational being would will to have as a universal law. In a similar way, Ross says that a definition of a just and fair society can be found by looking at what an individual in the "original position" would will to be the case.

In order to consider matters from the original position, Rawls requires us to make a choice with no knowledge of how it relates to us personally: someone in the original position does not know "his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does any one know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities..." Rawls says that in this case the choice will be made "behind a veil of ignorance".

Someone in the original position deciding how a society should be structured will presumably opt for a fair, and therefore in Rawls' terms just, form of society. For example, someone who is white might normally regard a society as being better if white people are given preferential treatment in some situations. But someone in the original position would not have knowledge of his skin-colour, and so would (presumably) not be so likely to make the same choice. Rawls asks us, in effect, "what would you decide if you were making a decision that wasn't influenced by the knowledge of your personal situation?"

Rawls goes on from this framework to propose what he sees as being the choices that will be made in this case. Specifically, he believes people will choose:

  1. an equal distribution of rights and responsibilities
  2. an allowance for unequal distribution of wealth and authority provided this results in "compensating benefits for everyone, and in particular the least advantaged members of society". In other words, it would be wrong to do things to benefit certain members of society if this is at the expense of causing disadvantage to others

Both of these choices are results of the chooser using what Rawls calls the "maximin" strategy: that is, he will choose the option which results in the least worst result possible, which is the best possible outcome for everyone. This is analagous to two individuals sharing a cake by having one person cut it and the other choose which piece he wants.

Rawls concedes that there may be cases when this method yields principles which are not in accordance with our "considered convictions of justice". In these cases, he says we should either revise our opinions or modify the account of the original position, so that we end up with "reflective equilibrium", when "at last our principles and judgements coincide".

Rawls argument does seem to favour socialism as the best system. It also appears to assume that anyone who puts themselves in the "original position" will come up with the same choices, but this seems by no means certain. For example, one person's belief that men should have more power in society may be unaffected by placing him/herself in the original position, while another person may feel that men and women should be treated the same.

weekly paragraph


Values and Virtues page