A Theory of Justice

The second principle of justice addresses distributive shares, which dictate distributive justice. Both the difference principle and the just savings principle govern distributive shares to achieve distributive justice for the least advantaged in every generation.

The principles of justice create a basic structure that regulates society’s institutions and develops a social system to achieve distributive justice. This system consists of four (and sometimes five) branches. The allocation branch maintains competition in the price system and prevents the formation of unreasonable market power. The stabilization branch establishes reasonably full employment, free choice of occupation, and strong demand. The transfer branch sets a social minimum and the distribution branch levies taxes to correct the distribution of wealth and raise revenues. The fifth, rarely used branch is the exchange branch, which arranges for public goods and services when the market system fails.

The equal opportunity principle is prior to the difference principle and requires that opportunity be equal among persons possessing the same abilities and plans of life. The purpose of this principle is to ensure that social and economic inequalities in persons’ starting places do not prejudice their ability to achieve their desired ends.

The four-stage sequence provides a framework to apply the two principles of justice. The four-stage sequence includes (1) the original agreement, (2) the constitutional convention, (3) the legislative stage, and (4) the stage of judges and administrators applying the rules to specific situations. After adopting the principles of justice in the original position, the parties progress to a constitutional convention, where they choose an effective and just constitution that satisfies the principles of justice. The parties proceed by moving back and forth between the constitutional and legislative stages, in order to form the best constitution. The last stage, that of judges and administrators, is the primary vantage point from which the two principles are viewed, once it is reached.

Persons’ goods and ends are discussed frequently. The good is an essential aspect of justice as fairness. The theory of the good includes a thin theory and a full theory. The thin theory argues that something is good only if it is consistent with existing principles of right, which are prior to theories of good. After the thin theory is established, the full theory of the good can be constructed to explain the social values and the stability of a conception of justice. A person’s rational plan of life determines their good. If the person’s plan of life is rational, then their conception of the good is rational, regardless of what that plan is. A person’s plan of life is rational if it is consistent with the principles of rational choice applied to that person’s unique situation, and would be chosen by that person after deliberation, and fully aware of the relevant facts. Every plan of life conforming to this definition is equally as rational; none is superior or inferior to any other, but all are superior to all plans not conforming to these principles. In this way, justice as fairness does not dictate appropriate ends or goods, provided they reside within a broadly acceptable class.

The first principle of justice as fairness guarantees the priority of equal basic liberties to all persons. Equal basic liberties are given absolute priority and are thus guaranteed above all else. The basic liberties include the political liberty to vote and run for office, freedom of speech and assembly, liberty of conscience, freedom of personal property, and freedom from arbitrary arrest. Because equal basic liberties are given absolute priority; their restriction cannot be compensated by an increased distribution. Basic liberties can only be restricted for the sake of liberty itself.

Intuitionism is a philosophical principle that Rawls incorporates into justice as fairness. Intuitionism reasons that there is a family of first principles to which priority cannot be assigned objectively, and they must consequently be balanced based on subjective criteria. Rawls reigns in the subjective nature of intuitionism applied to justice as fairness by establishing a general scheme to weigh precepts, determine their balance, and narrow the limits of intuition.

Perfectionism is also used in Rawls’s theory to provide a contrast to justice as fairness, though it is deemed a less important philosophical principle. The principle of perfection has two variants. In the first variant, the principle of perfection “is the sole principle of a teleological theory directing society to arrange institutions and to define the duties and obligations of individuals so as to maximize the achievement of human excellence in art, science, and culture” (285). In the second variant, a principle of perfection is one standard of several balanced in an intuitionist theory. The second variant of perfectionism is the only one with any merit. It is a counterargument to egalitarian ideals and dictates that distribution should be more equal if required for meeting the basic needs of the less favored, but “the greater happiness of the less fortunate does not in general justify curtailing the expenditures required to preserve cultural values” (286).

The original position is the hypothetical point of the original social contract agreement. Rawls’s theory of justice as fairness is a social contractarian theory, so it must involve a position of the original contract agreement. Rawls’s original position is unique from other social contract theories because it’s articulated in detail to have several important characteristics.

Rawls’s liberty principle and difference principle are collectively known as the two principles of justice. The first concerns the maximization of individual freedoms: “FIRST PRINCIPLE: Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all” (266). The second concerns societal inequalities and attempts to mitigate the impact of those inequalities on those who are least advantaged:

SECOND PRINCIPLE: Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just savings principle, and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity (266).

These two principles together embody the theme of Balancing Individual Rights and the Common Good.

Utilitarianism is used in Rawls’s theory to provide contrast to justice as fairness. There are many different versions of utilitarian philosophy. The goal of justice as fairness is to distinguish itself from and present an alternative to utilitarian philosophy generally. To simplify his comparisons, Rawls makes all comparisons to the classical utilitarian doctrine, which states “that society is rightly ordered, and therefore just, when its major institutions are arranged so as to achieve the greatest net balance of satisfaction summed over all the individuals belonging to it” (20). Classical utilitarianism differs from justice as fairness in almost every way.