Justice as Fairness: A Restatement

by John Rawls

This book originated as lectures for a course on political philosophy that Rawls taught regularly at Harvard in the 1980s. In time the lectures became a restatement of his theory of justice as fairness, revised in light of his more recent papers and his treatise Political Liberalism (1993). As Rawls writes in the preface, the restatement presents "in one place an account of justice as fairness as I now see it, drawing on all [my previous] works." He offers a broad overview of his main lines of thought and also explores specific issues never before addressed in any of his writings. Rawls is well aware that since the publication of A Theory of Justice in 1971, American society has moved farther away from the idea of justice as fairness. Yet his ideas retain their power and relevance to debates in a pluralistic society about the meaning and theoretical viability of liberalism. This book demonstrates that moral clarity can be achieved even when a collective commitment to justice is uncertain.

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, Nonfiction, Economics, Law, Political Science, Justice

214 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1993

About the author

John Bordley Rawls was an American philosopher and a leading figure in moral and political philosophy. He held the James Bryant Conant University Professorship at Harvard. His magnum opus A Theory of Justice (1971) is now regarded as "one of the primary texts in political philosophy." His work in political philosophy, dubbed Rawlsianism, takes as its starting point the argument that "most reasonable principles of justice are those everyone would accept and agree to from a fair position." Rawls employs a number of thought experiments—including the famous veil of ignorance—to determine what constitutes a fair agreement in which "everyone is impartially situated as equals," in order to determine principles of social justice.

Rawls received both the Schock Prize for Logic and Philosophy and the National Humanities Medal in 1999, the latter presented by President Bill Clinton, in recognition of how Rawls's thought "helped a whole generation of learned Americans revive their faith in democracy itself."

Reviews

[Chris · Rating 5 out of 5]

Since publication of A THEORY OF JUSTICE in 1971, political philosopher John Rawls's conception of "justice as fairness" has been beset by critiques from both left and right. His final work, JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS: A RESTATEMENT (edited and published posthumously) was Rawls's closely-reasoned effort both to meet and overcome these objections and to further flesh out his original theory. On balance, I believe he succeeded on both counts. As with the THEORY, this is reading both illuminating and exhausting.

In the original THEORY, as modified by this RESTATEMENT, Rawls articulates a political theory of justice that is based on a very specific treatment of the notion of "fairness." His unspoken intent here is to develop a rationale for modern liberalism, built on social contract theory, that is entirely distinct from -- and sometimes opposed to -- the arguments for liberalism used in the past (everything from classical utilitarianism to standard social contract theory to socialism). In so doing, he puts liberalism on much firmer intellectual footing. A strong case can be made that John Rawls is the preeminent philosopher of modern liberalism, and by extension, the foundational thinker for some of the more thoughtful elements of the Democratic Party.

What is "justice-as-fairness"? To start with, Rawls develops his philosophy using a device -- almost a thought experiment -- the "Original Position." From an Original Position, everyone who is (or will be) in born into a given society will work to achieve a consensus in the design of the foundational political principles, structures, and institutions of that society. In short, if we all went back to the drawing board, together, how would we design our government and major economic and social policies?

There's a catch: Everyone in the Original Position must decide on the structure of society from behind a "veil of ignorance." That is, nobody in the Original Position can have any knowledge of what their life prospects will be. Specifically, nobody can know their: (1) social class of origin (income level, religion, family stability, etc.), (2) traits or native endowments (intellect, predisposition to work hard, sex, race, innate talents, etc.), or (3) good or ill fortune over the course of a lifetime (disease, natural disaster, layoffs, etc.).

The intent is force people to think about what kind of society they would construct if they cannot know ahead of time what circumstances they'll be born into, what kind of genetic predispositions they'll have, or what effect good or bad random chance events will have during their life.

In other words, if you know ahead of time that you will be born Paris Hilton, then you're probably less inclined to care about ensuring that the basic structure of society allows for appropriate levels of opportunity for advancement for those at the bottom of the income distribution. If you know you're an heiress ahead of time, you might design society according to the ideals of, say, Ayn Rand libertarianism -- not because you think it's the right and just course for society, but simply because it's convenient for you and your pocketbook.

On the flip side, if you know you're going to be born poor, dimwitted, lazy, and that you'll be wiped out by a hurricane when you're 33 years old, then you're probably not going to care too much about ensuring that functioning markets calibrate the appropriate economic incentives to ensure a productive workforce. If you know all this ahead of time, you might design a society along socialist models -- not because you think it's a just course for society, but because you simply want to collect a sizable weekly check for doing nothing.

After setting up the Original Position, Rawls spends a great deal of time in his writings deriving how individuals in that Position would, in actuality, design the fundamental principles of society. His conclusion is that people would derive two Principles of Justice:

FIRST: Each person has the same claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties, such that this scheme is compatible with the same liberties for everyone.

SECOND: Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: (1) inequities must be mitigated by the availability of positions open to all people under conditions of "fair equality of opportunity"; and (2) they must accord with the "difference principle" such that inequalities are to be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society.

To simplify: The First Principle ensures a system of basic liberties for everyone -- much like those enshrined in several amendments of the Bill of Rights, certain elements of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and similar documents. (Note, providing a inviolable set of minimum rights sets Rawlsian theory apart from classic utilitarianism.) This concept is fairly straightforward.

The Second Principle is more complicated and, in part, more controversial. The basic idea is that people in the Original Position would conclude that economic and social inequalities are permissible, or even desirable, so long as those inequalities meet two conditions. (Note: permitting inequalities is one of the main factors that set Rawlsian thinking apart from socialism.)

The first condition is that there must be equality of opportunity in employment, education, political office, and other important (but not all) areas. None of these areas can be off limits to individuals for non-meritorious reasons (such as racial discrimination, for example). So, inequality is allowable so long as, in part, there is an equal chance for everyone to get ahead. Note that Rawls is not seeking some communist ideal of "equal outcomes." No, instead he is calling only for "equal opportunity."

The second condition society must meet to be in accord with the Second Principle of Justice is that inequalities are permitted to exist, but only to the extent that they are to everyone's benefit. That is, inequality is allowed, but regulated so that those inequalities ultimately work to the advantage not only of the well-off, but also to the advantage of those who are worst-off. (Note: ensuring that inequalities nevertheless serve an overall public good is one of the main factors that set Rawlsian thinking apart from libertarianism.)

Rawls is effectively inverting trickle-down economics -- and doing so a decade before that term became vogue. For example, one could say that the difference principle might be met by imposing higher tax rates on wealthier individuals, to the extent that those tax receipts are redirected toward, say, universal pre-Kindergarten for low-income schools or medical care for the disadvantaged. In this hypothetical, the higher inequality prevalent in society (which allowed the wealthy to become wealthier in the first place) nonetheless also provides a net advantage to those who are worst-off. Obviously this type of example isn't set forth in Rawls's writings; I'm trying to illustrate the basic idea. In his books, Rawls articulates a more precise mathematical conception based on Pareto optimality.

One of Rawls's most crucial insights is his articulation that the difference principle is justifiable because it rests on the intuition that inequality shouldn't allowed to exist simply because certain people are luckier or smarter or better looking than others. A person does not "morally deserve" their inborn talents or their social class of birth or the vagaries of random chance in life. Therefore, no one is entitled to ALL the benefits these factors could provide. As a consequence, everyone in society is permitted to benefit from, at least at a minimum level, the random good luck of anyone blessed with these "excess benefits" from birth class or genes or whatever. Fairness.

(Note that Rawls takes pains to explain that the First Principle (equal basic liberties) is prior to the Second Principle, such that if there is a conflict regarding a given public policy, the First Principle wins. Basic liberties trump the difference principle.)

Obviously there is much more to justice-as-fairness, but that's the gist. The essential point to ensure the appropriate blend of -- or trade-off between -- equality and liberty. The goal is to ensure that there is an absolute minimum, a "floor" below which nobody in our society is allowed to fall resulting from bad luck, bad circumstances of birth, etc. -- but after ensuring that minimum requirement, everyone in society has the maximum freedom to work to advance oneself (based on merit, luck, etc.).

In response to the original THEORY, those on the political right objected to the difference principle, and other elements of justice-as-fairness, mostly on libertarian grounds. Some on the left, such as Amartya Sen, who otherwise agreed with Rawls that reliance on a purely utilitarian outlook is bankrupt, nonetheless believed that justice-is-fairness is too inflexible and that Rawls overlooked the need to better account for an individual's basic capabilities. Moving further left, Marxists faulted Rawls's theory for being compatible (indeed, even requiring) the protection of property rights and preservation of a market economy. Finally, some observers questioned the use of the Original Position as entirely unrealistic from a practical standpoint.

In this RESTATEMENT, Rawls meets and overcomes most of these objections. Many of the arguments are subtle, and to do justice to them, I recommend that you up this short (but dense) book.

I mentioned above that this book is a bit exhausting. It's only 200 pages but feels like twice that. The prose is dense and at times subtle -- you have to be careful you didn't just gloss over a critically important concept. But, in the end, this book is exhausting in a positive way, like a good workout. You will be smarter for having read it.

In fact, it's unfortunate that Rawls is not required reading for most, if not all, social science curricula. I believe even after setting aside my own political bias and conviction that our world would be an immeasurably better place if more people delved into a copy of John Rawls's works, and tossed their copy of ATLAS SHRUGGED into the ash bin of history to which it belongs.

A final note: I recall that, while lugging around my copy of A THEORY OF JUSTICE while reading it ten years ago, people's responses were hilarious. At least a half-dozen times, some complete stranger noticed the title under my arm and said something like, "Hey, are you in law school?" or "Dude, I read that in law school!" or "I'm in a criminal justice program too." It was troubling that so many people were so insufficiently competent in their own professions to be unaware that A THEORY OF JUSTICE has nothing to do with law, courts, or police work. The only time I received more commentary from complete strangers about a book was when reading Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (which, if you've seen it, has a rather unsettling front cover). So, be forewarned: if you pick up the THEORY, be prepared for random people to notice the term "justice" on the cover of a thick book and assume you're a part-time student at some C.S.I. training program at ITT Tech.

[Tristan · Rating 4 out of 5]

A troubling book to rank. In terms of effort it's hard to dock Rawls anywhere along the way. Rawls is one of the rare political theorists who makes an honest effort to develop a comprehensive theory of (liberal) society and for that he certainly deserves commendation. This book was his last formulation of his justice as fairness theory and he takes the time to respond to his critics which is again worth admiring. If you are going to read Rawls, this is the most current and relevant.

That being said, Rawls has been attacked from every concievable position, which is probably to be expected considering his desire for compleatness in his theory. There is a lot of value here, though I'd recommend reading with company to help parse out the practical application of this largely abstract work. Even if you disagree with Rawls, some ideas such as the difference principle and the original position (which is an interesting update of the state of nature of Hobbes and Co.) are important to know and can be stimulating, particularly when applied in ways that Rawls himself may not have considered.

If you make it through this I recommand Romand Coles' Beyond Gated Politics, at least the sections that pertain to Rawls. Coles has an interesting critique of why Rawls may not present an ideal that is actually helpful to real political goals.

A caveat: the professor who taught this book once told me that Rawls couldn't write his way out of a paper bag. I'm inclined to be a little more charitable, but a page-turner this is not (even when considered against other political philosophy). Writes like an economist is another comment I've heard, definitely not as a compliment.

[Jpcueva · Rating 5 out of 5]

A must for lawyers, philosophers, judges, thinkers.

[Sebastian · Rating 3 out of 5]

Rawls argues against utilitarianism, not against the consequences, but against the basis it provides for those consequences. In this paper he proposes a society that re-evaluates its institutions, and questions whether they are in the principles of all, given that all that take part are not beholden to one another.

Although unlike our society today, Rawls' provides us a valuable lens with which to view the world we are a part of.

[Matthias · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very important point Rawls makes in this book is the inability of the welfare state to realize his two principles of justice; he advocates instead for a property-owning democracy. This point was touched briefly in A Theory of Justice too, and here isn't discussed as in-depth as it should have deserved, but it's discussed and stated explicitly nonetheless.
The vast majority of both admirers and critics of Rawls seem to completely ignore this important and integral part of his theory.

---

"Let us distinguish five kinds of regime viewed as social systems, complete with their political, economic, and social institutions: (a) laissez-faire capitalism; (b) welfare-state capitalism; (c) state socialism with a command economy; (d) property-owning democracy; and finally, (e) liberal (democratic) socialism.
Regarding any regime four questions naturally arise. One is the question of right: that is, whether its institutions are right and just. Another is the question of design: that is, whether a regime's institutions can be effectively designed to realize its declared aims and objectives. This implies a third question: whether citizens, in view of their likely interests and ends as shaped by the regime's basic structure, can be relied on to comply with just institutions and the rules that apply to them in their various offices and positions. The problem of corruption is an aspect of this. Finally, there is the question of competence: whether the tasks assigned to offices and positions would prove simply too difficult for those likely to hold them.
What we would like, of course, are just and effectively designed basic institutions that effectively encourage aims and interests necessary to sustain them. Beyond this, persons should not confront tasks that are too difficult for them or that exceed their powers. Arrangements should be fully workable, or practicable. Much conservative thought has focused on the last three questions mentionsed above, criticizing the ineffectiveness of the so-called welfare state and its tendencies toward waste and corruption. But here we focus largely on the first question of right and justice, leaving the others aside.

Both a property-owning democracy and a liberal socialist regime set up a constitutional framework for democratic politics, guarantee the basic liberties with the fair value of the political liberties and fair equality of opportunity, and regulate economic and social inequalities by a principle of mutuality, if not by the difference principle.

One major difference is this: the background institutions of property-owning democracy work to disperse the ownership of wealth and capital, and thus to prevent a small part of society from controlling the economy, and indirectly, political life as well. By contrast, welfare-state capitalism permits a small class to have a near monopoly of the means of production.

In property-owning democracy, ... the aim is to realize in the basic institutions the idea of society as a fair system of cooperation between citizens regarded as free and equal. To do this, those institutions must, from the outset, put in the hands of citizens generally, and not only of a few, sufficient productive means for them to be fully cooperating members of society on a footing of equality."

[N · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reviewing this is like leaving a tripadvisor review for the pyramids of Giza, just because one can doesn’t mean one must. The book could use more pictures though, maybe a joke here or there.

Notes
Fundamental Q: reasonable and rational justice that specifies fair terms of cooperation between free and equal citizens over multiple generations

4 aims of political philosophy: a) practical (resolve conflict, promote order), b) orientation (a group purpose giving individuals a sense of direction over and above personal aims), c) reconciliation (Hegel’s idea of Versohnung, a community exists only if reconciled, not resigned, to the state of their present institutions as based on rational, good, foundations, however unjust they might have turned out. Nation isn’t an association, since I haven’t chosen to associate, but a system of cooperation which I freely choose to undertake), d) Utopian possibility.

Social cooperation
Coop as opposed to coordination (under orders) requires reciprocity/mutuality where we agree on certain common terms, with a view to our own rational advantage.

Reasonable vs Rational (rational maximization can be unreasonable, ie asymmetric like in ultimatum game)

Well-ordered society: 1) effectively regulated by a public conception of justice, 2) accepted by all. Given pluralism, comprehensive doctrine accepted by all is impossible, but conception of justice is possible.

Free Citizen: capable of having own conception of moral and good. Pursue individual goals.

Our intuition of justice clashes with others. Our own judgment varies across time. Wide reflective equilibrium: consider all systems of justice, arrive at the one that requires least revisions to bring various judgments in line. Full reflective equilibrium when everyone does the same, in agreement with one another

2 principles of justice: a) Basic rights/liberties, b) Social/Economic Inequality: Tolerated under conditions of equality of opportunity and difference principle (greatest absolute benefit to most disadvantaged). 1st trumps 2nd.

These apply at different stages (stage 1: veil of ignorance, 2: constitution, 3: legislation 4: executive/judiciary), principle 1 is more urgent, more easily testable, more easily agreeable.

When govt and opposition agree on constitutional essentials, govt is legitimate and opposition is loyal. Secure constitutional regime.

3 contingencies in life-prospect: class of origin, endowments (and ability to develop them), and good/bad luck.

5 basic goods based on which ‘most disadvantaged’ is identified: basic rights, freedom of movement, holding office and authority, income, self-worth.

Equal Justice Curve: x-axis has more-advantaged group MAG endowments, y-axis has less-advantaged. Line is not 45 (MAG grows faster). Society aims to move along this curve until slope=0, aftr which slope is -ve, so represents lower justice level. (But like ultimatum game, we don’t simply maximize payoffs, we also care about fairness, so OP cannot be too far from the 45d line)

Maximin: choose option that maximizes worst case, eliminating all other options where the guaranteeable level is intolerable. Doesn’t consider probabilities.

Publicity (everyone has mutual understanding of principles of justice, how institutions serve them, what was underlying system of reason by which we arrived here, and agree that justice as fairness is good), Reciprocity (difference principle: choose equal endowments, but find reason to deviate from perfect equality, if you gaining more than me actually leaves me better off than before), and Stability.

Inequality: servility/arrogance created out of nothing.

5 regimes: laissez-faire capitalism, welfare capitalism, property-owning democracy, state socialism, democratic socialism.

Regime Qs: a) is it just? b) can it be practically designed? c) Will flawed humans corrupt it? d) Is it beyond our competence?

Welfare capitalism may guarantee social minimum, but not interested in increasing equality of ownership/power which remains concentrated and then redistributed as required. Fails on reciprocity.

Lack of background justice, income inequality is the cause (not effect) of an underclass permanently dependent on welfare.

Property-owning democracy is different, allows private property, but prevents monopoly of small class on means of production. Don’t redistribute at end of period, instead redistribute assets and human capital at beginning of each period, while ensuring equality of opportunity.

Just/Right and Good are complementary, not same. Just draws the line. Good shows the point.

4 ways to decide what is Good: a) Rationality b) Needs (not desires/aims/preferences) c) Permissible/Compatible with principles of justice d) Political virtue ie those moral character required in citizen to secure just society over long term

Civic Humanism, a form of Aristotelianism: We are political creatures self-actualized by active participation in political life. Sole human good, like Athens/Florence.

Classical Republicanism, requires active participation by citizens in order to protect liberties. If we retreat from political duty, power will fall into hands of power-hungry, petty, narrow-agenda’d

Constitutional Regime based on fundamental liberties, ie courts place a limit on legislation. Procedural democracy has no limits, swayed entirely by plurality/majority.

Difference between equal liberties (right to vote for instance) and their worth (lobbying by influential makes poor vote count less) makes unequal societies have equality of liberties that is merely formal. Justice as Fairness: only for equal liberties, ensure equal worth as well.

Must not ensure equal worth for all liberties (for instance, income), irrational (inefficient allocation of wealth instead of comparative advantage) and socially divisive (to each according to his need, some need more).

State cannot favor any comprehensive doctrine (religion) that is at odds with fundamental principles of justice (requires discrimination). But some doctrines will naturally die out even without favor/disfavor of state. Isaiah Berlin: no social world without loss.

But permissible ways of life (comprehensive doctrines compatible with principles of justice) must have fair opportunity to maintain themselves and gain adherents over generations. Political liberalism sets background justice under conditions of reasonable pluralism so different conception of Good can be pursued.

From each according to ability, to each according to need: Head tax on natural endowment to equalize life prospects? a) accurate correlate between life-success and any particular ‘endowment’? b) at what age? c) I will simply conceal endowment until that age?

Stability: If principles of justice creates society that instills in citizens a sense of justice (overpowering envy, dominance, spite etc), then it is self-supporting and stable.

[Deniz · Rating 5 out of 5]

One has to realize that this book is the closure of Rawls' theory of justice. It consists of the amalgamation of ideas that are in A Theory of Justice, Political Liberalism and Law of Peoples. Rawls is quite the hardworking philosopher in that he acknowledges any valuable form of opposition and offers his answers even in a book that's scope is this limited. The book brims with knowledge. You will see him try to reason with many ideas of past and contemporary philosophers. My only issue with Rawls' theory and this book in general is that it is not radical enough, especially when it comes to cosmopolitanism even though he had built the theoretical foundation necessary to achieve such a world-state.

[Jim Robles · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very timely read. We have failed to achieve "Justice as Fairness" and now we get Mr. Sanders and Mr. Trump. Our lack of civility has consumed far too much of our (p. 118) political capital, and we fail the (p. 128) "affirm" test. (See p. 196)

Professor Rawls has (p. 139 - 140) put a significant dent in my enthusiasm for a significant negative income tax. Meaningful education for all would be a much better solution, if we can find our way to it.

Of course however poorly we are doing with the difference principle, Baby Boomer failure to come close to the principle of just saving is far greater.

59.2, on p. 197, gives agreat, if unintentional, explanation of how immigrants are assimilated.

Professor Rawls' system of labeling makes this fine work much more difficult to follow than seems necessary. Concepts, conditions, etc. are consistently numbered where descriptive labels would make the it much easier to follow.

The twenty-first book I have finished this year.

p. 5. The most fundamental idea in this conception of justice is the idea of society as a fair system of social cooperation over time from one generation to the next (. . . ).

We are no longer a (p. 9) well-ordered society. It has broken down.

p. 10. Our focus is almost entirely on the basic structure as the subject of political and social justice.

Six fundamental ideas on p. 14.

p. 27. For justice as fairness to succeed, it must be acceptable, not only to our own considered convictions, but also for those of others, and this at all levels of generality in more or less wide and general reflective equilibrium (. . . .).

p. 42. &13 Two Principles of Justice

p. 44. A free market system must be set within a framework of political and legal institutions that adjust the long-run trend of economic forces so as to prevent excessive concentration of property and wealth, especially those likely to lead to political domination. Society must also establish, among other things, equal opportunity of education for all regardless of family income (. . . ).

What could be more timely. The failure of the Left and the Right to make the "grand bargain" has created both Mr. Trump and Mr. Sanders.

p. 47. Nor can we justify a selective service act that grants educational deferments . . . .

p. 50. &14 The Problem of Distributive Justice

p. 56. So whether we are hopeful and optimistic about our future, or resigned and apathetic, depends both on the inequalities associated with our social position and on the public principles of justice not merely professes but more or less effectively uses to regulate the institutions of background justice.

p. 67 - 68. (ii) In reply to (b): given the same assumptions as in (i), there surely exists some instutional device to transfer at least part of the large return of the more advantaged to the less advantaged, by taxation say, to reduce their return beyond the maximum of the OP curve.

Thus the need for a significant negative income tax.

p. 75. The idea of entitlement presupposes, as do ideas of (moral) desert, a deliberate effort of will, or acts deliberately done. As such they provide a basis of legitimate expectations.

Hence the rage and the rise of Mr. Trump. Once a high school degree was enough: now it is more like a commitment to life-long-learning. Over the course of people's lives, things changed.

p. 84. These include what we may call the objective circumstances of moderate scarcity and the necessity of social cooperation for all to have a decent standard of life.

See "Underdevelopment is a State of Mind."

p.89. Thus the parties must reconsider the principles agreed to and examine whether, on balance, other principles should be adopted.

How timely for the 2016 elections.

p. 112. The proposed criterion is this: the basic liberties and their priority are to guarantee equally for all citizens the social conditions essential for the adequate development and the full and informed exercise of their two moral powers in what we have referred to as the the two fundamental cases (. . .).

p. 114. Incitement to imminent and lawless use of force, whatever the significance of the speaker's overall political views, are too disruptive of democratic political procedures to be permitted by the rules of order of public discussion.

p. 123. A political conception of justice must take into account the requirements of social organization and economic efficiency. The parties would accept inequalities in income and wealth when these work effectively to improve everyone's situation starting from equal division.

p.159. The principle of just savings holds between generations, while the difference principle of difference holds within generations.

p. 166. Mill held that the family in his day was a school for male despotism:

p. 167. More generally, since property - owning democracy aims for full equality of women, it must include arrangements to achieve that.

p. 193. This suggests that many if not most citizens come to affirm the public political conception without seeing any particular connection, one way or the other, between it and their other views.

This seems unthoughtful, in some cases untrue.

[Micah · Rating 3 out of 5]

yet ANOTHER sign that the modern university is bloated and academics cannot think of anything new to write about. Philosophers have been talking about ""justice"" and what it is since at least PLato. LEANR TO ADDRESS NEW TOPICS AND BE RELEVANT !! and stop with "restatements"!

[Rita · Rating 3 out of 5]

When that one guy said Rawls reads like translated German...yeah.

[Keelan · Rating 2 out of 5]

Has some interesting points but is mostly ephemeral. Additionally, it is something of a chore to read due to the authors laborious writing style. Gave me a few things to think about, but these weren't particularly groundbreaking and, given the vintage of this book I was expecting more.

[Rebecca Larios-Jones · Rating 4 out of 5]

great ideas just the guy can’t write

[Pierre E. Loignon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Rawls ne nous fait pas languir. Dans sa préface, il nous dit d’emblée que les modifications qu’il apporte ici à sa théorie de la justice « sont de trois ordres : il y a d’abord des changements de formulation et de contenu des deux principes de justice dont la justice comme équité fait usage; il y a ensuite des modifications de la manière d’organiser l’argumentation en faveur de ces principes à partir de la position originelle; on trouve enfin des changements qui portent sur la façon dont la justice comme équité doit être comprise, à savoir comme une conception politique de la justice plutôt que comme une partie d’une doctrine morale englobante. » (13)
Ceci dit, contrairement à ce qu’on pourrait s’attendre, “La justice comme équité” ne se limite pas au contenu de sa “Théorie de la Justice”, mais reprend aussi plusieurs points abordés dans son “Libéralisme politique”, dont sa notion de “pluralisme raisonnable” face au multiculturalisme et son principe de “stabilité pour les bonnes raisons” face à la volonté de changement indéfini de certains penseurs de gauche. Il s’agit donc non seulement d’apporter des modifications permettent de répondre à plusieurs questions et critiques qu’a suscitées son chef d’oeuvre de la pensée politique, mais d’une tentative pour proposer une théorie de la justice permettant d’englober synthétiquement l’ensemble des principes exposés dans ses deux principaux ouvrages.
Étant plutôt familier avec Rawls, j’ai grandement apprécié ce livre et la tentative qu’il fait pour réunir ses idées. Par contre, je ne recommanderais pas ce livre à quelqu’un qui chercherait à s’initier à la pensée de Rawls car plusieurs points exposés dans les ouvrages précédents sont ici abordés d’une manière trop succincte pour ne pas paraître difficile aux néophytes rawlsiens.
Pour s'initier à Rawls et à l'ensemble de la philosophie politique du XXe siècle, rien ne vaudra jamais mieux que "La théorie de la Justice".

[Mark Gowan · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of the most ubiquitous complaints against Rawls' book that I get is that it is "not realistic", but Rawls points this out. Based on what he calls a "veil of ignorance", Justice as fairness considers a society in which its individuals are unable to consider their own personal interests in making laws that will apply to society as a whole. Rawls points out early on that this is simply a hypothetical condition which should be considered if we are to create just laws for society.

Typically, Rawls' book is used in direct dichotomy to R. Nozick's book Anarchy, State, and Utopia in part because of Nozick's discussion of Rawls' second theory of justice (there are two).

This is a philosophy book, but it is written in a readable style. As my comment on Nozick's book, this is a good read to have under one's belt before getting into political "discussions" with those so-called Libertarian and even Republican pundits.

[Elaine · Rating 4 out of 5]

My CC professor says that John Rawls is the grand daddy of political philosophy.

Rawls's proposal for constructing a fair social contract, his "original position," makes a lot of sense. Also, his suggestion that we don't deserve our "native endowments"—values like hard work and motivation—because they are given to us out of luck (just as we have no say over the family we are born into) is MIND-BOGGLING. He uses this to support the argument that although there can and should exist economic inequalities, the industrious millionaire is no more deserving of his lot than the bum on the street. I was at first somewhat outraged by this suggestion (like a true libertarian), but now I think he has a valid angle.

I am also pleased to proffer the following analogy (and look forward to tossing it around at um, future cocktail parties):

I am to John Rawls as Alexander the Great is to Socrates.

[Jared Rosamilia · Rating 5 out of 5]

Beautiful articulation of the principles of justice that arise from the Original Position
Clear argument both against Utilitarianism outright & against Utilitarianism in place of the Difference Principle
I am particularly fond of viewing the distribution of native endowments as a social good to which there is no individual moral desert.

Question remain re:
1.) The content of the index of primary goods -- how exactly should we answer Mankiw's critique regarding organ donation etc?
2.) How these principles are practicable within certain institutional arrangements -- to what degree do Marxist critiques of the capitalist state accurately counter Rawls' "property-owning democracy"? How can we prevent the inequalities allowed by the Difference Principle from resulting in the instability of the system? How do we institutionally guarantee the "fair value" of political liberties?

[Arbitrista · Rating 5 out of 5]

There are some elements of Rawls' theory I'm not entirely comfortable with and/or persuaded by, but there is no question that he is a political philosopher of the first rank. I can't tell you how many times I've read his work, developed a possible objection ("Hey, what about...?") that he has already anticipated and rebutted ("Oh."). It's frustrating how misunderstood his work is by people who refuse to read carefully, but I'd encourage everyone interested in political theory to take a first, second, and third look at this work. You won't be disappointed.

[Trice · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting take on morality and law in society, though his theory at its root denies the possibility of ultimate truth for the sake of pragmatics. My clearest memory (watch out - spoiler up ahead) is of his thought experiment to determine the rules of society, with each (imaginary) participant coming with identities erased so that they would not be able to side with any one group and so we would arrive at fairness for all. I think I wrote at least one paper on my issues with this concept, though it is currently hidden in some dusty boxes in an attic on the other side of the world. :)

[Xiaojie Johan · Rating 5 out of 5]

John Rawls is one of the greatest American philosophers of the last century and possibly the greatest American philosopher of all time. This great book is one of his many books that I've read many many times and there's not a single day where Rawls' theories have not influenced my own perspective on the world as much as this book, ATJ and PL. Highly recommended for anyone who want to visualize and hope to create a better world for all to live in.

[Brandon]

While I might not agree with everything Rawls as to say (original position, anyone?), he is an integral figure in the development of global political philosophy. I'm not too far into this book, but so far it has given me cause to think.

[Alex Robertson · Rating 1 out of 5]

1.5. cool story, bro

[Siv30 · Rating 4 out of 5]

הוצאת ידיעות ספרים / ספרי עליית הגג, 2010, 407 עמודים, מאנגלית: דפי אגם-סגל
כולל ביוגרפיה מאת תומאס פוגי ואחרית דבר מאת יוסי דהאן.

צדק, צדק תרדוף (דברים, ט"ז, כ')

בדצמבר 2010 יצא לאור, בשעה טובה, התרגום הראשון לעברית של התיאוריה שהשפיעה על המחשבה הפוליטית והחברתית ב- 30 שנים האחרונות מאז פרסומה בצורתה המקורית בשנת 1971.

כמו כל תיאוריה פוליטית וכלכלית אחרת שמגיעה אלינו מארה"ב, לקח קצת זמן אבל הינה היא כאן בצורתה המתוקנת והמעודכנת "צדק כהוגנות", הצגה מחודשת הכוללת מענה למבקרים ומקטרגים של התיאוריה המקורית שפירסם רולס בספרו שחולל מהפכה מחשבתית – "Theory of Justice".

אם כן, מהו צדק?

כיצד ניתן להתייחס לטענות של אי צדק חלוקתי שעלו במסגרת הרפורמה במיסוי תגליות הגז? (טענת ה"מגיע לי" מתייחסת לאפשרות עשיית צדק במסגרת חלוקת המשאבים וההון לכלל הציבור ולא לקבוצה קטנה)

וכיצד ניתן להשיג את הצדק במסגרת חברתית הוגנת?

אחד מהכשרים של בני אדם החיים בחברה, היא היכולת המוסרית לחוש צדק, להבין וליישם את עקרונותיו. צדק הוא מושג חמקמק וקשה להגדרה. הקושי בהגדרה מתגבר לנוכח העידן הפוסט מודרניסטי, הרואה בסובייקטיבי חזות הכל. אין אמת אחת, אין טוב אחד ומה שיכול להיתפס כצודק עבורי, יכול להיתפס כלא צודק עבור אחר.

שאלת הצדק העסיקה דורות של הוגים מדיספלינות פילוסופיות וסוציולוגיות, שהבולט בינהם, זה שחולל מהפך חשיבתי והשפיע על תחומי חשיבה רבים במאה ה- 20, הוא ג'ון בורדלי רולס.

חיים ראויים

"כיצד יכולתי להתפלל ולבקש מאלוהים ��יעזור לי, או למשפחתי, או לארצי, או לכל דבר יקר אחר שהיה קרוב לליבי, בעוד שאלוהים לא היה נכון להושיע מיליונים של יהודים מידיו של היטלר?..." (38)

ג'ון בורדלי רולס נולד ב- 21 בפברואר 1921 בבולטימור, השני בחמשת בניהם של וויליאם לי ואנה אבל רולס. רולס גדל במשפחה מבוססת בה שני הוריו גילו עיניין רב בפוליטיקה והיו פעילים פוליטיים בארה"ב של שנות ה- 40.

ג'ון היה קרוב במיוחד לאימו שהנחילה לו את תחושת הצדק בפעילותה למען זכויות נשים. בהשפעתה הוא החל בצעירותו להרהר הירהורים בשאלות של גזע ומעמד. בעיקר חוויותיו מהילדות עוררו אצלו תחושת אי צדק באשר לאפרו אמריקאים ו��הזדמנויות של הלבנים העניים להתפתח ולרכוש חינוך טוב.

בשנת 1939 החל את לימודיו בפרינסטון והושפע מאד מאחד המורים הראשונים שלו נורמן מאלקולם. בסמסטר אביב של 1942 לקח רולס קורס נוסף עם מאלקולם שעסק בנושא הרוע האנושי. הקורס הצית אצלו עיניין רדום שהיה לו בדת והוביל אותו לכתיבת התזה שלו בנושא.

בינואר 1943 סיים רולס את לימודי ה- BAשלו בפילוסופיה בהצטיינות והתגייס לצבא. במהלך שירותו התנסויותיו במלחמה נטלו ממנו את אמונתו בנצרות האורתודוכסית. במאמר קצר שפורסם במלואו רק בשנת 2009, הוא כותב: "כדי לפרש את ההיסטוריה כמבטאת את רצון האלוהים, על רצון האלוהים להיות הולם את מושגי הצדק הבסיסיים ביותר כפי שאלה מוכרים לנו. הרי מה עוד יכול הצדק הבסיסי ביותר להיות?..."(39)

ב- 1946 חזר לפרינסון ובמהלך שנת 50 סיים לכתוב את עבודת הדוקטורט שלו.

בעשור שבין 1962 – 1971 השלים רולס את עבודתו הגדולה והמהפכנית "A Theory of Justice". שנות השישים נחשבות לשנים סוערות מבחינה פוליטית בארה"ב. שנות ה- 60 המאוחרות עמדו בסימן מלחמת ויאטנם, מלחמה שרולס האמין שאינה צודקת. שנים אלה הותירו רישומן בתיאוריה שלו שנכתבה באותה התקופה.

אי אפשר להפריז בחשיבות הגותו של רולס. "A Theory of Justice" חולל מהפך בדיון הפילוסופי פוליטי. גם לאחר פירסום התיאוריה המשיך רולס בעבודתו הפוריה ובמשך למעלה מ-50 שנות פעילותו, הוא יצר תיאוריה פוליטית מקיפה שהשפיעה לא רק על התחום הפילוסופי פוליטי אלא גם על תחומים נוספים: משפטים, מדעי המדינה וכלכלה.

תיאוריה של צדק תורגמה ל- 27 שפות ונמכרה במאות אלפי עותקים. אלפי מאמרי בעד ונגד נכתבו על התיאוריה ומרכזיותה באה לידי ביטוי באמירתו של נוזיק (מתנגדו הגדול של רולס): "קשה למצוא בתקופה זו טקסט פוליטי תיאורטי העוסק בשאלות של צדק, שאינו מתייחס לתיאוריית הצדק של רולס" (מתוך אחרית הדבר , עמ' 363).

"צדק כהוגנות", הוא ניסיון לניסוח מחדש, ניסוח מדוייק של רעיונותיו לאור השינויים הרבים שעברה התיאוריה מאז פירסומה ב- 1971.

זוהי התיאוריה מעודכנת והמותאמת לשינויים הפוליטיים והיא מתמודדת עם רוח הזמן תוך שהיא מהוות גם מענה למתנגדיו ולמבקריו.

ניסוי מחשבתי

"דבר שגור הוא בפילוסופיה המוסרית, לדרוש שעקרונות ראשוניים יהיו כלליים ואוניברסליים. עקרונות הם כלליים כאשר ניתן לנסחם ללא שימוש בשמות פרטיים או בתיאורים מיידעים מוסווים. הם אוניברסליים כאשר ניתן להחילם על כל אחד מנשאי המוסר, ובמקרה שלנו על כל אחד מן האזרחים בחברה שבה מדובר, בלי שהדבר יהיה כרוך בחוסר עקביות או בחוסר לכידות המביס את עצמו." (191)

בני אדם נולדים לתוך חברה שכבר מוסדרת על ידי עקרונות צדק כאלה ואחרים. מתי, כיצד ואיך התקבלו אותם עקרונות? לשם כך מאמץ רולס את המצב המקורי בו אנשים נמצאים מאחורי "מסך בערות" היפותטי וא-היסטורי.

"מסך הבערות" מאפשר לרולס לבחון את ההתנהגות החברתית והפוליטית של האנשים כשהם טבולה רסה, נקיים מדעות קדומות על גזע, השתייכות, מין, נסיבות ומקרים מיוחדים.

חמושים ברציונליות ובהיותם חופשיים ושווים כשיוסר "סמך הבערות" נגלה, מנימוקים שונים, כי אותם אנשים בחרו ב"צדק כהוגנות" כעקרונות צדק המסדירים את הפעילות החברתית.

בכלל זה, יאמצו האנשים מאחורי מסך הבערות את "עיקרון ההפרשים" כעיקרון צדק על פיו יחולקו הטובין (על כלל משמעויותיהם הנגזרות כולל חרויות, כבוד, עושר, קניין, זכויות ועוד) בחברה כך שהפערים אם קיימים יתרמו באופן אפקטיבי ביותר לתועלתם של הנחשלים ביותר ללא קשר לפערים בהכנסה וברווחים. רוצה לאמר, בתנאים שבהם למשתתפים החברתיים אין מושג קלוש לגבי העולם החיצוני ותנאיו, היותנו רציונליים (מחשבים חישובים של רווח והפסד), חוש הצדק החברתי והרצון לשמר את האיזון כך שלא יופר במערכת, יוביל אותנו לפעול כך שהנשכרים ביותר יהיו הנחשלים ביותר חברתית.

צדק

"בתולדות המחשבה הדמוקרטית ניתן מקום בולט לשני רעיונות נוגדים של החברה: האחד הוא רעיון החברה כמערכת הוגנת של שיתוף פעולה חברתי בין אזרחים הנחשבים לחופשיים ושווים; האחר הוא רעיון החברה כמערכת חברתית המאורגנת כך שתפיק את מרב האושר, המחושב כסכום תועלותיהם של כל בני החברה, כאשר אותו האושר הוא אושר מלא, המאופיין ע"י דוקטרינה מקפת..." (205)

בלב המוטיבציה של התיאוריה הרולסיאנית, צדק כהוגנות, עומדת ההתמודדות עם התועלתנות כתפיסה פוליטית חלופית הגורסת כי כלל המעשים של המדינה ואזרחיה מכוונים להגדלת התועלת הכללית.

במשך מאות של הגות פוליטית נעשו ניסיונות להצדיק את קיום המדינה, את סמכותה ואת חובתם של האזרחים לציית לכפייה של חוקיה. תיאוריות פילוסופיות פוליטיות שעוסקות בהסכמה של בני האדם לקבל על עצמם את מרות מוסדות השילטון, מכונות תיאוריות אמנה חברתית. בין ההוגים שגיבשו תיאוריות אמנה, ניתן למנות את הובס, רוסו וג'ון לוק.

בשלב הראשון, רולס עוסק בחברה הדמוקרטית על מוסדותיה הפוליטיים והחברתיים, שכן לטענתו רק בחברה כזו יכולים להתקיים תנאים של צדק חברתי.

אם כן, הצדק בחברה עומד על שני עקרונות :

על העיקרון כי לכל אדם הזכות הבלתי ניתנת לעירעור לתבוע חירויות יסוד שוות המתיישבות עם מערכת שלמה של חירויות לכל האחרים. הצדק הרולסיאני נשען על זכות מוקנית לקשת רחבה של חירויות המבטיחות הפעלתם של שני כשרים מוסריים: הכושר לחוש צדק, כלומר היכולת להבין וליישם את עקרונות הצדק הפוליטי. והיכולת לתפוס טוב, לתקן את התפיסה ולקדם אותה באורח רציונלי.

ועל העיקרון כי פערים חברתיים וכלכליים ניתנים להצדקה בשני תנאים: בתנאי של שיוויון הזדמנויות הוגן ובתנאי שבו אי שוויון כלכלי וחברתי יפעל לטובת בני החברה שהם "הנחשלים ביותר" (מכונה גם עיקרון הפער)

תפקידה של החברה לתקן פגמים שנופלים בשוויון הזדמנויות פורמלי. קרי על מנת שהחברה תהיה צודקת לא רק שיש לאפשר שוויון הזדמנויות אלא שלכול החברים בקבוצה יהיה סיכוי הוגן להשיגם תוך כדי כך שהחברה חייבת להנהיג הזדמנויות חינוך שוות לכולם.

בהציבו את העיקרון הראשון בקדימות על פני השני, רולס שולל פעולות המרה בין זכויות וחירויות המוקנות ע"י העיקרון הראשון לבין תועלות חברתיות וכלכליות.

כך שחברה צודקת אליבא רולס, מחוייבת בנקיטת צעדים אופרטיביים ולא רק רעיוניים או עיוניים. או במילים אחרות על הצדק להיעשות ולהראות.

כל זה טוב ויפה, אולם, כשאני מביטה סביבי אני בספק אם העקרונות הרולסיאנים פועלים במציאות הקיימת או איי פעם התקיימו והאם קיימת חברה שבה אפשרי לפעול במסגרת הנחות אלו?

מדינה

"...במדינה דמוקרטית מודרנית החירויות השוות הן, הלכה למעשה, פורמליות בלבד? אף שנדמה - כך ממשיכה הביקורת- כי זכויות וחירויות היסוד של האזרחים שוות באופן תקף, שהרי לכולם הזכות להצביע, הזכות להתמודד על משרות פוליטיות ולהשתתף בפוליטיקה המפלגתית, וכן הלאה, הנה הפערים החברתיים והכלכליים במוסדות הרקע הם בדרך כלל כה גדולים , כך שהעשירים יותר ובעלי המעמד הגבוה שולטים בדרך כלל בחיים הפוליטיים, ומחוקקים חוקים וקווי מדיניות חברתיים המקדמים את האינטרסים האישיים שלהם" (282 - 283)

לאחר שגיבש את תפיסת הצדק פועל רולס לדיון בהרחבה בשאלות של נאותות הצדק במשטרים השונים. רולס מציג חמישה סוגי משטרים :

קפיטליזם נוסח לז אפייר (Laissez - fair), שמוכר לנו כקפיטליזם חזירי, הדוגל באי התערבות של המדינה (או מדוייק יותר אי התערבות של המדינה כשהדברים נוגעים לאזרח הקטן). רולס טוען שהסדריו הבסיסיים של משטר זה מבטיחים שיוויון פורמלי בלבד כי הם מתבססים על ערכים כמו יעילות וצמיחה כלכלית שמבטיחות מינימום הכרחי בלבד.

מדינת רווחה קפיטליסטית . גם במקרה זה רולס טוען שההסדרים של משטר זה גם לא מקדמים את עקרונות הצדק של "צדק כהוגנות" כי הוא מתיר פערים נרחבים מאוד בבעלות על קיניין וכך השליטה בכלכלה ובחלק מהחיים הפוליטיים נותרת בידים מצומצמות. כתוצאה מכך במצב של פערים חברתיים וכלכליים גדולים, עלול להתפתח במשטר מסוג זה תת מעמד מיואש ומדוכא הנסמך על העברות רווחה ובכך מעמד שלם לא משתתף בחיים הפוליטיים.

סוציאליזם. נשלל בשל ריכוזיות השליטה בכלכלה והפוליטיקה.

למעשה רק שני משטרים מבטיחים מימוש של הערך ההוגן של חירויות פוליטיות ומבטיחות שיוויון הזדמנויות הוגן: דמוקרטיה של בעליי יניין ומשטר ליברלי סוציאליסטי. ההבדל בינהם נעוץ בכך שבדמוקרטיה של בעלי קיניין, המוסדות החברתיים והפוליטיים פועלים כדי לבזר את הבעלות על הרכוש וההון ובכך למנוע מחלק קטן בחברה להשתלט על הכלכלה, ובעקיפין גם על החיים הפוליטיים. נראה לכם כמו משהו שנדרש במדינה שלנו בדחיפות?

רולס מציע הסדרים כמו מימון ציבורי לבחירות והגבלות על תרומות לתעמולת בחירות, הבטחת יתר שיוויון בגישה לכלי התקשורת הציבוריים ותקנות מסויימות בנוגע לחופש הדיבור והעיתונות. רולס מודע להתנגשות בין חירויות היסוד אולם חירויות אלה אינן מוחלטות מהחירויות הפוליטיות ולערובה לערכן ההוגן.

סיום

"בחברה מוסדרת היטב, תפיסת הצדק הציבורית מספקת איפוא נקודת מבט מוכרת באופן הדדי, שממנה האזרחים יכולים להפנות את תביעותיהם לנאותות פוליטית כלפי מוסדותיהם הפוליטיים, או אף להכריע בין תביעותיהם השונות..." (81)

במשך השנים מאז פירסומה של התיאוריה, בשנת 1971, נכתבו תילי תילים של מסמכים ופרשנויות על התיאוריה. ביקורות רבות ניתכו על התיאוריה הרולסיאנית ובמהלך הספר רולס מתייחס אליהן, תוך תיקון התיאוריה וכיוונונה. ניתן לקרוא על הביקורות לתיאוריה של רולס והתיאוריות המתחרות שצמחו לה במסמך שנמצא בקישור הזה.

למרות הביקורות, כבודה של התיאוריה מונח במקומה בהעלאת שאלות וסוגיות של שיוויון, אחריות וגמול ראויים בחברה. לא מדובר בצדק שיוויוני, אלא בצדק שמתחשב במצבם ההתחלתי של השחקנים ונועד לתקן את מצבם כך שהתוצאה תהיה שיוויונית.

הוא מעלה מחשבות על המבנה החברתי, הכלכלי והפוליטי הישראלי או כפי שיהודה מלצר (עורך סידרת פילוסופיה בהוצאת ידיעות ספרים) התבטא באחד הראיונות איתו:

"הדבר האחד שקל לזכור מכל תורתו הוא שהעולם מלא אי שוויון, וכל מה שביכולתנו ובחובתנו לעשות הוא לסדר את החוקים כך שכל אי שוויון יהיה מוצדק בתנאי שיביא לשיפור מצבם של הדפוקים ביותר. כלומר, ההפך הגמור ממה שאופייני בישראל: מישהו חזק - כל הכבוד, בוא נסדר שיהיה יותר חזק, ונסגוד לו."

הספר לא פשוט לקריאה, קראתי אותו במשך שבועות, בעיקר בלב התיאוריה כשרולס מגיע לטיעונים על מסך הבערות או על עיקרון ההפרשים. אולם, גם אם התיאוריה לא מספקת פתרון כולל וישים, וגם אם הקריאה וההבנה קשה, רולס מספק לקורא תובנות על צדק חברתי והצורה שבה הוא אמור להראות.

מומלץ לקריאה בתקווה שהספר והוצאתו תעורר דיון ציבורי ופוליטי נרחב בשאלת הצדק בחברה הישראלית והאופן שבו ניתן להגיע לאיזון בין חלקי החברה המתרחקים באופן עיקבי והרסני.

* יש להבחין בין צודק ולא צודק ובין מוסרי ולא מוסרי. צדק לא בהכרח שווה מוסרי. באופן דומה לא כל מה שלא מוסרי הוא לא צודק. כלומר אין סימטריה ישירה בין המושגים. צדק הוא חלק מתיאוריה מוסרית.

[Rita Shaffer · Rating 3 out of 5]

Wow! Talk about challenging yourself as a reader!

[Sienna Swimmer · Rating 3 out of 5]

John Rawls provides a new conception of justice that counteracts some of the major problems with utilitarianism. However, justice as fairness ultimately falls short as a implementable conception of justice.

Rawls argument is as follows:
1) The original position is a useful (hypothetical) thinking tool for determining justice. In it, all parties are under a veil of ignorance, so no one knows who they will be in the real world. Because of this, parties should be accountable and rational (seeking self-interest is rational) in creating a conception of justice that is agreeable to all, regardless of what race or class they might be. All people are treated as equal in an idea called reciprocity. This conception created in the original position must be applied through distributive justice, where the basic structure of society automatically ensured justice as fairness.
2a) The first principle of justice is civil liberties. These include freedom of movement, speech, expression, etc. These are constitutional essentials that ensure significant harm can’t be done to any group. Utilitarianism doesn’t account for these essentials, so those excluded from general utility wouldn’t even have a basic set of rights.
2b) The second principle of justice is equality of opportunity, not outcome. Education and jobs must be attainable by all, regardless of their starting position in life.
2c) The third principle justice is that the least advantaged group (LAG)—who have the most limited access to primary goods like freedom of movement and wealth—rise in their position when the elite group does. There can be inequality, but that inequality must be tolerable by the LAG. Utilitarianism fails to account for just distribution. Rawls argues that humans are more than vessels and that utilitarianism forgets individuality. Happiness cannot be the ultimate end because the total amount of happiness can be high while a minority group has no happiness at all. This minority group will then feel oppressed and have every right to stop obeying institutions since justice doesn’t include them.
3) Property-owning democracies and liberal socialist states are the most likely to achieve justice as fairness. Authoritarian states objectively cannot because they don’t ensure civil liberties. Free market capitalism neither ensures equality of opportunity or acceptable inequality. Welfare states perpetuate inequality by acknowledging its existence through welfare without actually allowing the welfare-earning class to become equal in property ownership and real wealth. This leaves property-owning democracies and liberal socialist states with the best basic structures to ensure reciprocity and the justice principles. These two can redistribute wealth over time (through taxes) to ensure the justice principles when their basic structure fail.

My issue with Rawls’ text mostly has to do with the ideological basis. Rawls mentions at the start of the book that ideal theory has its place—rationalizing institutions and providing goals. However, I wasn’t thoroughly convinced by these claims. Telling someone that their position in life is justified by the three principles of justice won’t actually have any impact on that person’s conception of justice or just institutions. Institutions that have those ideals could also shirk them (e.g. most historical communist states). Ideal theory is exactly what it sounds like—ideal. It has little to practical explanations. Even if we assume the original position is somehow possible, Rawls’ definition of an acceptable, rather than a valid, conception of justice, makes the entire concept too narrow to actually encompass much of what we innately understand as just.

Another issue I foresaw is the idea of the LAG. Rawls condones some inequality in society as long as it’s acceptable equality to the LAG. I don’t see how this is possible. Humans naturally seek their own gain, and no inequality would ever really be tolerated if a higher position is possible. Additionally, the LAG is often not heard. In cases such as colonization, Jim Crow, domestic violence, and voter marginalization, the system works specifically to crowd out the voices of the LAG. The inequality might seem tolerable by the elite group, but the LAG might find it unbearable. That said, the victors write the history books, so the LAG didn’t have a voice to decry colonization and Jim Crow until there was already an elite sympathizer. The LAG wouldn’t have an Avenue to express the injustice until it’s already been recognized externally. Therefore, there really is no tolerable inequality, objectively.

Overall, this is worth a read. Rawls was crucial in revitalizing political philosophy. However, it has few practical implications, and it’s mostly a thinking exercise.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

First, if I were you, I would discount this review because I haven't read A Theory of Justice. I mistakenly believed that reading his restatement meant I didn't need to read the original. I think I pieced together most of the original argument, but I'm not sure.

A few observations and reactions:
1) I liked the idea of "reasonable pluralism". It's a good description of modern society and any attempt at structuring society should take it into account.
2) Trying to set the basic rules of society from behind a "veil of ignorance" where we don't know who we represent in society, is a clever and very attractive idea. Is it possible? I'm not sure.
3) Rawls sees society through the lens of classes or groupings. As I tried to get my head around his "difference principle" I assumed he would measure outcomes by percentile (ie. top 5% vs bottom 5%), but he is thinking about the class or group with the worst outcome (ie. the British vs Indians). I don't like this mindset.
4) He lists five "primary goods" and suggests we measure the success of any "basic structure" based on how well citizens share in an index of those primary good. But then, inexplicably, he only judges basic structures based on one of the five - wealth and income. I understand that this is simpler, but it seems like a mistake.
5) His thoughts on the interplay between a political structure (such as Justice as Fairness) and comprehensive doctrines (such as religion or philosophy) were very helpful.
6) He assumes a level of cooperation and reasonableness that I consider utopian. I use that word deliberately because he seems prickly about it, so I must not be the first to think so.
7) His discussion on an "overlapping consensus" made me wonder what 90% of citizens could actually agree on. He didn't use 90%, but I enjoyed thinking about it.
8) Inequalities. On the one hand, he states that "these inequalities are our primary concern". On the other hand, he accepts some level of inequality as unavoidable and perhaps even necessary for efficiency. He was nuanced on this topic in a way that surprised me.
9) He references J. S. Mill a lot! And it is clear that Marx is never far from his thoughts. I think he wants to be loosely grouped together with Marx, but knows that Marx would not approve of several of his conclusions.

Finally his two Principles of Justice:
a) Each person has the same indefeasible claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme of liberties for all.
b) 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 to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society (the difference principle)

The first one makes sense to me. Part one of his second principle also makes sense to me. I think you would need to read the book to grasp the difference principle, and I'm still processing it. I think I might be on board if he wasn't looking at it through the lens of class/groups. And even if we just used percentiles, I'm still a maybe.

This book definitely made me think, and my four star rating is largely in appreciation for the audacity to propose a new political framework (even if I ultimately wasn't convinced). Some good stuff in here.

[Joshua · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read with Amanda, Simon, and Tessa for philosophy book club (as book 14!!!! We've read a lot together).

I was initially quite skeptical of this book due to its dense, analytical style, which was very difficult to parse, and my inherent skepticism of liberalism as a comprehensive doctrine.

But Rawls ended up winning me over with his even-handed, well-argued, and limited exploration of liberalism primarily as a political doctrine steering the basic structure of our societies. What does Rawls means by all this? Rather than thinking of liberalism as an all encompasing ideology that should govern every aspect of our lives from the way the economy works, to the structure of our families, Rawls instead argues for a limited and democratic political structure that would allow many different ideologies to govern the personal lives of individuals within the system. This system would uphold only two basic rules: 1. rights and liberties that allow every member of society to participate in political life (i.e. woemn's sufferage and no slavery) and 2. the difference principle: society will provide support for the least advantaged. I don't quite understand how the difference principle works in practice, as its not clear how society will decide who is the least advantaged, but it is clear that Rawls is against simple materialist welfarism (i.e. a head tax and redistribution).

Rawls doesn't do a great job of responding to Marx, and I also worry that if such a political society were to form it would be extremely vulnerable to decadence and/or invasion by an intolerant comprehensive doctrine. Rawls posits that if his political doctrine were adopted it would inspire citizens to be ever more reverent of its values, and for other comprehensive doctrines to slowly change their beliefs to be compatible with this system. I unfortunately worry that this is not realistic. Just look at the decay of the American and French political systems due to bad actors and a disinterested public in the last fifty years. These are the closest things are the closest to Rawls we have in the real world, and they don't seem very stable to me.

That said, Rawls' system as an ideal is increasingly appealing to me given my experience with increasingly intolerant comprehensive doctrines. Intellectual and physical freedom to explore different ways of living and thinking about the world are important to me, and Rawls' system is the only one I've come across that allows this without the problematic baggage of comprehensive liberalism (which doesn't work in the real world). Thanks to Amanda for suggesting this, and I'm looking forward to reading more of this guy in the future.

[Otto Lehto · Rating 4 out of 5]

Rawls's late-career summary partially succeeds in providing a shorter and simpler Prolegomena to his Theory of Justice, but it is too much entangled into its own hermetic terminology to be able to effectively answer its utilitarian, socialist and libertarian critics.

The Kantian hermeneutics of the vertiginious Rawlsian machinery, while sometimes impenetrable, provide a powerful set of tools to clarify our intuitions and assumptions about liberal democracy.

The changes in Rawls's own thinking are also worth noting. The self-effacing candor with which Rawls weakens, and nearly jettisons, the difference principle, as being less secure than the basic equal liberties principle, is an admirable moment, since it leaves it open for others to formulate better principles in line with the original position. But simultaneously Rawls's retreat into a fuzzy territory of multiple approaches seems to make it hard to pin down the falsifiability criteria of his system. After all, Rawls situates his theory within rational choice theory (but not quite), social contract theory (but not quite), modified utilitarianism (but not quite), Kantian public reason arguments (but not quite), democratic thought experiments (but not quite) and moral intuitionism (but not quite). This doesn't exactly clarify the issues.

Overall, the brilliance of Rawls's system cannot be denied, and the extreme productivity of its thought-provoking formulations will continue to haunt generations of political philosophers.

But the weaknesses of his fuzzy methodology and the admitted groundlessness of his basic principles (especially the poorly formulated difference principle) will likely be widely seen as reasons to go beyond his brilliant but brittle system, towards a more robust formulation of the project that he valiantly pursued (perhaps on utilitarian or other grounds).

Rawls went a long way towards unearthing the basic structure of a sustainable and cooperative society, composed of free and equal citizens for mutual benefit, revitalizing the systematic exploration of the nature of a liberal and equitable society. And while his answers were somewhat off the mark, his choice of questions has showed the way for the correct formulation of the good society.

[Colin Howard · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a restructuring of lecture notes and previous writing to form a comprehensive book on his theory, established long before. The 2 Stated Aims of the work are to a) Respond to critique and b) collect/connect/unify errors/ideas. It deals in depth with the issues of reasonable pluralism and reasons why we might take it to be undesirable, though ultimately he concludes that we can seperate our comprehensive moral systems (philosophies, religions, etc) from a general agreement on how things should run politically. He then takes up the torch of explaining a political conception of justice. The theory proposed is an interesting one and a famous exercise in the recent history of philosophy. He asks the reader to imagine they are going to be born and there is a veil of uncertainty blocking them from knowing whether they will be born into the fortunate or unfortunate class of society, essentially asking us whether we would want to take the gamble of being born into a society like the present day America, where there is a high percentage chance you will be born poor, oppressed, etc. with no access to quality free higher education, health care, etc. for the prospects of a thin chance of being born hyper rich... or if conversely many of us would rather take the safe risk of being born into a society like that of many northern european countries where if by a miracle you are born into a rich family, they may have to pay much more in taxes, but in return the chances are much lower of you being born into abject poverty and violence.

[Ana · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought. A theory however elegant and economical must be rejected or revised if it is untrue; likewise laws and institutions no matter how efficient and well-arranged must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust.”

John Rawls’ work on justice is groundbreaking in moral and political philosophy. He builds on the social contract philosophy of Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau, and his arguments are as influential as those of Bentham or Kant. Rawls proposes a theory of justice as fairness, detailing original political concepts such as “the veil of ignorance”, the principle of liberty and the difference principle. Rawls’ philosophy is fundamentally anti-utilitarian and leans towards distributive justice.

This book is complex and technical and is best suited for people who already have a basic understanding of political science, social democracy and constitutional law.

[Mark Isaak · Rating 4 out of 5]

Rawls presents a concept of political philosophy which, aside from basic rights that allow everyone to participate equally in the society, lets people decide their morals among themselves and their associations. His arguments are well set out, but his audience appears to be only other academic philosophers; the book will not appeal to the popular audience it deserves. The book expands and amends his earlier _A Theory of Justice_, but it makes so many references to that book that I feel I can't fully comprehend this book without having the other in hand (which I don't).

Part of Rawls' concept is that society should give greater benefits to the least advantaged (while keeping equal opportunity). He argues that this will give greater benefits overall, and that reasonable and rational people will see that, but I don't think his argument takes into account the relative paucity of rationality in humanity.