The Ethic of John Rawls
In 1971, John Rawls published A Theory of Justice in which he developed a new approach to social contract theory. Social contract theory is an approach that says the moral rules we must follow are those that it would be rational for a group of people to agree to, and it falls within the duty framework because it asserts that each individual has an obligation to follow the contractual moral rules, at least so long as all the other individuals are following them.
A Just Society is Fair
Rawls starts off with the basic intuition that a just society is fair. However, Rawls worries that when a group of people sits down to form the social contract, each of them will be biased to create a society that favors his or her own economic, social, racial, or cultural background. To overcome this problem, Rawls suggests that moral principles should be chosen by people who do not know their economic, social, racial, or cultural background.
The Veil of Ignorance
Of course real people are not like this, but Rawls thinks we can imagine a group of ideal contractors who get together to make the moral rules. In fact, he thinks we can imagine ourselves as one of those ideal contractors, if we are willing to put on a hypothetical “Veil of Ignorance.” This Veil is an imaginary device that prevents us from knowing our place in society; when we put on the Veil of Ignorance, we do not know anything about our personal characteristics or situation, such as our race, sex, level of wealth or intelligence, character traits, natural talents and abilities, etc.
If a group of people put on the Veil of Ignorance and got together to form a contract, Rawls believes that we would come up with two Principles of Justice: “First: each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty to others. Second: social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage, and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all….” (Rawls 60).
Rawls is claiming that if we were free from personal bias, human beings would create a society that would give everyone as much freedom as they can have without infringing on others’ freedom – this is because when you take off the Veil of Ignorance, you would not want to be the “other” whose freedom is infringed upon. Further, Rawls thinks we would guarantee a certain standard of living for all people – this is because as when you take of the Veil, you might turn out to be among the “worst off” members of society, so you would want to ensure that the poorest classes at least have access to basic needs (and have as much as is possible for society to reasonably provide). That being said, Rawls still thinks we have reasons to allow a certain amount of economic inequality, in order to inspire citizens to work. Still, everyone must have the opportunity to work and achieve these “offices” without their social, cultural, or racial background holding them back.
Fulfilling the Two Principles of Justice
Rawls believes that a society based on his ideal social contract would be entirely fair, and according to his perspective, our duty is to fulfill the two principles of justice. Difficulties in doing so can arise from two forms of conflict: (1) conflicts between the two principles of justice and (2) conflicts within each principle.
To solve the first type of conflict, Rawls says we should always choose in favor of the first principle of justice: “These principles are to be arranged in a serial order with the first principle prior to the second” (Rawls 61). The reason for this is that Rawls believes no one would choose to have his or her liberty restricted, even for some distributive gains (this is one of the more controversial elements of his perspective).
In order to solve the second form of conflict, Rawls says we must put on the Veil of Ignorance again. Because the veil makes it impossible for anyone to bias the decision in his or her own favor, this will ensure that the resolution to any conflict is in fact fair.
Rationale for the Principles of Justice
Like all other social contract theorists, Rawls says we have a duty to follow the Principles of Justice because the social contract is rational for us to abide by. Even though we were not present at the time of the contract (indeed, on Rawls’s perspective the agreement is made by imaginary contractors), we have a duty to follow the Principles of Justice because they are the ones we ourselves would choose if we put on the Veil of Ignorance, hence to fail to follow the principles is to be irrational as well as unethical.
To test Rawls’s theory, you should consider whether you would find a different set of principles to be more ethically appropriate, keeping in mind that you don’t know whether you will turn out to be rich or poor; male or female; black, brown, yellow or white; etc., when you actually have to live by those principles. Rawls also points out that the only way we can be truly be self-sufficient and thrive is through society: “…a society is a more or less self-sufficient association of persons who in their relations to one another recognize certain rules of conduct as binding and who for the most part act in accordance with them” (Rawls 4).
Hence, another motivation to follow the Principles of Justice is that doing so preserves society and is to everyone’s mutual benefit. Finally, it is only through this social contract that there is a guarantee of justice as fairness, so if you value fairness, you have a lot of motivation to follow the Principles of Justice.
Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1971.