Rawls: Theory of Justice

“This element of justice is absent in strict utilitarian theory.” This stance by Rawls (as stated by Boss) is the reason I feel that Justice Theory is more humane than strict utilitarian theory. While utility seeks the most overall good, Rawls seems opposed to reaching that good at the potential sacrifice of certain individuals or groups.

I believe that Rawls theory is somewhat similar to rule utility in that it focuses less on individual acts (token) themselves, and instead focuses on rules or guiding principles (type) that will promote fairness and equality for all. I feel that the underlying principle to Rawls’s theory is that if we have to make sacrifices that disadvantage some in order to benefit others, there is something fundamentally wrong and we should focus on seeking change that promotes equality for all involved. Rawls prefaces his introduction to the “veil of ignorance” by talking about the needs of rational persons to pursue their own self-interests. He claims “They are the principles that free and rational persons concerned to further their own interests would accept…This way of regarding the principles of justice I shall call justice as fairness.” I think what Rawls is saying here is that, if I as a rational person am aware of what I need in order to pursue my own interests, then I as a rational person should understand that everyone else has the same basic needs and should be equally considered. This type of thought process I feel is similar to Kant’s first formulation of his categorical imperative in that it forces the agent to not think egocentrically, but rather to consider the roles and/or rights of others when weighing moral decisions. To me, these types of theories are morally stronger because their foundation begins at a post-conventional level. Rawls continues on to the “veil of ignorance” idea in which he basically says we need to imagine ourselves with somewhat of a blank slate, where we have no material possessions, net worth, or designated social status; doing this will give us an unbiased approach to formulating rules and doctrine that will allow for equality for all people-not just the benefit of ourselves. This is somewhat similar to sociologist’s idea of “beginners mind” which says that in order for us to truly examine others and see things from their point of view, we need to rid ourselves of all facts and experience so that we can consider something new. Like Kant’s categorical imperative, Rawls has set forth two rules (principles) that when considered properly do a great job of weeding out a significant amount of amoral actions. I especially like the fact that Rawls second principle basically states that social and economic injustices will in fact happen, but when they do happen they should provide an equal advantage to all persons. This type of thinking not only recognizes the reality of social and political injustices we currently have, it also acts as a voice for the disadvantaged.

I feel as if I need more information regarding the actual use of this theory so that I can properly analyze the pros and cons. On the surface it seems very socially and politically acceptable. One concern I have is that because this theory is rule based, I do not feel (based on the information I have) that it provides us with enough guidance for analyzing specific moral dilemmas. As a test example, I tried to use the ongoing debate of abortion while incorporating the logic of Rawls’s theory of justice and found myself getting nowhere in terms of progress; perhaps abortion was too confusing a topic but I’ll use it as an example of my concerns with practicality. I believe that the two justice principles can give a good starting point for analyzing a moral dilemma but do not go into enough detail to account for many of the situations or dilemmas we currently face, ( I actually feel Kant’s categorical imperative does a better job at encompassing a the multitude of moral dilemmas).

Another question I cannot accurately conclude is in regards to the principle of non-contradiction. Based on my reading, I do not feel that Rawls in any way suggests that rules cannot change over time. In fact, I feel that Rawls may actually advocate the changing of rules if they had in fact been practiced wholeheartedly and were found to not be to the equal advantage of all people. Because societies do in fact change, as well as the needs of individuals and groups within a society, I think it is a fair assumption that what “works” now, may not necessarily suffice in the future. If we can change rules over time does this imply a contradiction that negates universality?