A Theory of Justice

“[T]he guiding idea is that the principles of justice for the basic structure of society are the object of the original agreement. They are the principles that free and rational persons concerned to further their own interests would accept in an initial position of equality as defining the fundamental terms of their association.”

This provision explains the original position, the vantage of persons in the original position, and the agreement reached in the original position. By illustrating this criterion, this provision lays the groundwork for all Rawls’s subsequent theorizing in the text.

“Now by an institution I shall understand a public system of rules which defines offices and positions with their rights and duties, powers, and immunities, and the like.”

Social justice flows through institutions, highlighting the theme of The Importance of Institutions in Maintaining Justice. People in the offices of such institutions should compel them to act in accordance with established principles of justice to govern societies.

“The main idea is that a person’s good is determined by what is for him the most rational long-term plan of life given reasonably favorable circumstances.”

A person’s good is determined in full light of all relevant information. In justice as fairness, persons are free to determine their own good and achieve whichever ends they desire, provided those goods and ends are within a broad class that comports with the two principles of justice as fairness.

“Thus the more advantaged, when they view the matter from a general perspective, recognize that the well-being of each depends on a scheme of social cooperation without which no one could have a satisfactory life; […]. They forego the idea of maximizing a weighted mean and regard the difference principle as a fair basis for regulating the basic structure.”

The theory of justice as fairness requires an argument as to why the most fortunate would accept a scheme that prohibits them from increasing their fortunes unless such efforts also increase the fortunes of the less well-off. The veil of ignorance provides a framework for persons in the original position to make this choice, but this provision explains why this scheme is also to the benefit of the most fortunate, given full knowledge of all relevant facts and circumstances.

“When a number of persons engage in a mutually advantageous cooperative venture according to rules, and thus restrict their liberty in ways necessary to yield advantages for all, those who have submitted to these restrictions have a right to a similar acquiescence on the part of those who have benefited from their submission.”

This articulates the principle of fairness, which is an obligation of all participants in a scheme of justice. This highlights the theme of The Necessity of Social Consensus. Without the principle of fairness, persons could not depend on others to fulfill their obligations under the scheme of justice, and consequently would not submit themselves to the scheme.

“From the standpoint of justice as fairness, a fundamental natural duty is the duty of justice. This duty requires us to support and to comply with just institutions that exist and apply to us.”

Natural duties bind persons without the need for voluntary participation that applies to obligations. Persons are naturally bound to the duty of justice, and such binding is required for institutions of justice to exist.

“The original position is defined in such a way that it is a status quo in which any agreements reached are fair. It is a state of affairs in which the parties are equally represented as moral persons and the outcome is not conditioned by arbitrary contingencies or the relative balance of social forces. Thus justice as fairness is able to use the idea of pure procedural justice from the beginning.”

Pure procedural justice is a scheme of justice that dictates a fair procedure that, if followed, will result in a fair outcome, whatever it is. Imperfect procedural justice, by contrast, has an independent criterion for the correct outcome, but no procedure is guaranteed to arrive at the outcome. Justice as fairness establishes means, not ends, so pure procedural justice is essential to the theory. By following the principles of justice (the procedure) a person will achieve ends that comport with justice as fairness, regardless of what those ends are.

“Thus although the two principles of justice may be superior to those conceptions known to us, perhaps some hitherto unformulated set of principles is still better.”

Rawls’s arguments are only intended to establish that justice as fairness is the optimal conception of justice compared with the other known conceptions. Rawls is insistent throughout the book that his intention is not to claim that he has derived the best philosophy that can ever be imagined. Rather, he has the more limited goal of comparing his philosophy to other popular theories and determining that, of the current pool of theories, justice as fairness is optimal.

“The circumstances of justice may be described as the normal conditions under which human cooperation is both possible and necessary. Thus, as I noted at the outset, although a society is a cooperative venture for mutual advantage, it is typically marked by a conflict as well as an identity of interests.”

The circumstances of justice can be described simply as the circumstances of life. They are the real-life situations between persons not shielded from information by the veil of ignorance, not free of the complexities of human psychology, and not immune from the circumstances of life that give rise to the conflict and competing interests that make conceptions of justice necessary. The circumstances of justice are the situations for which the principles of justice are crafted.

“Taken together, then, these conditions on conceptions of right come to this: a conception of right is a set of principles, general in form and universal in application, that is to be publicly recognized as a final court of appeal for ordering the conflicting claims of moral persons.”

Conceptions of right are broad and generally applicable to all persons. This contrasts with a person’s good, which is subjective, but based in conceptions of right. Competing claims are judged in the fourth stage of justice, in which persons know all relevant facts and circumstances.

“Thus the priority of the first principle of justice to the second is reflected in the priority of the constitutional convention to the legislative stage.”

The principle of equal liberty is the standard for the constitutional convention and the legislative stage is guided by the second principle of justice as fairness. Because the principle of equal liberty is prior to the second principle, the constitutional convention must prioritize equal liberty before progressing to the legislative stage and addressing the second principle.

“The notion of the rational and impartial application of principles defines the kind of knowledge that is admissible.”

The stages of the four-stage sequence become more detailed as they progress, making it potentially more difficult to determine how to apply them. As the stages become more detailed, the persons making judgments are accorded a fuller view of the relevant facts and circumstances to assist them.

“Thus the delegates in a constitutional convention, or as members of a legislature, the parties must decide how the various liberties are to be specified so as to give the best total system of liberty. They must note the distinction between regulation and restriction, but at many points they will have to balance one basic liberty against another; for example, freedom of speech against the right to a fair trial. The best arrangement of the several liberties depends upon the totality of limitations to which they are subject.”

The principle of equal liberty does not mean liberties are never restricted. The principle dictates that liberties may only be restricted for the sake of other liberties, not for other objectives such as increased distributive share. As the passage notes, liberties often must be balanced. Balancing Individual Rights with the Common Good often requires regulation or restriction of such liberties to preserve the best possible scheme of liberties for all persons in a society. Balancing liberties requires intuitionism, but when possible should be grounded in objective criterion.

“At this point we touch upon the principle of paternalism that is to guide decisions taken on behalf of others. We must choose for others as we have reason to believe they would choose for themselves if they were at the age of reason and deciding rationally.”

The principle of paternalism is only invoked in extreme circumstances, when a person is unable to achieve liberty of their conscience due to age or mental illness. The principles of justice and the framework of the original position guide the principle of paternalism.

“We can now see that persons in different generations have duties and obligations to one another just as contemporaries do. The present generation cannot do as it pleases but is bound by the principles that would be chosen in the original position to define justice between persons at different moments of time.”

A just savings principle amends the difference principle to provide for intergenerational justice and satisfy the duties and obligations persons have to persons in different generations.

“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.”

This is the first principle of justice as fairness, and it is given priority over all other principles of the theory. This principle focuses on balancing individual rights with the common good.

“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.”

This is the second principle of justice as fairness. Its dictates are limited in that they can be achieved only to the extent that they do not infringe upon equal liberties guaranteed by the first principle. This principle utilizes the difference principle, the just savings principle, and the principle of equal opportunity to provide equal sharing of the goods and opportunities within a society by all members.

“The principles of justice are to be ranked in lexical order and therefore the basic liberties can be restricted only for the sake of liberty. There are two cases: (a) a less extensive liberty must strengthen the total system of liberties shared by all; (b) a less than equal liberty must be acceptable to those with the lesser liberty.”

This first priority rule establishes the priority of the rules governing the principles of justice. It establishes the priority of equal liberties and clarifies when less equal liberties may be acceptable within of justice as fairness.

“The second principle of justice is lexically prior to the principle of efficiency and to that of maximizing the sum of advantages; and fair opportunity is prior to the difference principle. There are two cases: (a) an inequality of opportunity must enhance the opportunities of those with the lesser opportunity; (b) an excessive rate of saving must on balance mitigate the burden of those bearing this hardship.”

This second priority rule establishes the priority rules governing the provisions within the second principle of justice. This priority rule dictates that justice is prior to efficiency, and consequently, equal opportunity is prior to the difference principle which governs distributions. Provision (b) establishes a priority rule for savings and thus regulates intergenerational justice.

“I shall begin by defining civil disobedience as a public, nonviolent, conscientious yet political act contrary to law usually done with the aim of bringing about a change in the law or policies of the government.”

Civil disobedience is a protest of the law within the bounds of the law, with the purpose of convincing the majority to change course. This action is permissible in the case of an unjust law, which limits individual liberties and threatens the universal application of justice in society.

“Conscientious refusal is noncompliance with a more or less direct legal injunction or administrative order.”

Conscientious refusal is the refusal to participate in an unjust institution. It is performed without the goal of changing the view of the majority. Rather, conscientious refusal is an act in its own right, the refusal accomplishing its goal.

“In contrast with teleological theories, something is good only if it fits into ways of life consistent with the principles of right already on hand.”

In justice as fairness, the right is prior to the good. It must be, as what is right is a general concept that must be applied broadly to varied situations. Therefore, it must be decided in the original position behind the veil of ignorance. Goods, by contrast, are specific and subjective. Determining a good for a person requires more detailed and specific information about that person than determining a right, which is to be applied broadly to all persons, regardless of their interests, social position, abilities, and other personal characteristics.

Further, while goods can vary from person to person, one limitation on them is that they must conform to conceptions of the right broadly understood by all persons. This concept is best illustrated by a stark contrast. A person’s good can be juggling because through years of training, they have learned to appreciate the complexities the activity offers at an advanced level, and they dream of juggling professionally; while it may not be a good for everyone, juggling is an acceptable good because it conforms to established principles or right. Murder, however, cannot be a good for a person within the conception of justice as fairness. Even if that person has trained at murder for years and is very skilled at the activity, it does not conform to a conception of right shared by society.

“Now we may characterize shame as the feeling that someone has when he experiences an injury to his self-respect or suffers a blow to his self-esteem.”

Shame has two variants: natural shame is a moral feeling caused by a loss of self-respect due to a failure to exercise certain excellences, while moral shame is caused by a person betraying the virtues required by their plan of life. The key component of shame is self-respect. Shame is a personal feeling of betrayal to one’s own self, rather than a feeling focused on other persons (guilt) or things (regret).