John Rawls Theory Of Justice

John Rawls bases his Theory of Justice on the intuitive conviction that justice as fairness is the first virtue of social institutions. He argues that in order to ensure fair distributions of advantages in society, a workable set of principles are required in order to determine how institutions ought to distribute rights and duties and to establish a clear way to address competing claims to social advantages. The second principle that Rawls develops stipulates that economic and social inequalities are justifiable so long as the requirements of fair equality of opportunity have been met and if they benefit the worst off in society. Rawls argues that the requirement of improving the conditions of the worst off, known as the Difference Principle,
is necessary because fair equality of opportunity can only be improperly carried out as differences in circumstances and natural ability are inevitable. However, in presenting his intuitive arguments against rival philosophical positions, Rawls makes heavy use of the idea that some positions in society can be improperly influenced by morally arbitrary factors. Jerry Cohen focuses on this aspect of Rawls’ theory and argues that choice and personal responsibility should be the primary considerations in determining distributive shares.
Cohen argues that as a requirement of justice, people must be compensated for their misfortunes that are not derived from choice. Rawls is seen as inconsistent in his theory, as he seems to appeal to the distinction between choice and circumstance, yet his Difference Principle undermines it. However, Rawls never intended for his statements about morally arbitrary factors to have this kind significance. His intention was to provide a clear workable set of principles that could actually be applied in a democratic society. This focus on choice and circumstance distinction is impossible and distracts from what Rawls was attempting to achieve. Rawls realized that natural variances are inevitable but the Difference Principle allows for differences in natural endowments to work to the benefit of all in society. He did not attempt to eliminate the influence that morally arbitrary factors have on distributive shares because by providing people with the social bases of self-respect, the Difference Principle makes it possible to pursue diverse conceptions of the good. Rawls’ theory should be understood as an attempt to devise the most reasonable solutions that could be applied in a
democratic society.
Rawls introduces a thought experiment, which he refers to as the original position, in order to demonstrate how fair principles could be established.
The thought experiment offers a way of deducing just principles that free and rational persons would choose if they were not able to know what position they would occupy in life. The principles are chosen behind a veil of ignorance that prevents the participants from knowing particular information about themselves. Rawls believes this would lead to fair results as participants are unable to choose principles that they can profit from. Rawls argues that the rational persons, behind the veil of ignorance, would give priority to the Liberty Principle which means that "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". Participants would choose a second principle which stipulates that social and economic inequalities are justifiable if they satisfy two conditions: they are arranged so that they are both to the greatest possible benefit of the least advantaged, which is known as the Difference Principle; and that positions and offices are open to all under the conditions of fair equality of
opportunity.
Fair equality of opportunity dictates that equal citizens with the “same level of talent and ability, and have the same willingness to use them, should have the same prospects of success regardless of their initial place in the social system”. He argues however, that in a just society equal opportunity must entail more than the minimal requirement of formal equality of opportunity, where positions are open merely in the legal sense. He states that in a society of natural liberty, with an unregulated free market, distributive shares would be “improperly influenced by these factors so arbitrary from a moral point of view”. Without a more extensive conception of equality of opportunity, some would not realize their abilities and talents because of their circumstances in life. For this reason, Rawls proposes fair equality of opportunity which would guarantee not only that positions be open to all but that they would actually have a chance of attaining such positions regardless of their lot in life. Fair equality of opportunity requires that restrictions be placed on the free market by preventing people from amassing enormous amounts of wealth and property as well as providing children with some basic level of education.