John Rawls Theory Of Justice Analysis

Conceptions of justice can be broken down into two separate classifications. Firstly, there is the idealistic conception of justice and secondly the realistic conception of justice. The idealistic side of conceptions focuses on an expectation of fairness and a desire for a universal level of fairness whereas, the realistic conception focuses on the acceptance of chance and fate and the reality of risk and consequence.
John Rawls ‘A theory of justice' falls under the idealistic conception of justice. He described his theory as "Justice as Fairness" (Rawls, 1971, p.11), this theory suggests a different way to learn about principles of justice (Keeping in mind that individuals with ideal theories assume that all people are willing to act in accordance with whatever principles are chosen and that they also idolize away the possibility of both crime and war).
The liberties Rawls talks about are negative rights, however, the distribution of social goods he talks about can be considered positive rights. Nevertheless, when applying Rawls theory of justice, he agrees that we only have negative rights. Keeping all of this in mind, there are many objections to Rawls theories. The first principle of justice associates freedom with a list of negative rights, however, it's argued that having a list of rights indicates that we can restrict freedom as long as the freedom discussed isn't on an official list. It's also not made clear how Rawls knows what principles individuals will agree to when he talks about the original position, importantly it also isn't clear how the original position will help us in any way determine the best principles of justice. Rawls wants equality and for the worst off in society to benefit however the difference principle he suggests would force society to reject prosperity and live in poverty just because economic differences might require a worse off group in society to do