Philosophy
Discuss and critically assess Okin’s claim that Rawls’ theory of justice fails to address gender-based injustice both within the family and in the public sphere, and Kittay’s extension of this argument to dependency relations.
Principles of Justice and Gender
Among the many substantial contributions to the field of modern philosophy made by John Rawls, there is one particular aspect of his most memorable work that has been a subject of notable controversy among feminists and other critics of gender-based injustices. Rawls is widely regarded as having revolutionized the modern field of political philosophy by “breaking the intuitionism-utilitarianism deadlock” (Kymlicka, 2002, p.55). However, according to critics like Susan Moller Okin, while Rawls has accounted for most institutions of society when elaborating his theory of justice, his categorization of family as a basic institution has led to an exclusion of those not qualifying as a “head of household” from the original position, creating the potential for significant gender-based injustices within his theory. This discrepancy has been extended by other critics including Eva Kittay, who demonstrates Rawls’ lack of attention to the issue of dependency. Throughout the course of this essay, we will examine these criticisms and others in determining the susceptibility to gender-based injustices present in John Rawls’ theory and principles of justice.
An outstanding explanation and brief overview of certain key aspects of a philosophical perspective advocated by Rawls comes from Samuel Sheffler (2001, p. 20), stating:
In summary, then, Rawls agrees with utilitarianism about the desirability of providing a systematic account of justice that reduces the scope for intuitionistic balancing and offers a clear and constructive solution to the priority problem; about the need to subordinate common‐sense precepts of justice to a higher criterion; and about the holistic character of distributive justice.
Rawls’
Principles of Justice and Gender
Among the many substantial contributions to the field of modern philosophy made by John Rawls, there is one particular aspect of his most memorable work that has been a subject of notable controversy among feminists and other critics of gender-based injustices. Rawls is widely regarded as having revolutionized the modern field of political philosophy by “breaking the intuitionism-utilitarianism deadlock” (Kymlicka, 2002, p.55). However, according to critics like Susan Moller Okin, while Rawls has accounted for most institutions of society when elaborating his theory of justice, his categorization of family as a basic institution has led to an exclusion of those not qualifying as a “head of household” from the original position, creating the potential for significant gender-based injustices within his theory. This discrepancy has been extended by other critics including Eva Kittay, who demonstrates Rawls’ lack of attention to the issue of dependency. Throughout the course of this essay, we will examine these criticisms and others in determining the susceptibility to gender-based injustices present in John Rawls’ theory and principles of justice.
An outstanding explanation and brief overview of certain key aspects of a philosophical perspective advocated by Rawls comes from Samuel Sheffler (2001, p. 20), stating:
In summary, then, Rawls agrees with utilitarianism about the desirability of providing a systematic account of justice that reduces the scope for intuitionistic balancing and offers a clear and constructive solution to the priority problem; about the need to subordinate common‐sense precepts of justice to a higher criterion; and about the holistic character of distributive justice.
Rawls’
References: Kymlicka, Will. (2002), Contemporary Political Philosophy. Oxford University Press, New York. Okin, Susan Moller. (1987), "Justice and gender". Philosophy and Public Affairs, 16: Kittay, Eva Feder. (1997), "Human dependency and Rawlsian Equality" in Feminists Rethink the Self, Meyers, Diana Tietjens Rawls, John. (1971), A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press. Sheffler, Samuel. (2001), ‘Rawls and Utilitarianism’, Boundaries and Allegiances: Problems of Justice and Responsibility in Liberal Thought. Oxford University Press, New York.