Week 3 Justice Theory

This paper responds to prompt one of the week three Justice Theory essay assignment, and yields an evaluation through considering various internal and external materials from weeks one through three. Accordingly, this exploration is organized in three sections. First, this paper seeks to explain how the modern social contract theorist, John Rawls’, attempts to enhance the classic utilitarian views of John Stuart Mill, as well as the classic social contract theories of Thomas Hobbes and Jean Jacques Rousseau. Second, this evaluation posits how Rawls’ “veil of ignorance” and “difference principle” might apply to the socioeconomic issue of access (or, lack thereof) to health care in the United States. Specifically, this section relates these
components to the United States Affordable Care Act (ACA), otherwise known as “Obamacare”. Last, it presents the assumption that the social contract theory critic, Ward Churchill, would surmise that Rawls’ modifications to the utilitarian and classic social contract theories are irrelevant.
Setting the Context: Improvements to utilitarianism and the classic social contract theories
Throughout our history of social and political thought, the evaluation of the concepts of utility and social contracts are paramount considerations for the configuration of a just society and deciding viable forms of governance. Each perspective considers the state of human nature and derives a method for maintaining peace and order, which remains a point of contention between these differing schools of thought. With this in mind, the basis of utilitarianism is the promotion of any actions which are beneficial to the majority of the people in any given society (Nathanson, 2016). The classic utilitarian, John Stuart Mill, expands on this basic principle and contends there is a stratum of happiness within its connection to justice (Mill, 2003, p. 129).
Notwithstanding, exists a competing prescription for a just society, which is the notion of a social contract; “social contract theory, nearly as old as philosophy itself, is the view that persons' moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society in which they live” (Friend, 2016). Two prominent, yet contrasting, classic social contractarians are Thomas Hobbes and Jean Jacques Rousseau. Hobbes’ view of the social contract invokes a pessimistic view of human nature and the need for a strong central government (1972, pp. 156-161). Conversely, Rousseau’s version of the social contract holds an overall positive view of human nature, and confronts Hobbes’ social contract theory on the premise that Hobbes’ conception is rather elitist. Indeed, Rousseau warns of tyrannical tendencies in his writing through his discussion of factions (1972, p.170).
This brings us to the modern social contract theorist, John Rawls, who identifies gaps in both of the classic concepts of utilitarianism and the social contract.
Rawls believes the utilitarian view does not place the necessary emphasis on individuals, and though he agrees with many aspects of contractarianism, he wishes to improve beyond the classic versions of the social contract (Jurik, 2016, p. 7). Consequently, he endeavors to advance the concept of utilitarianism, and marry it with the social contract theory through his inclusions of the “veil of ignorance” perspective and the “difference principle”. Rawls’ terms his overall advancement as, “justice as fairness” (Rawls, 1993, p.48). In his 1993 article, Justice as Fairness, Rawls claims, “justice as fairness, I would now understand as a reasonable, systematic and practicable conception of justice for a constitutional democracy, a conception that offers an alternative to the dominant utilitarianism of our tradition of political thought” (p.
50).
Exploring the “veil of ignorance” and “difference principle” as it applies to health care in the United States
As a result of the perceived gaps in the classic theories, Rawls incorporates two fundamental aspects as an effort to advance the aforementioned classic schools of thought.
Rawls’ proposes a neutral approach in applying his modern social contract logic, hence, he asserts that the veil of ignorance is necessary for objectivity. Specifically this logic establishes a position, “...removed from and not distorted by the particular features and circumstances of the all-encompassing background framework, from which a fair agreement between free and equal persons can be reached” (Rawls, 1993, p. 57). Under these circumstances, this logic directly applies to the socioeconomic issue of access to health care in the United States in the following manner. The underpinnings of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is to create a framework by which everyone receives the opportunity to obtain quality and affordable health care, and that no person should suffer financial devastation due to illness (Simas, 2013). To clarify, the lawmakers and supporters of the ACA sought reformation with noble intent for the benefit of the masses, excluding themselves, from the position described above, and through the lenses of average citizens who are not similarly situated to those who are economically stable with access to health benefits through their employers. Thus, the lawmakers demonstrated that they operated from behind the “veil of ignorance” with the design and implementation of the
ACA.
Furthermore, a separate (though equally important) aspect of Rawls’ enhancements is the difference principle, “…a system of fair cooperation for mutual advantage…must be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society” (Rawls, 1993, p. 51). Again, this applies to the passage of the ACA, as the intent of the law is to advantage the least advantaged members of society. Rawls’ believed that the presence of extreme inequality in society erodes the tenants of democracy and risks revolution, therefore, he endeavored to create a framework which institutes balance between those with power and wealth (access), and those without (CITE SOURCE). The ACA removes the barriers to coverage through mandating that insurance companies cover individuals regardless of pre-existing conditions, expanding coverage for dependent children up to the age of twenty-six (regardless of student status), capping unjustified premium increases, and strengthening Medicare and Medicaid (HHS.gov, 2013). The ACA also includes government subsidies to pay for health care coverage costs, therefore, the policies of the ACA apply to the least advantaged citizens of society, those being the poor, the young, the disabled and the elderly.
Nevertheless, the ACA has been under constant scrutiny and threat of repeal by the conservative party since its inception. Furthermore, the empirical data for its efficacy is limited as the ACA implementation occurred in phases beginning in the year 2010, with the broad benefits going into effect in 2012 (CITE SOURCE). Additionally, as recent as October, 2016, controversy has arisen with regards to the realized cost savings and benefits due to the refusal of insurance companies to participate, which has consequently driven up premium costs by 22%, effective in 2017 (CITE SOURCE). To summarize, both the veil of ignorance and the difference principle do apply to the ACA on its face, however, the efficacy of these concepts is yet to be determined.
Assumptions of Ward Churchill’s Critique of Rawls’ modifications
For this reason, it is a fair assumption to believe that Ward Churchill, a critic of classic social contract theory, would conclude that the modifications of Rawls’ modern social contract are essentially irrelevant. To be sure, in his critique, Perversions of Justice, Churchill offers a myriad of examples where the United States government and judicial system have, over time, methodically worked to undermine the rights of indigenous people as a means to achieve their ultimate goal of securing the lands which rightfully belong to the Native Americans (CITE SOURCE).
In closing, conducting this examination addresses the three areas of focus in the originally stated thesis. That is to say, it first interprets Rawls’ advancements to the classic utilitarian and social contract concepts of Mill, Hobbes and Rousseau. Second, it illustrates the application of two vital components, “the veil of ignorance” and “the difference principle”, to the issue of access to health care in the United States. Finally, it relies on evidence from Churchill’s writing which supports the assumption that Churchill would consider Rawls’ enhancements to his modern version of the social contract, to be inherently pointless.