Theory of Justice

A Critique to Utilitarianism

Declaration to start with, the opening, leading lines:

Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought. A theory however elegant and economical must be rejected or revised if it is untrue; likewise laws and institutions no matter how efficient and well-arranged must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust - John Rawls

Hypothesis : The original Position

Rawls believed that the correct way to think about justice is to imagine what principles people would unanimously agreeon in a state of 'The original position'. In order to achieve the state of initial equality, Laures proposed the experiment “veil of ignorance”.

It is a virtual state, in which people behind the veil of ignorance will be deprived of their knowledge of themselves, others, society, and history. They no longer know their personality, preferences, race, gender, beliefs, etc. But they still know some of the common interests they share, as well as some basic knowledge about social and natural sciences. Rawls believed that only in such a state can people's judgments be unbiased towards any preference.

Two Principles

1. Equal liberty : Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic libraries compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others (To protect individual rights and freedom of speech)

2. Difference : Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both reasonably expected to be to everyone's advantage, and attached to positions and offices open to all (The acceptance of inequalities under “justice” → Equality ≠ Justice)

Moral Arbitrariness

The distribution of income and opportunities should not be based on random factors.

To explain:

1. Feudal Society : Society is unfair because in such a hierarchal-based system, the distribution of income, wealth, opportunities, and power is entirely based on a person's random birth. If you happen to be born into a noble family, you have more power and status than those born into a commoner family.

2. Libertarian society : Everyone is endowed with equal legal rights, and the distribution of income and power depends on the Free Market. The free market provides everyone with formal equality of opportunity. A person's social status, wealth, and power are no longer determined by birth. However, Rawls pointed out that even in a free market system, everyone is unequal: children born into wealthier and more socially privileged families have a clear advantage over those born into impoverished and uneducated families.

3. Elitist society : In a society based on materialism, every child has equal educational opportunities, so regardless of a person's birth, a child from a poor family can compete with a child from a wealthy family on the same starting line. In addition, there are measures such as early childhood nutrition programs, healthcare programs, vocational training programs, etc. that can put everyone - regardless of their background - on the same starting line for fair competition. In this case, as long as everyone has equal opportunities to cultivate their talents, their final result will definitely be fair.

However, this still cannot be depicted as fair.

“Even if it works to perfection in eliminating the influence of social contingencies, the meritocratic system still permits the distribution of wealth and income to be determined by the natural distribution of abilities and talents”

To put it more bluntly, Rawls believes that those who rely on themselves to obtain high income and wealth in the free market under the system of "elitism" are simply "coincidentally" acquiring certain specific talents and abilities, and "coincidentally" born into a society that values those specific talents and abilities. Therefore, they cannot say that they "deserve" the achievements they have obtained in a moral sense and thus, we cannot take this as justice.

Ultimately, he believes that there is no social system that is nominally absolutely fair. Even if there is such a society, it is built on the pain of those who possess these special talents, so no one will choose. Thus, the principle of difference emerges. It states that differences can exist as long as they arise from a system that benefits the worst class as a whole.

→ Answers to more doubts on principle 2

Doubt 1 : Incentives.

If under the principle of difference, those with specific talents can only benefit from their talents in a system that benefits the worst class as a whole, wouldn't they choose to work passively? Since no matter how hard they try, the benefits they bring will be redistributed in a way that benefits the worst class as a whole, why do they still work hard?

Rawls explained that under the principle of differentiation, income inequality is allowed with the aim of stimulating talented individuals to work hard. That is to say, these individuals with talent will have higher incomes than those without talent, in order to ensure their work enthusiasm, provided that society needs such stimulation to help the majority of the poorest classes.

Doubt 2: Efforts.

Those with talent also put in a lot of effort to develop their potential, just like basketball legend Michael Jordan practiced his shooting hard. Can't they say that what they have achieved is what they "deserve"?

Rawls explained that effort itself is actually a product of randomness, so just like innate talent, people cannot attribute it to themselves. The effort a person is willing to put in also depends on their abilities, skills, and other optional choices.