Barbara Lopez
Professor Pyle
HUM 103
3 December 2024
Fathoming a Fragment of John Rawls’s A Theory of Justice
To understand how John Rawls situates the affect of moral philosophy and psychology over the conduct of individuals within a society, one must assume Rawls’s presumption that all individuals are inherently moral beings. He argues that rationality is when individuals make decisions based on what will maximize their own social primary goods (assumed liberties, opportunities, and rights) and, in doing so, what will benefit society as a whole. For Rawls, being rational enables individuals to develop principles of justice that are secure. A sustainable conceptualization of justice consists of consensus of the individuals that make up a society. This process of achieving unanimity is what Rawls designates to be the “original position.” The “veil of ignorance,” a requisite for the “original position,” is what prevents comparison between individuals by stripping them of any knowledge of each other’s statuses and identities. Rawls’s development of the “original position” and “veil of ignorance” allows for the fair formulation of a just society through the removal of elements that contribute to inequality. Being rational then ensures justice as, according to Rawls, it is an innate trait that prioritizes the pursuit of self-interest. Rawls suggests that justice will naturally occur if society stops focusing on collective goals over individual ones.
While it seems that rationality promotes being selfish through the context of the “original position,” Rawls defines it as something that promotes altruism instead. In protecting your basic human rights and liberties, you inadvertently protect those of others. Through Rawls’s definition of rationality, one is an inherently moral person that is capable of identifying and feeling secure in one’s own self-worth. It is important to note that Rawls assumes that rational individuals will have similar notions of what they consider ‘fair’, thus eliminating conflict. Rawls’s presumption of rationality suggests an endorsement of individualism as the parties involved are guided by acknowledging their own personal value. Rawls offers a new take on how to cultivate a ‘just society’; he argues that it is not done by considering the desires of others, but rather by focusing on what individuals themselves need. The moralities of the distinct individuals are now shaped in the same way, leading them to demand and desire indistinguishable rights, liberties, and opportunities.
Though Rawls allows us to see how a just and fair society could be contrived, we are unable to implement the elements of his theory into actuality. Extant societies operate on preconceived notions of identity perpetuating prejudice and bias into our political structures and social interactions. Through his theory of justice, Rawls challenges any notion on how individuals have established mutual understanding or consensus. The error in our conceptualization of justice is then exposed—as a society, we lack an understanding of equity. A Theory of Justice illustrates the idealistic nature of using equality as a foundation for the attainment of justice to then instill the concept of equity—fairness. Rawls compels the reader to consider the vitality of differentiating between equity and equality. Accounting for the existing discrimination in society promotes the distribution of resources based on affect, stressing the necessity of prioritizing equity over blanket equality when striving for justice.
Works Cited
“Philosophy for the 21st Century – Steven M. Cahn – Oxford University Press.” Edited by Steven M. Cahn, Philosophy for the 21st Century, Oxford University Press, 21 Nov. 2002, global.oup.com/academic/product/philosophy-for-the-21st-century-9780195147926?cc=us&lang=en&.
