A Theory of Justice

The main concept that Rawls’ is trying to portray, in the excerpt from his book, is the idea of the original position of equality. The original position is like the social contract that Rousseau proposed, but Rawls’ transformed it to be more social cooperation. The original position calls for principles of justice to be established. These principles are chosen by people from behind “a veil of ignorance.” The veil means that the people choosing the principles know nothing about what their place in society will be. This allows for them to choose principles that will benefit everyone equally. The principles of justice are divided into two categories. This first is that each person is to have an equal right to basic liberties compatible with similar liberties given to others. These basic liberties include the right to vote, freedom of speech, and other things of that nature. The second principle is more controversial than the first. The second principle is that social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they benefit the least advantaged members of society the most.

The second principle of justice is something that can be related to today. As we discussed in the first unit, the wage gap between the classes is widening more and more. CEOs and other executives are making more money than they need while their employees are not making enough money to survive off of. Rawls’ would argue that this is unjust. He states “that social and economic inequalities, for example inequalities of wealth and authority, are just only if they result in compensating benefits for everyone, and in particular for the least advantaged members of society” (paragraph 7). This means that any inequalities that would occur are only just if the least advantaged members of society are given something in return. Would Rawls’ support some kind of redistribution of wealth in the United States as a means of compensation? The redistribution of wealth would make the poor less poor and the rich less rich but it could have negative affects. One affect would be that people would begin to rely on others money as a means of supporting themselves. There will always be those people that take advantage of the system. Robert Nozick is a well-known opponent of any redistribution of wealth. He believes people should be treated as ends not means. He believed that the redistribution of money used people only as a source of money. Giving benefits to the least advantaged members of society is not only about money but about opportunity. Affirmative action is good example of doing so in today’s world. Affirmative action gives an advantage to those are considered to be “disadvantaged” in some form. We all had to deal with it when we were applying to college and we know its affects on those who do not benefit from it. I feel that it is a punishment for those who do not qualify. Is it right to punish people for things they have no control over?

Rawls’ presents his idea of the original position of equality with the veil of ignorance. He admits that all he discussed was a hypothetical situation. How would the principles of justice work when that ignorance is not present? Would people be selfish or generous? The answer cannot be known for sure. Overall, Rawls’ concepts are interesting but not practical. Humans are naturally selfish, so they are going to do things that will be in their best interest. I believe that we should help those that are disadvantaged but not at the expense of the rest of the members of society. Rawls’ argument sounds good in theory, but so do many other things, like communism and capitalism. Being a theory and being practical do not always coincide.