Exam 25: John Rawls

John Rawls: A Theory of Justice The social contract theory, which has roots in Plato and was developed by Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Kant, grounds moral requirements in social agreements made for the sake of mutual advantage. Rawls presents a novel social contract theory, which has two main parts. The first part of the theory identifies the correct principles of justice as those "that free and rational persons concerned to further their own interests would accept in an initial position of equality as defining the fundamental terms of their association." To ensure that the principles selected by contractors are fair, Rawls imposes a crucial restriction on the "original position" from which the contractors select principles. In Rawls's theory, the correct principles of justice are those that would be chosen from behind a veil of ignorance, whereby individuals are stripped of any particular knowledge about themselves, their social position, or their conception of the good. In putting forward this idea of the original position, Rawls claims that he is simply making vivid "the restrictions that it seems reasonable to impose on arguments for the principles of justice." Rawls maintains that contractors in the original position would agree on two principles of justice. First, "each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others." Second, "social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be to everyone's advantage, and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all." The first of these principles is lexically prior to the second - i.e., the first principle (concerning liberty) trumps the second (concerning inequality). The guiding thought behind the two principles, Rawls claims, is that inequalities can be just only when they benefit the least advantaged members of society. Rawls points out that his theory thus differs sharply from utilitarianism, according to which we ought to maximize well-being, and shares commonalities with Kant's moral philosophy. -Rawls claims that the conditions he places on the original position are intended to:

John Rawls: A Theory of Justice The social contract theory, which has roots in Plato and was developed by Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Kant, grounds moral requirements in social agreements made for the sake of mutual advantage. Rawls presents a novel social contract theory, which has two main parts. The first part of the theory identifies the correct principles of justice as those "that free and rational persons concerned to further their own interests would accept in an initial position of equality as defining the fundamental terms of their association." To ensure that the principles selected by contractors are fair, Rawls imposes a crucial restriction on the "original position" from which the contractors select principles. In Rawls's theory, the correct principles of justice are those that would be chosen from behind a veil of ignorance, whereby individuals are stripped of any particular knowledge about themselves, their social position, or their conception of the good. In putting forward this idea of the original position, Rawls claims that he is simply making vivid "the restrictions that it seems reasonable to impose on arguments for the principles of justice." Rawls maintains that contractors in the original position would agree on two principles of justice. First, "each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others." Second, "social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be to everyone's advantage, and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all." The first of these principles is lexically prior to the second - i.e., the first principle (concerning liberty) trumps the second (concerning inequality). The guiding thought behind the two principles, Rawls claims, is that inequalities can be just only when they benefit the least advantaged members of society. Rawls points out that his theory thus differs sharply from utilitarianism, according to which we ought to maximize well-being, and shares commonalities with Kant's moral philosophy. -Rawls claims that the original position corresponds to:

John Rawls: A Theory of Justice The social contract theory, which has roots in Plato and was developed by Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Kant, grounds moral requirements in social agreements made for the sake of mutual advantage. Rawls presents a novel social contract theory, which has two main parts. The first part of the theory identifies the correct principles of justice as those "that free and rational persons concerned to further their own interests would accept in an initial position of equality as defining the fundamental terms of their association." To ensure that the principles selected by contractors are fair, Rawls imposes a crucial restriction on the "original position" from which the contractors select principles. In Rawls's theory, the correct principles of justice are those that would be chosen from behind a veil of ignorance, whereby individuals are stripped of any particular knowledge about themselves, their social position, or their conception of the good. In putting forward this idea of the original position, Rawls claims that he is simply making vivid "the restrictions that it seems reasonable to impose on arguments for the principles of justice." Rawls maintains that contractors in the original position would agree on two principles of justice. First, "each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others." Second, "social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be to everyone's advantage, and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all." The first of these principles is lexically prior to the second - i.e., the first principle (concerning liberty) trumps the second (concerning inequality). The guiding thought behind the two principles, Rawls claims, is that inequalities can be just only when they benefit the least advantaged members of society. Rawls points out that his theory thus differs sharply from utilitarianism, according to which we ought to maximize well-being, and shares commonalities with Kant's moral philosophy. -The purpose of the veil of ignorance is to:

John Rawls: A Theory of Justice The social contract theory, which has roots in Plato and was developed by Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Kant, grounds moral requirements in social agreements made for the sake of mutual advantage. Rawls presents a novel social contract theory, which has two main parts. The first part of the theory identifies the correct principles of justice as those "that free and rational persons concerned to further their own interests would accept in an initial position of equality as defining the fundamental terms of their association." To ensure that the principles selected by contractors are fair, Rawls imposes a crucial restriction on the "original position" from which the contractors select principles. In Rawls's theory, the correct principles of justice are those that would be chosen from behind a veil of ignorance, whereby individuals are stripped of any particular knowledge about themselves, their social position, or their conception of the good. In putting forward this idea of the original position, Rawls claims that he is simply making vivid "the restrictions that it seems reasonable to impose on arguments for the principles of justice." Rawls maintains that contractors in the original position would agree on two principles of justice. First, "each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others." Second, "social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be to everyone's advantage, and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all." The first of these principles is lexically prior to the second - i.e., the first principle (concerning liberty) trumps the second (concerning inequality). The guiding thought behind the two principles, Rawls claims, is that inequalities can be just only when they benefit the least advantaged members of society. Rawls points out that his theory thus differs sharply from utilitarianism, according to which we ought to maximize well-being, and shares commonalities with Kant's moral philosophy. -Rawls argues that parties in the original position would not accept utilitarianism because:

John Rawls: A Theory of Justice The social contract theory, which has roots in Plato and was developed by Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Kant, grounds moral requirements in social agreements made for the sake of mutual advantage. Rawls presents a novel social contract theory, which has two main parts. The first part of the theory identifies the correct principles of justice as those "that free and rational persons concerned to further their own interests would accept in an initial position of equality as defining the fundamental terms of their association." To ensure that the principles selected by contractors are fair, Rawls imposes a crucial restriction on the "original position" from which the contractors select principles. In Rawls's theory, the correct principles of justice are those that would be chosen from behind a veil of ignorance, whereby individuals are stripped of any particular knowledge about themselves, their social position, or their conception of the good. In putting forward this idea of the original position, Rawls claims that he is simply making vivid "the restrictions that it seems reasonable to impose on arguments for the principles of justice." Rawls maintains that contractors in the original position would agree on two principles of justice. First, "each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others." Second, "social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be to everyone's advantage, and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all." The first of these principles is lexically prior to the second - i.e., the first principle (concerning liberty) trumps the second (concerning inequality). The guiding thought behind the two principles, Rawls claims, is that inequalities can be just only when they benefit the least advantaged members of society. Rawls points out that his theory thus differs sharply from utilitarianism, according to which we ought to maximize well-being, and shares commonalities with Kant's moral philosophy. -What two principles of justice does Rawls endorse? Do you find them plausible? Describe what you take to be the most serious objection to one of these principles, and how you think Rawls would respond to it.

John Rawls: A Theory of Justice The social contract theory, which has roots in Plato and was developed by Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Kant, grounds moral requirements in social agreements made for the sake of mutual advantage. Rawls presents a novel social contract theory, which has two main parts. The first part of the theory identifies the correct principles of justice as those "that free and rational persons concerned to further their own interests would accept in an initial position of equality as defining the fundamental terms of their association." To ensure that the principles selected by contractors are fair, Rawls imposes a crucial restriction on the "original position" from which the contractors select principles. In Rawls's theory, the correct principles of justice are those that would be chosen from behind a veil of ignorance, whereby individuals are stripped of any particular knowledge about themselves, their social position, or their conception of the good. In putting forward this idea of the original position, Rawls claims that he is simply making vivid "the restrictions that it seems reasonable to impose on arguments for the principles of justice." Rawls maintains that contractors in the original position would agree on two principles of justice. First, "each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others." Second, "social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be to everyone's advantage, and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all." The first of these principles is lexically prior to the second - i.e., the first principle (concerning liberty) trumps the second (concerning inequality). The guiding thought behind the two principles, Rawls claims, is that inequalities can be just only when they benefit the least advantaged members of society. Rawls points out that his theory thus differs sharply from utilitarianism, according to which we ought to maximize well-being, and shares commonalities with Kant's moral philosophy. -What is the original position and what role does it play in Rawls's theory? Do you think consideration of the original position is useful in constructing a theory of justice? Why or why not?

John Rawls: A Theory of Justice The social contract theory, which has roots in Plato and was developed by Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Kant, grounds moral requirements in social agreements made for the sake of mutual advantage. Rawls presents a novel social contract theory, which has two main parts. The first part of the theory identifies the correct principles of justice as those "that free and rational persons concerned to further their own interests would accept in an initial position of equality as defining the fundamental terms of their association." To ensure that the principles selected by contractors are fair, Rawls imposes a crucial restriction on the "original position" from which the contractors select principles. In Rawls's theory, the correct principles of justice are those that would be chosen from behind a veil of ignorance, whereby individuals are stripped of any particular knowledge about themselves, their social position, or their conception of the good. In putting forward this idea of the original position, Rawls claims that he is simply making vivid "the restrictions that it seems reasonable to impose on arguments for the principles of justice." Rawls maintains that contractors in the original position would agree on two principles of justice. First, "each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others." Second, "social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be to everyone's advantage, and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all." The first of these principles is lexically prior to the second - i.e., the first principle (concerning liberty) trumps the second (concerning inequality). The guiding thought behind the two principles, Rawls claims, is that inequalities can be just only when they benefit the least advantaged members of society. Rawls points out that his theory thus differs sharply from utilitarianism, according to which we ought to maximize well-being, and shares commonalities with Kant's moral philosophy. -Rawls claims that the principles of justice are analogous to categorical imperatives.