Justice as fairness

Definition

Justice as fairness is a political philosophy developed by John Rawls that posits the principles of justice are those that rational individuals would agree upon under conditions of equality and impartiality. It emphasizes fairness in the distribution of rights and resources, aiming to create a just society by establishing a social contract that ensures each person has equal access to opportunities and protection from inequality.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. Justice as fairness is central to Rawls's theory of justice, aiming to create a fair system that respects individual rights while promoting social cooperation.
2. The concept requires individuals to set aside personal biases and interests when determining principles of justice, ensuring decisions benefit all members of society.
3. Rawls's principles are often contrasted with utilitarianism, which focuses on maximizing overall happiness but may overlook individual rights and fairness.
4. Justice as fairness includes two main principles: equal basic liberties for all and social and economic inequalities arranged to benefit the least advantaged.
5. The idea has influenced various discussions around social justice, political philosophy, and public policy debates regarding equality and rights.

Review Questions

• How does the concept of the Original Position relate to the formulation of justice as fairness?
  • The Original Position is a critical component in establishing justice as fairness, as it provides the context in which rational individuals decide on principles of justice. By imagining themselves behind a veil of ignorance, where they are unaware of their personal circumstances, individuals can agree on fair principles that apply universally. This hypothetical scenario ensures that choices made are just and equitable, reflecting a commitment to fairness rather than self-interest.
• Discuss how justice as fairness challenges utilitarian perspectives in political philosophy.
  • Justice as fairness directly challenges utilitarian perspectives by prioritizing individual rights and equality over the collective maximization of happiness. While utilitarianism may justify sacrificing individual rights for greater societal welfare, justice as fairness insists that any social contract must protect the basic liberties of all individuals. This philosophical divergence emphasizes that justice cannot simply be reduced to outcomes but must consider the moral implications of treatment and respect for all persons.
• Evaluate the implications of Rawls's Difference Principle within contemporary discussions on social inequality.
  • Rawls's Difference Principle has significant implications for contemporary discussions on social inequality, advocating for policies that specifically aim to improve the situation of the least advantaged members of society. By arguing that inequalities can only be justified if they benefit those who are worst off, this principle offers a framework for addressing systemic inequalities in wealth and opportunity. It encourages policymakers to consider how reforms might disproportionately affect marginalized groups, thus promoting a more inclusive approach to justice in modern socio-economic contexts.

Related terms

Original Position: A hypothetical scenario in which individuals choose the principles of justice behind a 'veil of ignorance,' meaning they are unaware of their own social status, abilities, or personal characteristics.

Veil of Ignorance: A concept that requires individuals to make decisions about justice without knowing their future position in society, thus ensuring impartiality and fairness in the chosen principles.

Difference Principle: One of Rawls's principles of justice stating that social and economic inequalities should be arranged to benefit the least advantaged members of society.