Home / Summaries / Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? / moral-principle-social

The case for equality / John Rawls

6 important questions on The case for equality / John Rawls

What argues John Rawls (1921-2002) in A Theory of Justice?

The way to think about justice is to ask what principles we would agree to in an initial situation of equality

What is Rawls's idea of social contract?

a hypothetical agreement in an original position of equality. Rawls invites us to ask what principles we—as rational, self-interested persons—would choose if we found ourselves in that position. He doesn’t assume that we are all motivated by self- interest in real life; only that we set aside our moral and religious convictions for purposes of the thought experiment.

What principles would we choose according to Rawls?

1. we would not choose utilitarianism
2. Nor would we choose a purely laissez-faire, libertarian principle that would give people a right to keep all the money they made in a market economy.

What are the moral limits of contracts?

Actual contracts are not self-sufficient moral instruments. It can always be asked: Is it fair, what they agreed to? To answer this we need some independent standard of fairness. But no actual social contract or
constitutional convention, however representative, is guaranteed to produce fair terms of social cooperation.
But consent matters, even if it’s not all there is to justice. But it is less decisive than we sometimes think.
We often confuse the moral work of consent with other sources of obligation.

What are two principles of justice?

What principles would emerge: no utilitarianism but agree to a principle of equal basic liberties for all
citizens. And we would insist that this principle take priority over attempts to maximize the general welfare.
What principle would we choose to govern social and economic inequalities?
- Difference principle: only those social and economic inequalities are permitted that work to the
benefit of the least advantaged members of society.

On which two grounds rejects Rawls moral desert as the basis for distributive justice?

1) ‘my having the talents that enable me to compete more successfully than others it’s not entirely my own doing’
2) a second contingency is equally decisive: the qualities that a society happens to value at any given time also morally arbitrary ?? (Even if I had sole, unproblematic claim to my talents, it would still be the case that the rewards these talents reap will depend on the contingencies of supply and demand)

The question on the page originate from the summary of the following study material:

Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? | 9780374532505

View summary