Groucho Marxism

A Theory of Justice is a 1971 work of political philosophy and ethics by the American philosopher John Rawls, in which the author attempts to provide a moral theory which is an alternative to utilitarianism and addresses the problem of distributive justice: the socially just distribution of goods in a society. In A Theory of Justice, Rawls argues for a principled reconciliation of liberty and equality that is meant to apply to the basic structure of a well-ordered society. The book is written in the social contract tradition, which assumes the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual. Rawls develops principles of justice through the use of an artificial device or thought experiment he calls the ‘original position’ whereby everyone decides principles of justice from behind a ‘veil of ignorance’.

This ‘veil’ is one that essentially blinds people to all facts about themselves so they cannot tailor principles to their own advantage. Rawls claims that those in the original position would adopt a maximin strategy which would maximize the prospects of the least well-off. This idea is referred as a ‘thin theory of the good’; a ‘full theory of the good’ follows after we derive principles from the original position. Rawls then sets about doing just that. After some 45 chapters (!) of argumentation he finally arrives at two principles of justice. The first principle states that each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all. This is referred to as the ‘liberty principle’.

The second principle states that social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both: (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged; and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. Part (a) of the second principle is referred to as the ‘difference principle’ and part (b) is referred to as the ‘equal opportunity principle’; the second principle as a whole may be referred to as the ‘equality principle’. The principles are ordered such that the greatest equal liberty principle takes priority, followed by the equal opportunity principle, and finally the difference principle. (Why Rawls decided to label the equal opportunity principle as (b) and the difference principle as (a), rather than label them the other way around, I’m not too sure.)

In 2001 Rawls published Justice as Fairness: A Restatement as a revision of A Theory of Justice. In thisupdated work, Rawls list five types of political systems: (1) laissez-faire capitalism; (2) welfare-state capitalism; (3) state socialism with a command economy; (4) property-owning democracy; and (5) liberal democratic socialism. He then argues that the first three “[violate] the two principles of justice in at least one way” thus leaving property-owning democracy and liberal socialism as the “ideal descriptions” that include “arrangements designed to satisfy the two principles of justice.” Laissez-faire capitalism and welfare-state capitalism violate the second principle (equality) whereas state socialism violates the first (liberty).

Rawls was undoubtedly one of the twentieth century’s preeminent philosophers. His ambition was to develop a theory of justice which appealed to basic moral intuitions as well as rational self-interest, thereby creating a ‘sense of justice’ that placed divisive conflicts within the context of agreed-upon principles. He rejected utilitarianism, correctly observing that it is often invoked so as to supersede fundamental rights and liberties. However for some, particularly those on the left, Rawls’ theory was insufficient as a critique of injustice. By holding the liberty principle prior to the equality principle, he effectively placed the right to property above distributional claims. Many saw this as a tacit defence of capitalism.

When Rawls wrote A Theory of Justice – after the legislative achievements of the Civil Rights Movement and toward the tail end of the post-war boom – he was hopeful that liberal democracy was progressing on a just, egalitarian path. By the time he wrote Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, he had become deeply troubled by how private funding of elections allowed organized wealth to dominate the political process. Rawls understood that if the wealthy dominate the political system, the result is class domination rather than popular sovereignty. Whether that made him a socialist or not is open to debate (personally I think he wasn’t). But in the end it doesn’t really matter as Rawls’ intention was not settle arguments about justice but to enable us to better frame them.