John Rawls: Justice as Fairness | Paul Weithman (Rebroadcast)
Jan 7, 2024
auto_awesome
The podcast explores John Rawls' theory of justice as fairness and the social contract tradition. It discusses the importance of fair rules, explores the concept of the social contract and the veil of ignorance, and delves into the concept of justice in relation to wealth distribution. The podcast also discusses whether animals should be considered in Rawls' theory of justice and explores different types of societies and foreign policy in a liberal just democracy. It concludes with an exploration of John Rawls' suggested rules in the original position and the value of ignorance.
Rawls' theory of justice is based on the idea of fair rules determined by considering the hypothetical ignorance of one's own advantages or disadvantages.
Rawls emphasizes the importance of equal basic liberties and addressing the needs of the least advantaged members of society in the arrangement of social and economic inequalities.
Rawls' theory of justice focuses on domestic distributive justice and does not provide a comprehensive framework for addressing global justice or all moral and political questions.
Deep dives
John Rawls and the Theory of Justice
In this podcast episode, Brandon Avet is joined by Paul Wythem from Notre Dame University to discuss the political philosopher John Rawls. Rawls' theory of justice, known as justice as fairness, is based on a thought experiment similar to a baseball game. Rawls suggests that fair rules for the game can be determined by asking players to imagine that they don't know their own talents or abilities. This principle applies to the broader concept of justice in society, where fair rules can be established by people who disregard their own advantages and make decisions from a position of ignorance about their age, sex, abilities, or socioeconomic status. Rawls argues for two principles of justice: the equal basic liberties for all and the arrangement of social and economic inequalities to benefit the least advantaged. He rejects utilitarianism and emphasizes the importance of prioritizing the basic liberties and ensuring equal opportunities and benefits for the most vulnerable members of society. While Rawls' theory focuses on domestic distributive justice, he acknowledges that international justice and the treatment of animals are important concerns, but these topics are not the central focus of his theory.
Applying Rawls' Principles in a Pluralistic Society
Rawls' theory of justice also addresses the accommodation of different visions of the good life in a pluralistic society. He argues for the guarantee of freedom of religion as one of the principles of justice. While he doesn't provide specific guidance on every aspect of religious freedom in politics, he supports the protection of basic liberties and non-establishment, meaning that the government should not establish or favor any particular religion. The balance between free exercise and non-establishment may vary in different contexts, but Rawls argues that decisions regarding specific conflicts should be made through democratic processes and consultation with minority religious groups. He recognizes the importance of respecting religious freedom and ensuring fair treatment for all citizens, while also safeguarding the idea of a well-ordered society based on democratic principles.
Rawls' Perspective on Global Justice
Rawls' theory of justice primarily focuses on domestic distributive justice rather than addressing global justice. He distinguishes four types of societies: well-ordered liberal democracies, outlaw states, burden societies, and decent consultation hierarchies. Rawls argues that a liberal democracy should respect the internal affairs of societies with consultation hierarchies as long as basic human rights and liberties are upheld. However, he acknowledges that these societies may face challenges of globalization and their long-term trajectory is uncertain. Rawls emphasizes that his theory is developed for societies with moderate scarcity, moral and religious pluralism, and a history of liberal democratic thought. Issues of global justice, such as interventions in oppressive or tyrannical states, economic assistance to impoverished societies, and establishing a global community of states, require separate considerations beyond the scope of his theory.
Abiding by Rawls' Principles
The question of why individuals in a society should abide by the principles established in the original position is a crucial aspect of Rawls' theory. Rawls argues that if an agreement is reached in the original position, but individuals would defect from it once they exit and gain personal advantages, then the agreement lacks value. He contends that people in a well-ordered society will have a sense of justice and a desire to act justly, which aligns with their own views of the good. Over time, the institutions and principles of a just society shape the individuals within it, leading them to recognize the value of justice and integrate it into their own conceptions of the good life. Rawls points to the historical shift towards religious tolerance as an example of how societies can evolve to accept and embrace principles of justice.
Limitations and Challenges to Rawls' Theory
Rawls' theory of justice does not address every moral or political question, and there are limitations and challenges to its application. In specific contexts, such as scarcity or oppressive regimes, different considerations may arise that require distinct ethical frameworks. The theory focuses on domestic distributive justice rather than addressing all aspects of human life, including the treatment of animals or the environment. Moreover, the theory assumes the rationality and impartiality of individuals in the original position, which may not always hold in reality. Critics also question the ability of the theory to address issues like intercultural conflicts or the clash of competing value systems. While Rawls' theory provides a valuable framework for understanding justice in a liberal democratic society, it does not provide definitive answers to all moral and political questions.