Rawls 2

1
Rawls 2
2
Rawlsian Contract Theory

• One of the features of Rawls contract theory is
  that he doesnt imagine a pre-existing state of
  individuality he simply imagines what it would
  be like now if were to sit down and draw up a
  contract to define justice in our society.

3

• To do this, he must do two things
• 1.define the conditions under which the agreement
  would be made.
• 2.show that his principles of justice would be
  chosen under these conditions and show that these
  are therefore the correct principles of justice.

4

• an interpretation of the initial situation and
  of the problem of choice posed there (p.14).
• A set of principles which, it is argued, would
  be agreed to (p.14).

5

• So, the first stage is to define the hypothetical
  conditions under which we are all to make this
  decision about what principles of justice to
  follow.
• Rawls calls this the Original Position.

6
1. The Original Position

• Rawls has designed a situation in which people
  are stripped of all knowledge about their
  personal situation, their preferences, their
  beliefs, and even their historical situation.
• In that position, they are basically reduced to
  purely rational beings whose only knowledge is
  the basic principles of economic and social
  theory.
• The question is, in this situation, what is the
  rational choice?

7

• Imagine you wake up in a hospital bed, your body
  completely wrapped in bandages, and suffering
  from total amnesia about yourself and your
  society in walks Dr J. Rawls and tells you that
  you must decide what principles you want to
  govern the society you are going to live in.
• From tomorrow you will be living in this society,
  and once youve made the choice theres no
  turning back What would be the rational choice
  to make?

8
Veil of Ignorance

• To represent the desired restrictions one
  imagines a situation in which everyone is
  deprived of this sort of information
• natural talents, social standing, personal
  wealth
• In this manner the veil of ignorance is arrived
  at in a natural way (p.17).

9

• The purpose of these conditions is to represent
  equality between human beings as moral persons,
  as creatures having a conception of their good
  and capable of a sense of justice (17).

10
2. Two Principles of Justice

• So, we assume the Original Position, with its
  Veil of Ignorance, and a group of rational
  decision-makers,
• These decision-makers use a procedure which
  maximises the minimum outcomes in other words,
  they want to choose the outcome in which the
  worst case scenario for any of them is as good as
  possible.
• This is called a maximin principle. And this is
  the one which Rawls says it would be rational to
  use in the original situation we should not
  take risks in that position.

11

• On these grounds, Rawls argues that TWO basic
  principles of justice will be agreed to
• The Liberty Principle
• The Difference Principle

12

• The Liberty Principle
• 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 (p.53)
• Note similarity to Mills Harm Principle

13

• 2. The Difference Principle
• social and economic inequalities are to be
  arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably
  expected to be in everyones advantage, and (b)
  attached to positions and offices open to all
  (p.53).

14

• No doubt this seems like a very reasonable and
  decent account of justice, but -
• Even if we agree that Rawls is right that we
  would choose these principles in the Original
  Position, there are still many concerns we could
  have about his theory of justice.

15

• For example, isnt there a cultural/historical
  bias in Rawls design.
• He says the choosers are stripped of all
  particular beliefs, knowledge, etc, but what they
  are left with is a belief that they want to
  maximise primary goods (liberties,
  opportunities, income, wealth, etc). This is so,
  on the grounds that we need these to achieve any
  of our particular goals and the more we have,
  the better.

16

• However, some critics argue that this is a
  modern, western, capitalist conception of human
  nature one which would not be shared by
  everyone in the original position one which it
  is not necessarily rational to adopt.

17

• This criticism is basically the same one that
  could be directed at Lockes contract theory
  also
• That is, the supposed state of nature or
  original position already includes or is based
  on assumptions that only a modern western liberal
  individualist would make.
• The fact that this model (of person) is becoming
  globally dominant does not mean that it can
  provide the basis for a universal theory of
  justice.