Unit 4: John Rawls' Theory of Justice
In the 1970s, John Rawls put forward what is widely considered to be the most important contemporary theory of justice. Rawls' theory is an update of the traditional social contract approach, but its starting point, rather than the natural rights of individuals, is the deceptively simple idea of fairness. Who would disagree with the proposal that a just society should be a fair one?
As we shall see in this unit, Rawls' theory is both convincing and controversial. We will begin with Thomas Hobbes, one of the most well-known proponents of social contract theory in the history of philosophy. For Hobbes, life before the social contract, or life before government, is "nasty, brutish, and short". Hobbes makes this claim, because he finds that human nature itself tends towards selfishness and cruel treatment of others, especially without a contract with a government that keeps the peace and punishes those who break contracts.
Rawls has a somewhat more positive view of human nature: he is an advocate of political liberalism, and his political philosophy conflicts with many popular contemporary ideas and ideologies. Therefore, we will be looking at issues of equality in society and the questions of whether certain social goods - such as income, education, and opportunity - should be redistributed in order to ensure fairness.
Completing this unit should take you approximately 9 hours.
Upon successful completion of this unit, you will be able to:
- explain Hobbes' description of the state of nature and its implications for human nature;
- compare and contrast Hobbes' and Locke’s description of the state of nature and Rawls' original position and veil of ignorance concepts;
- describe the concepts of fairness and justice as understood in social and political theory;
- differentiate among distributive, retributive, and restorative justice; and
- apply the concepts of justice to case examples, such as affirmative action and racial profiling.
4.1: Social Contract Theory in Historical Focus: Thomas Hobbes
Read Chapters 13, 14, and 15 from Hobbes' Leviathan. He describes what people are like in the absence of authority, especially government authority. Hobbes finds that life before a social contract is inherently negative but that people will tend to seek social contracts and peace. He finds that there are laws of nature, and these laws of nature will mitigate our destructive tendencies in the end.
Watch this lecture, which gives a background on Hobbes' view of the state of nature and human nature before the social contract.
Read Chapters 17 and 18 from Hobbes' Leviathan. Hobbes describes the civil society and common wealth that results when people form a social contract with their government. Individuals in this relationship with their government give up some of their rights to the sovereign, or to the great leviathan made up of the citizens as a whole.
Watch this lecture, which gives additional information about the transition from life in Hobbes' state of nature to life in the social contract.
Read this article, which contrasts Hobbes' views with those of Locke. What is the difference between Locke's view of the state of nature and Hobbes' view? What is the difference between Locke's and Hobbes' conception of the social contract?
4.2: Social Contract Theory without the Contract: John Rawls
John Rawls is famous for devising a contemporary version of social contract theory that does not rely on the existence of any actual social contract or historical state of nature. He is similar to Kant in that he thinks we can derive a theory of justice from reason itself by imagining we need to define the principles of a fair society without knowing what position we will occupy in that society. Rawls' thought experiment is known as the veil of ignorance.
This video explains how the difficulty of life in the "state of nature" inspires the Hobbesian state of nature and the foundation of contractarian government.
The following remarks were delivered by Bill Soderberg at the Peace and Justice Studies Association Annual Conference on October 16, 2015. Professor Soderberg describes John Rawls' overall approach to justice and his views on just war in particular. There are two principles to notice from Rawls' Theory of Justice: the veil of ignorance and the difference principle. What do each of these mean? What does ius ad bellum mean? What is ius in bello? Notice Rawls' eight principles on whether to go to war and his six principles on conduct within war. List three of each and comment on whether or not you think these principles concerning war are right.
Read pages 1-7 of these excerpts from John Rawls' 1971 text. Stop when you reach the subheading on page 7, "Two Principles of Justice." Rawls aims to provide a theory of justice that is even more general than that of Locke or Kant, since it is based on purely hypothetical original position. How would we choose to organize society, if we had no idea what position we would have in it? Rawls' idea is that we should try to make it as fair as possible so that no matter what position we ended up in, we would have the same resources and chances as everyone else.
This video describes the importance of justice in terms of how individuals treat each other in society and how the rule of law manages relations between individuals and their government.
Read pages 7-14 of these excerpts, beginning with the subheading on page 7, "Two Principles of Justice." In these selections, Rawls presents his two principles of justice. Firstly, everyone should have an equal right to basic freedoms. Secondly, resources and institutions should be arranged to benefit the least well-off to create equality of opportunity. These principles are a far cry from the minimal government intervention libertarians advocate.
4.3: The Question of Distributive Justice
This video explains the different roles of society that have existed since the industrial revolution, and considers whether or not concepts like intelligence or social opportunities matter more in distribution of wealth and status in society.
- Read this article, which describes the key differences between retributive and restorative justice. In social and political philosophy, there are traditionally two major types of justice: distributive justice describes how the status, wealth, and goods in society will be portioned out from the beginning, and retributive justice describes punishments, penalties, and restitution for situations where someone wrongs someone else and breaks a social contract. In recent years, retributive justice theory has been contrasted with restorative justice: retributive justice focuses on punishment and penalty, while restorative justice focuses on restitution and restoring community relationships.
- Read this article which describes restorative justice. What are the benefits of this approach over retributive justice? What are some of the pitfalls or risks?
The income gap between the highest earning and the lowest earning Americans has increased. Read this article and respond to the following questions: To which era of modern American history is the current level of income inequality frequently compared? What events tend to precipitate the widening of income inequality? What percentage of the wealth in the United States do the top 20% earners own? The bottom 20% earners?
This video addresses the specific changes in affirmative action that have occured in Northern Ireland, and the shift from forced inclusion to institutional change. This is an interesting example because the affirmative action legislation in Northern Ireland involved Catholics and Protestants imbalanced in the workplace, rather than race imbalances in the workplace.
Read the following segments from the US Court of Appeals' decision in the case of Hopwood v. Texas: sections I, II, and III (A). on pages 1-34. Then, skip ahead and read part VI on pages 67-70. This US Court of Appeals decision involved a group of white students who sued the University of Texas School of Law on the grounds that the school selected several minority students instead of them despite the fact that they had superior academic qualifications. Thus, the plaintiffs argued that they had been discriminated against based on their race. The court decided in their favor, and although the decision was later overturned, the court's statement provides a reasoned argument for the idea that affirmative action constitutes racial discrimination.
Read the syllabus of Grutter v. Bollinger, in which the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the decision handed down in Hopwood. What did Grutter argue in the case? Did the Court uphold her argument or reject it? Who must analyze government racial qualifications? Is student body diversity a compelling state interest? What is a narrowly tailored plan?
The following article is excerpted from Race, Reputation, and the Supreme Court: Valuing Blackness and Whiteness by Fran Lisa Buntman. What is the impact of blackness and whiteness on reputation and in the legal system?
Read Professor Chappell's remarks on the ethical difficulties with racial profiling. What is the difference in considering an individual versus a group?
Unit 4 Discussion
Post and respond to the following topics on the course discussion board, and respond to other students' posts.
- During times of financial crisis, some governments choose to use debtor's prisons to punish and deter those who default on their debts. Is this a legitimate use of the government's power to punish those who break social contracts, according to Hobbes
and Rawls? Why, or why not?
- In the past, governments would deny fire department services to certain community members who had to purchase annual subscriptions from private fire departments as a form of fire insurance. Is this a legitimate form of social contract, or is
fire protection such an important public good that government should always provide these services? Why or why not?
- Rawls' second principle of justice discusses the concept of social mobility, the idea that we should be able to move to a higher social class if we work hard and attain higher education. What do you think Rawls would say about recent lawsuits involving colleges and university policies on affirmative action?
- During times of financial crisis, some governments choose to use debtor's prisons to punish and deter those who default on their debts. Is this a legitimate use of the government's power to punish those who break social contracts, according to Hobbes
and Rawls? Why, or why not?
Unit 4 Assessment
- Receive a grade
Take this assessment to see how well you understood this unit.
- This assessment does not count towards your grade. It is just for practice!
- You will see the correct answers when you submit your answers. Use this to help you study for the final exam!
- You can take this assessment as many times as you want, whenever you want.