With the appearance of "A Theory of Justice" by John Rawls in 1972, philosophers once again turned their attention toward their understanding of justice in accordance with ethics. Philosophers as contemporary as Emmanuel Levinas had already explored ethics in relation to moral concerns and dilemmas and had regarded ethics as our relation to 'The Other'. And ages ago, Aristotle set the basic foundations for the very topic when he discussed justice as fairness, and the manner in which we relate to our fellow man - ethically. But Rawls set out to do something a little different. In the same manner that Levinas called for a revision of ideas, Rawls now does the same in consideration of our understanding of justice. He argues that our 'sense' of justice is the true key for the operation of a stable society. But how does he go about this? And what is the 'sense' that he actually refers to?
Although Aristotle introduced the concept of 'justice as fairness', Rawls approach is new in that it involves the careful structuring or orchestration of ideas. His approach is substantive rather than semantic. This approach revives the tradition of philosophers such as Bentham, Hume and John Stuart Mill in providing a clear and sophisticated exploration of ideas. Such an approach lends a tremendous amount of ideological appeal and importance to Rawls' work. He promotes both conceptual coherence and practical feasibility, and therefore increases the chance that his work will hold a great deal of importance and power within educated circles for years (perhaps even centuries) to come. He has a clear understanding of how he thinks moral philosophy should be executed: "There is a definite if limited class of facts against which conjectured principles can be checked, namely our considered judgements in reflective equilibrium". Already we can see that what Rawls considers to be the facts are born from the ideas of the singular individual. The 'facts' are what one might say after thinking carefully about the topic in question. And so, he associates justice with truth in that, like truth, justice is uncompromising. It is a 'first virtue' of human activity - universal. Rawls, in fact, speaks of a 'reflective equilibrium' between principles and ordinary judgements, since he envisages that where there are initial discrepancies between these we have a choice of modifying the conditions of the initial position in which principles are chosen or modifying in detail the judgements.
However, our first impressions may be contrary to this idea. I must admit my understanding of the word 'justice' was alot different from the justice that Rawls went on to explore. These days the word justice has something of a negative connotation in that it seems to dwell exclusively within the house of law. And now there seems to be something of a cynical approach to law (and therefore justice). At times, thanks to the media and our own personal experience, we may witness people leaving the courtroom saying that what had occurred inside was not 'fair' - that justice was not done. This is in fact exactly what Rawls addresses in a way; that is to say, he focuses upon that singular word that most individuals will use in relation to justice - 'fair'.
Some may say that what is fair and what is legal are two different things, and they would be completely justified in making such a remark. During discussions concerning this issue in our tutorial, we came to the conclusion that in todays world, justice is an ideal rather than an actual, more tangible property of a legal procedure. Law is the means by which we as a society attempt to actuate the ideal of justice. However, the idea that our own conception of what is 'fair' should have something to do with the operation of justice, and therefore the manner in which the law operates, sometimes seems to fall short. The real yardstick by which such decisions are made seems to be the idea that 'majority rules'. The law, and therefore justice, seems to have arisen from what could be termed a 'utilitarian' procedure. Justice is what is best for the majority. Rawls argues against this (and therefore against utilitarianism) adamantly:
"Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. For this reason justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others".
This was Rawls' major disagreement with utilitarian theory in that he upheld the notion that the individual should not be ignored in respect to the majority. Rawls' society was not a mass or majority rule, but a body formed from consensus amongst individuals of equal worth. As Rawls states that equal citizenship is not a thing subject to 'political bargaining' or a greater 'calculus of social interests'.
Each individual has particular interests, or goals, and their life is presumed then to be led in a manner that works towards these goals. In Rawls' society these goals, or interests, are assumed to be mutual. Each person therefore has a desire to cooperate in order to achieve these mutual aims. An identity of interests therefore becomes essential to the equation. Of course, there may be conflict between individual interests, and this is perhaps where Rawls may be a little naive concerning not only how this conflict may be overcome, but in assuming that human beings are naturally considerate to others at all times. One of the reasons disparity may be of little concern to Rawls is his belief that the general desire for justice limits the pursuit of other ends. A shared conception of justice establishes the bonds of civic friendship. Rawls seems to be suggesting continual balance and compromise in order to avoid any real conflict in interests between individuals. This is echoed in H. L. A. Hart's 'Rawls on liberty and its priority':
"The test of his theory, therefore, is in part whether the principles he identifies illuminate our ordinary judgements and help to reveal a basic structure and coherence underlying them."
Rawls would therefore rely upon competing claims possessing some basic continuity, some single unifying truth that runs in accordance with other similar, albeit different, interests. That is to say, although everybody's interests may seem different on a simple or superficial level, they have a single goal at their core. I would suggest that although this is generally true, I would see Rawls' naiveté shining through in suggesting that every single human being on the face of the planet can come to this realization and act accordingly. As unfortunate as it sounds, not everybody can come to such a realization, and would invest everything in the more superficial or diminutive aspects of their own personal interests. However, each man is understood to possess a sound knowledge of the basic rules before the game is played. These rules will ultimately determine what the mutual goals are, a resulting identity of interests and then how such a pursuit can proceed with a minimal amount of conflict existing between each "player". Rawls identifies these rules as being each person's conception of 'fairness'. Actually, for Rawls, justice IS fairness.
We have come to an understanding of what Rawls called the 'Main Idea'. This is the suggestion that the principles of justice are not derived from mere intuition, nor from utilitarian principles, but from principles chosen by free and rational human beings in order to govern their 'passage' towards achieving mutual goals. At first glance, intuitionism seems to be exactly what Rawls is suggesting as the means by which we are to make our judgements and formulate principles. Yet, Rawls provides an understanding of intuitionism which he grants is more general than the customary understanding. Namely, that it itself is a doctrine which details or extrapolates the notion that there is an 'irreducible family of first principles' which must be balanced, which takes on our part some thinking to determine what will be the most just. We must employ a considered judgement. We must understand that a certain generality, an undelying base for moral judgements exists, within every human being. It can be applie in a number of facets of everyday life. Intuitionism, however, it not constructive, just as we might say that the base or frame of a house does not function as a house in itself. It is vital and is the starting point, but must be added on to by considered judgement. Thought, tempered by outside influences. I am reminded here of John Stuart Mill in that rather than seeing intuitionism as the singular source of ideas, I would suggest that Rawls would be refering to our conscience just as Mill used conscience as something of a standard by which our decisions and thought are tempered. Rawls turns his attention towards Kant's philosophy for his own parallels:
"Kant held, I believe, that a person is acting autonomously when the principles of his action are chosen by him as the most adequate possible expression of his nature as a free and equal rational being. The principles he acts upon are not adopted because of his social position or natural endowments, or in view of the particular kind of society in which he lives or the specific things he happens to want. To act on such principles is to act heteronomously."
Now we see how principles may be constructed according to our sense of what is fair to some degree. We see two things as being true: 1) That everyone has a sense of autonomy, that is, they know what is good and right, regardless of what is occurring around them, thanks to rational thought, and, 2) Everyone has the same instinctual desire to strive for good and therefore will naturally be in accordance with everyone else. Since the base is so general it will encompass everyone. All houses have the same essential framework. But there is one stipulation. These principles are to be chosen from behind a 'veil of ignorance', and indeed, this is exactly what Rawls called it. The veil of ignorance extrapolates upon the notion touched upon in point one above, that decisions are to be made regardless of what is occurring around you. The 'veil of ignorance' is an ignorance of your own abilities, psychological propensities, status and society in which you live. It is an ignorance that must be adopted in order to make a decision which all would (hopefully) consider to be fair. I always think of a judge or jury as an analogy at this point, presiding over a court in session. The judge/jury must make a rational consideration of what is presented before them, but in a completely impartial manner. They must not let anything but the truth (which was linked with justice in being a 'first virtue') affect their decision. They adopt something close to the 'veil of ignorance'.
The main reason for this veil being necessary is that Rawls may be making his first true acknowledgement of the reality of human beings. For justice really comes into affect as being the manner in which a society operates. The justice of society depends essentially on how rights and duties are assigned and how opportunities and conditions are portioned out. But, humans being the way they are, some will want more than others, some may have interests that do not run in accordance with everyone elses and some may be self-interested. Therefore, in order to avoid all the unnecessary complications such things induce, the veil is required in order to reduce the affects of such things. Someone defining the principles, making the decisions, that affect the rest of society must, in order for their judgement to be fair and in accordance with the desired 'stable society' - don the veil.
Therefore, we have come in something of a full circle. For essentially we are talking about how we relate to one another in striving to achieve mutual goals, and therefore we are talking about the ethical operation of a stable society. A society in which the interests of every individual are taken into account, and every individual receives their due - their responsibilities, their rewards, their tasks, their conditions, their opportunities. For if a judgement, formed from rational consideration of basic principles, is to be just, and therefore fair, it must ignore the fact that every man has an opinion. Every man counts.
Bibliography
Jocelyn Dunphy-Blomfield and Ron Gilbert, Questioning Justice (Book 3), Study guide, Deakin University Printery, Deakin University, Geelong. First Published 1992, Reprinted 1997.
R. M. Hare, 'Rawls' Theory of Justice', in N. Daniels (ed.), Reading Rawls: Critical Studies on Rawls' 'A Theory of Justice', Basil Blackwell, Oxford. Published 1975. pp.81-2
H. L. A. Hart, 'Rawls on liberty and its priority', in N. Daniels (ed.), Reading Rawls: Critical Studies on Rawls' 'A Theory of Justice', Basil Blackwell, Oxford. Published 1975. pp.230-3.
Rawls, J., A Theory of Justice, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Published 1972.