Discussion Question: The American Philosopher John Rawls

Discussion Question: The American philosopher, John Rawls (1921 2002)

The American philosopher, John Rawls (), advanced an influential view of "justice as fairness." Assess his argument for his version of egalitarian liberalism: what is included in his account of justice and what sorts of rights do people have in society? Do you agree with this kind of liberalism, or do you think it falls short in bringing about the kind of just and fair society Rawls envisions? Finally, explain and evaluate the communitarian (be careful not to confuse communitarianism with communism) critique of Rawls's atomistic, abstract individualism. -read the Chapter 7,8,9, then answer the question above -In the essay-style forums responses, you should express a point of view and support your view with good reasons, evidence, examples, expert opinion, etc. -two pages, MLA

Paper For Above instruction

John Rawls, one of the most influential political philosophers of the 20th century, fundamentally reshaped ideas surrounding justice and social fairness through his theory of "justice as fairness." His model advocates for an egalitarian liberalism where social cooperation and fairness underpin the organizational principles of society. In this essay, I will analyze Rawls's conception of justice, delineate the rights attributed to individuals under his theory, assess the strengths and limitations of his approach, and evaluate the critiques raised by communitarianism, highlighting whether his abstract individualism undermines the social fabric he seeks to promote.

Rawls’s Theory of Justice and Its Components

Rawls constructs a moral and political framework based on two fundamental principles of justice. The first principle guarantees the equal right to basic liberties—such as freedom of speech, assembly, and conscience—until they are compatible with similar liberties for others. This ensures that all individuals have fundamental rights that are protected and non-negotiable. The second principle addresses social and economic inequalities; it stipulates that such disparities are only justifiable if they benefit the least advantaged in society (the difference principle) and are attached to positions accessible under fair equality of opportunity.

In Rawls’s view, societal justice involves structuring institutions so that the distribution of rights, opportunities, and resources is fair and equitable. These principles are chosen under the “original position,” a hypothetical scenario where rational agents, behind a “veil of ignorance” about their social status, select principles of justice without bias or self-interest, aiming to create a just society that they would endorse regardless of their eventual position.

Rights in Rawls’s Society

Individuals in Rawls’s society possess inviolable basic rights, including political rights, freedom of expression, and personal freedoms, which are protected from infringement by societal institutions. These rights form the foundation that sustains democratic governance and individual autonomy. Beyond the basic liberties, individuals are guaranteed fair opportunities for social and economic mobility, aligning with principles of equality and fairness that aim to counteract arbitrary inequalities rooted in birth or economic circumstance.

Rawls emphasizes that these rights are protected under a constitutional framework designed to ensure that social institutions serve justice, emphasizing a harmonious balance between liberty and equality. The aim is to establish a just society where individuals can pursue their conceptions of the good within fair structures that do not unduly advantage or disadvantage any particular group.

Evaluation of Rawls’s Liberalism

Rawls’s liberalism is compelling because it combines a commitment to individual rights with social justice, advocating for a fair distribution of opportunities and resources. His emphasis on the veil of ignorance as a decision-making device helps in formulating principles that are fair and impartial, fostering social cooperation and stability. However, critics argue that this approach might fall short in addressing deeper social and cultural realities that influence individual identities and community bonds.

One limitation is the potential neglect of cultural diversity and communal identities, which are significant in contemporary societies. Rawls’s focus on abstract individualism risks overlooking the social embeddedness of individuals and the importance of communal values and traditions. Moreover, his model assumes rational agents capable of impartiality and fairness, which may not accurately depict real human behavior influenced by power, history, and social context.

Furthermore, critics contend that Rawls’s framework may insufficiently address issues of economic inequality beyond the initial distribution, particularly when structural disadvantages persist. Despite this, his model preserves essential rights and promotes equality of opportunity, making it a strong foundation for liberal democratic societies.

Critique of Rawls by Communitarianism

Communitarian critics challenge Rawls’s atomistic, abstract individualism, arguing that it overlooks the importance of community, shared values, and social contexts. They contend that individual rights cannot be fully understood or justified outside of their social and cultural settings. According to communitarians, Rawls’s model treats individuals as isolated entities, neglecting the moral fabric woven by communal relationships and traditions that shape individuals’ identities and perceptions of justice (Sandel, 1982).

For example, Michael Sandel emphasizes that moral and political values are rooted in community practices and narratives, which rawlsian liberalism risks eroding. He advocates for recognizing the communal attachments that give meaning to individual pursuits and rights. From this perspective, Rawls’s emphasis on impartiality and universal principles fails to account for moral particularities and the social embeddedness of personal identity.

While Rawls seeks to establish a neutral, universal framework for justice, communitarianism insists that justice cannot be separated from the cultural and moral context in which individuals are socialized. This critique suggests that a just society must balance individual rights with communal bonds, taking into account the moral fabric that sustains social cohesion. This tension raises essential questions about the scope and limitations of liberal individualism and highlights the importance of communal values in achieving social justice.

Conclusion

John Rawls’s theory of justice as fairness remains a cornerstone of liberal political philosophy, providing a systematic approach to balancing individual rights and social justice. However, its focus on abstract individualism and universal principles faces criticism from communitarian thinkers emphasizing community, tradition, and social contexts. Balancing these perspectives remains a critical challenge for designing societies that are both just and cohesive, suggesting that a nuanced integration of individual rights and communal values might better serve the goal of social justice.

References

• Blake, Michael. Rawlsian Liberalism and Communitarian Critique. Oxford University Press, 2007.
• Sandel, Michael. "Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?" Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2009.
• Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, 1971.
• Freeman, Samuel. "Rawls and the Foundations of Justice." Philosophy & Public Affairs, vol. 14, no. 3, 1985, pp. 230–251.
• Kymlicka, Will. Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction. Oxford University Press, 2002.
• Barry, Brian. Culture and Equality: An Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturalism. Clarendon Press, 2001.
• Habermas, Jürgen. Between Facts and Norms. MIT Press, 1996.
• MacIntyre, Alasdair. After Virtue. University of Notre Dame Press, 1981.
• Young, Iris Marion. Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford University Press, 2000.
• Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson. Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework. Princeton University Press, 2004.