Rawls Theory of Justice Is Both Contractual and Distributive Upsc

The work of the American moral and political philosopher John Rawls on solving the problem of distributive justice in society Rawls is part of the tradition of the social contract, although he has a different point of view than previous thinkers. In particular, Rawls develops what he calls the principles of justice using an artificial device he calls the original position; in which everyone decides the principles of justice behind a veil of ignorance. This «veil» is one that essentially blinds people to all the facts about them, so they cannot adapt the principles to their own advantage: but in real life, a real contract may not respond to these ideas. The idea of autonomy can fail due to a lack of knowledge between the parties. However, the idea of reciprocity may fail due to differences in bargaining power. Rawls therefore tells us to imagine a situation in which the idea of autonomy and reciprocity is not subject to any conditions or contingencies and is fixed on realization. What kind of contract would it be? Rawls says it would be a hypothetical social contract made behind a «veil of ignorance» in a state of complete equality. Therefore, according to Rawls, the principles of justice can only be achieved in this way. The next question would be what the principles of justice would be. According to Rawls, the concept of equality found in Western countries may not be appropriate. It must be democratized, that is, it must be aimed at the poor. This can be achieved through positive action in favour of the most deprived. It suggests that inequality is an interesting concept, the more we compensate, the more we end inequality, new forms of inequality become visible.

For example, initially, there was no equality before the law. Once this system was institutionalized, it was recognized that many people are unable to live a dignified life. This is how the idea of equal opportunities was born. Nevertheless, many people have not been able to lead a dignified life. As a result, it has been recognized that there is no level playing field in society. Therefore, it seems right, in accordance with our inherent conception of justice, to consider a policy of positive action. Rawls thus justifies the progressivity of taxation, the welfare state and social security. According to Rawls, natural distribution is neither just nor unjust. It is not unfair for a person to be born into a certain position in a society. These are simply the natural facts.

What is right and wrong is the way in which the institutions deal with these facts. Therefore, according to Rawls, justice and injustice are a matter of social institutions. It lies in people`s ability to change the social system on the basis of the principles of justice and equity. There will be no peace if there is injustice in society. According to him, society is like a chain in which the weakest link is just as important as the strongest. Certainly, reasonable people will never object when it comes to offering each other «fair terms of cooperation.» Why should the rich agree? 1. It`s about being fair. 2. It was their rational choice behind the veil of ignorance.

3. This is the best possible way to maximize their advantage. 4. Social policy is like social security, anyone can need insurance at any time. Why will the poor agree? 1. It`s about being fair. 2. Accept it behind the veil of ignorance. 3. The rational choice is to choose the option whose worst consequence is better than the worst consequence of any other option. It will be reasonable for the poor to choose the option that makes them better off rather than worse. He suggests that socialism will make everyone worse off.

Socialism is not productive. It`s like sharing equal poverty. The principle of difference is only because it is not unfair to those who are talented and hardworking. This is the best possible exploitation of inequality. Society will have more resources to help the poor. It will lead them better rather than worse. Rawls uses the concept of advantages and disadvantages. He wants to show that there is a difference between pure talent and advantages. What a person possesses is not only due to his own talent. (Rejection of possessive individualism). Thus, it includes the random factor.

It may be a matter of chance if a person was born into a good family, attended a good school and so on. For example, Professor Yogendra Yadav and Satish Deshpande suggest that the government should establish an index of disadvantage when formulating merits. In the first book, Rawls gives liberalism (3 principles of justice) as a way of life or as a theory of ethics. Faced with criticism from communitarians, in particular Michel Sandel and Michel and Waltz, he limited his idea to the political sphere only. In other words, liberalism as a political way of life and not as a way of life. Liberalism forms the basis of democratic culture in various societies. He mentions political liberalism as a political conception of justice. He suggests that it is not based on a specific and complete doctrine. If it comes close to a certain philosophical doctrine, it is only a coincidence. It should be noted that Rawls is very careful to prove that his theories must seem rational and acceptable. Therefore, he attaches too much importance to methodology. People came together to implement the principles.

They are not Hobbesian men. They have moral reasoning/judgment or inherent notions of justice. They are «mutually selfless. Although they are mutually disinterested, they understand that in order to live in society, they must agree on certain basic principles of cooperation. They came to determine the distribution of primary goods. Every person has rational plans, primary goods are needed to pursue these rational plans. Rational plans mean goals, e.g. for IAS, Dr. etc. Rational goals are secondary goods. For secondary goods, we need certain primary products.

e.g. freedom, rights, income, wealth and dignity. People are kept behind the veil of ignorance. The goal is to put people in the original position, so in a thought experiment it is assumed that people do not know certain facts about themselves. They know only a few general facts, that is, a general understanding of society, economics and psychology. They do not know in what position they will be placed in this society. They can be rich or poor, advantaged or disadvantaged, men, women or transgender. Given this, these people need to decide what the system should look like in terms of the disposition of primary products.

In the thought experiment, Rawls wants to show that man will prefer neither freedom alone, as libertarians think, nor equality alone, as socialists think, any rational person behind the veil of ignorance will need both freedom and equality.