JOHN RAWL'S JUST SOCIETY

John Rawl's Just Society

John Rawl's Just Society

Introduction

The late John Rawls, in 'Justice as Fairness', acknowledges that society exists for the "mutual benefit of all its members. They should be better off living in a society than not. However, he also indicates that there is a conflict of interest between members within the society, as each tries to accumulate a larger share of wealth and goods available.

Discussion

Rawls' theory of justice is seen as the solution to the conflict of interests in society, and revolves around the adaptation of two fundamental principles of justice, which would, in turn, guarantee a just and morally acceptable society (Herman, 2000).

Rawl believes that the first principle (the liberty principle) should take precedence over his second (the difference principle). The liberty principle entails that each citizen should have the right to political liberty (ie to vote and stand for election), liberty of conscience and freedom of thought, the right to hold personal property, freedom of speech and assembly, and freedom from arbitrary arrest and seizure. Rawl wishes to see all these freedoms distributed equally, as he asserts that this is the basis of a just society (Kelly, 2001).

The first part of Rawls' second principle of justice states that social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are reasonably expected to be everyone's advantage. Rawls refers to this portion as 'the difference principle'.

First, that those who posses fewer natural assets such as wealth or education, deserve special consideration and compensation (Randall, 2003). Second, Rawls implies that the rich should willingly give up a portion of their wealth to the poor since they would gain more than they gave up by enjoying the benefits of a mutually co-operative society (Herman, 2000).

If Rawls were to consider that perhaps the losses felt by the rich may indeed outweigh the benefits felt in return and also outweigh the gain in happiness of the poor, then I wonder how solid he would feel his argument is. Rawls bases his difference principle on the assumption that wealth is a natural asset that people gain it by being in the right place at the right time.

If this were the case unconditionally, then Rawls' theory would undoubtedly hold true. The idea that wealth is something that is only inherited and cannot be gained on ones own would surely bring into question fairness and would most likely end in the conclusion that all should be made equal (Kelly, 2001).

In the real world however, hard work and ambition can achieve wealth. In this real world scenario then, it is reasonable to believe that the poor could be poor not always because of a natural lottery, but often because of their refusal to put forth the effort to be otherwise, though I accept many may differ with this view (Herman, 2000). Thus it is also true that the rich could be rich in many cases because of their willingness to study hard and train from an early ...