John Rawls was concerned with what we call distributive justice and the question of what we should do about inequalities in society. Should goods be distributed equally to everyone? Should we permit vast differences in social and economic status? How are justice and socioeconomic opportunity tied to each other?

Rawls argued that individual liberties, social equality, and economic improvement are all important and should exist in balance. In a perfect world we could have all of these. But if conflicts arise among them, then which are most important? Rawls’ conclusion was that liberty is the most fundamental of these social values. Further, the foundation of social justice is that liberty, respect, opportunity, and wealth should be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution would be to the advantage of everyone in the society. (That is, not just a higher average happiness, as in utilitarianism, but a higher quality of life for the people who are worst off.) Moreover, if some positions in society offer high benefits, then those positions ought to be available to anyone. Justice is based on fairness and is the opposite of arbitrariness.

In this class, we’ve talked about issues having to do with the distribution of environmental goods (domestically and globally),  and to a smaller extent about the distribution of economic goods. The article we read a couple of weeks ago on food security issues tied these two issues together. (A summary and discussion of that reading can be found here.)

There are at least two ways that social contract theory and a Rawlsian theory of justice are relevant to these issues:

1. First, we can use the justice framework to make the case that our social system (that is, our system of social policy, ethics, and economic exchange) is conventional. We have a certain social/political/economic system and it produces certain results. But we don’t have to have that system. It might be the most just system, or it might undermine justice. If it does not produce the maximum degree of justice, then we should try to change it so that it is more just. In particular, we should always be working to try to improve the status of those that have the least, and we should try to give people equality of opportunity.

2. Second, it is in our best interests to build strong, resilient communities. Although natural resources may have limits, social and human resources can be increased and improved. People are more resourceful when they have more education and when they have more freedom to experiment and create. Likewise, the social capital that is made up of community relationships is strengthened by social trust and weakened by fear and competition.

It is also worth noting that although Rawls defends inequality as necessary, some critics argue that equality is more important than he realizes.

Advertisement