A Theory of Justice: Original Edition

Rawls proposes that we arrive at a conception of Justice using minimal assumptions. He uses something called the "Veil of Ignorance" to derive his principles of Justice. This "Veil of Ignorance" assumes we would act in our own self-interest, but we don't know where in society we would end up. Given these two principles, people actint in their own self-interest but not knowing what place they might occupy in society, Rawls argues that we would come up with two principles of Justice; 1) each person has the most extensive basic liberties that are compatible for everyone having these liberties, and 2) social inequalities will be arranged so that they benefit everyone and such that we all have equal access to beneficial social positions.

(Some reviews here apparently feel that Rawls was trying to describe an historical situation with the Veil of Ignorance. I would suggest that they actually read Rawls.)

What Rawls is arguing is that taking a very minimal assumption about human nature (we rationally act in our own self interest) and assuming that no one knows his or her eventual social position, we will come up with these two principles of Justice (Justice as Fairness). A society is Just if it provides the most extensive set of liberties possible to everyone in the society and if it contains ways to balance social inequalities and provide equal access. Most people (even the Ann Rand folk) would agree with the first principle (equal rights), but likely have problems with the second.

Most of the people writing reviews, I believe, have not really read what Rawls has written or understood what they have read. If you want to disagree with Rawls then you must meet him with argument and reason, and not vituperative comment. I may not agree with everything in this book, but I must first understand Rawls' powerful arguments and reasoning before I can propose alternative ideas. Love him or hate him, Rawls cannot be ignored and neither can this book.


Another Must-Read for Those Interested in Pol. Philosphy   April 1, 2002
L. Rodney Ford (Athens, AL USA)
48 out of 65 found this review helpful

I have a definite interest in political philosophy. I read John Rawls "A Theory of Justice" (ATOJ) shortly after reading Robert Nozick's "Anarchy, State, & Utopia" (AS&U). (My review of AS&U is also available here.) I read AS&U almost immediately after realizing its existence while I was looking for reading material about libertarian ideas. I read ATOJ because, while reading AS&U, I read a statement indicating that these two texts have been the primary catalysts of modern sociopolitical debate. Having now read both works, I can easily believe that. Also, I am, generally, in agreement with Nozick that a "night watchman" state is all that can be morally justified. I know this is a somewhat radical position in the context of today's political thinkers; therefore, I wanted to read something that presents different ideas. I chose ATOJ.

I am 37 years old. I am a software designer and programmer. I work in a very competitive commercial environment (for a company - as opposed to the government or academic environments). I have a wife and two active children with whom I gladly spend a great deal of time. I say these things to indicate that I am not in any field where my pursuit of my interest in the history of philosophy and, specifically, political philosophy is of any direct or immediate benefit and to indicate that I have relatively little time to study such things. The time I have available to read or analyze ANY work about political philosophy is very limited. However, having become very disillusioned by the two major political parties in the United States, my interest in political philosophy has been very strong over the past several years. I have learned that, if I wish to benefit from my reading to the degree that I desire, I must carefully choose what I read - I must study as efficiently as I can. I believe that I have chosen well in reading AS&U and ATOJ to gain a detailed introduction to modern (and, even, antique) political ideas. Since reading these two works, I have continued my study in many different directions, but these works are an excellent starting point. If you are similar to me in interest and responsibilities, I would highly recommend this combination of reading material as an efficient starting point.

John Rawls, in ATOJ, presents some very important and intriguing ideas. These ideas are presented well and in an organzization that is adequate to the author's purpose, with good summarization or key points. (My only criticism of AS&U in my review of it regarded the nature its organization, lack of summaries, and Nozick's tendency to digress into tangential discussions that, although interesting and important, seemed to reduce my ability to efficiently benefit from Nozick's main points.)

Rawls' presentation of the concept of the "original position" in support of his idea of "Justice as Fairness" is excellent and significant. However, I do not agree with the extrapolation of the ideas presented early in ATOJ into the design of the institutions (state) that Rawls proposes later, in Part Two, of the work.

Early in ATOJ, one might fall into the belief that John Rawls is a strong proponent of individual rights. Rawls writes "Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. Therefore in a just society the rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or the calculus of social interests." He also writes "The denial of the equal liberties can be defended only when it is essential to change the conditions of civilization so that in due course these liberties can be enjoyed."

On the surface, these statements from Rawls will likely bring agreement (even excitement) from promoters and defenders of individual liberty and responsibility. However, upon examining the departments of the state that Rawls proposes later in the work, one can not maintain that agreement (or excitement). I find this (bait and switch?) characteristic to be typical of most modern liberal ideas. If you have such a good idea, why is obfuscation required to promote it?

After this, my first, reading of ATOJ, I can still not understand how Rawls extrapolated the ideas presented early in ATOJ into the state design that includes as one of its major departments one with the sole purpose of redistributing wealth. It is one thing to accept that it is morally ideal for one to seek to help (or, even, serve) others. It is quite another to believe that it is morally justified for a state to confiscate even a portion of the fruits of the labor of an individual without their consent and, potentially, for purposes that individual would find immoral. I do not mean to imply that helping or serving others is not moral. It is just that I see that there is no justification for the state forcing individuals to participate in such things.

Consider what such a state design implies. A government/state consists only of human agents. "The denial of the equal liberties" mentioned in a previous paragraph and the forced redistribution of wealth included in Rawls' state design imply that human agents of the state should be the ones that make decisions that define the level of "equal liberties" and the degree of the redistribution of wealth. No matter how you color or try to justify this, it is elitism born of collectivism - socialism, pure and simple.

I find Rawls' concept of the desired state/government to be the antithesis of the concept of individual liberty and responsibility upon which the government of the United States of America was founded. Sadly, I believe that the governments of our nation and its constituent states are currently much closer to the socialist/elitist/welfare state that has come about (partly) as a result of the influence of Rawls than they are to the "night watchman" state of Nozick. I am not completely convinced (yet, anyway) that Nozick's "night watchman" state is the best one. However, I would rather our country (at least) reverse course to move further away from socialist/elitist/welfare state and closer to the "night watchman" state.

I found that I garnered the most benefit from the sections of ATOJ that discuss civil disobedience and related topics. These sections helped me consider important ideas that I had not before considered in so complete a fashion. I believe that I now understand fully when civil disobedience is philosophically justiable and when it is not. Thank you, Mr. Rawls, for this.


inordinately influential and just plain godawful   October 21, 2000
Orrin C. Judd (Hanover, NH USA)
46 out of 135 found this review helpful

John Rawls' Theory of Justice is the single most important philosophical work of the Left since Marx. As even a brief search of the Internet will reveal, it is one of the most widely discussed topics in political philosophy. I fondly recall arguing about Rawls' theories in John Singer's Values and Institutions class at Colgate, so it was interesting to finally try reading it. It turns out, the revolution that Rawls created was based on a simple but totally specious change in the assumptions about human nature, and upon this rotten foundation he built up a shaky edifice to justify Liberal yearnings. The book is reminiscent of a treatise by a Medieval scientist, working out the elaborate orbital patterns that planets would require if the Universe actually were geocentric.

In order to accomplish his revolution, Rawls posited a counterintuitive and antihistorical starting point for the discussion of political theory. The great political philosophers, Hobbes, Locke, etc., had used the "state of nature" as the starting point for their theories. In this state of nature, men were assumed to be completely self-centered and dedicated only to their own interests, with the result that life was "nasty, brutish and short" and only the strongest survived. But gradually men tired of this blood sport and entered into a social contract wherein they surrendered some personal sovereignty to a central governing entity, which, in whatever form, would enforce a set of impartial laws in order to protect men from one another. This is a pretty minimalist position, the social contract and the government that it creates serve only to provide a certain level of physical security, leaving men free to pursue their own fortunes and taking no interest in the degree to which they succeed. But it conforms with our intuitive understanding of human nature, our observations of our fellow man and, most importantly, it has proven a workable basis for understanding politics for some 300 years.

The essential change that Rawls made was to replace the State of Nature with his "Original Position", wherein, when it came time for primordial man to enter into a social contract, because he would be ignorant of his own capacities (the "veil of ignorance"), he would pursue a low risk strategy and choose a social contract based on egalitarianism; he would seek the most equal distribution of wealth and power possible, just in case it turned out that he was the least fit of the species.

If Rawls is right, if men acted on the assumption that they would be one of the ones left behind once the race of life begins, then the rest of his theory might be worth examining. But, of course, this assumption runs counter to everything we understand about ourselves and our fellow human beings. It is a fuzzy headed liberal's view of the appropriate strategy for life's losers--make political decisions on the basis of the likelihood that you are a loser and need help. But look around a casino or a Lottery Ticket line and you will see that the losers think that they too are winners. Look at polls about taxation levels and you find that the lower class does not want the upper class taxed too heavily, because they assume that they, or their children, are headed for that bracket eventually. It turns out that people act very much as the great philosophers expected them to; they act out of naked self interest and the belief that they are capable and deserve whatever they can achieve. The justice that men seek is in fact little more than an impartial application of a set of laws that are fair to all, not an equal distribution of goods and power, which would necessarily impinge on the freedom of all.

Rawls' great error is to try to base his theory on a generalized yearning for "happiness". Rawls was seeking a positive definition of Man's aspiration in the "original position", but the inevitable result, because we will all define happiness differently, is to create a foundational quagmire for his theories. After all, you may define happiness as having a lot of stuff, but I may define it as spiritual enlightenment. The classic understanding, basing the social contract on the avoidance of death, is obviously universal, we are all agreed that our own deaths are to be avoided, and, therefore, more sound. .

Finding the basic supposition that props up Rawls' whole theory to be fundamentally incorrect, it behooves us little to examine the superstructure he seeks to construct upon this error. Suffice it to say, no system of government has ever achieved a more equal distribution of wealth and power than has the American Constitutional Republic and it is based on the classic understanding of human nature found in Hobbes and Locke. 'Nuff said.

GRADE: F


Why so many misconceptions?   February 27, 2006
Vincent Poirier (Tokyo, Japan)
43 out of 44 found this review helpful

I'm astonished at the tenor and number of negative reviews "A Theory of Justice" has garnered from the right. This is especially surprising because Rawls shares with American conservatives one fundamental principle: the inviolability of the individual.

A "Theory of Justice" is a technical work aimed at professional philosophers, political scientists, and constitutional law specialists. Nevertheless, the book is understandable by laymen, provided it is read as what it is, i.e. a technical work of moral philosophy and not as a political agenda. Rawls's simple and plain style also makes this book a relatively easy read.

I suspect that the rejection of Rawls by even the more thoughtful conservatives stems from a serious misunderstanding of utilitarianism, which Rawls savagely attacks from the start. Utilitarianism is the moral principle that the TOTAL welfare of a society is the highest value. In practice, the only measure of total welfare the government has is GDP, so that's what we maximize: GDP. This makes utilitarianism attractive to laissez-faire capitalist philosophies, and because Rawls attacks utilitarianism, both the left and the right imagine he is attacking markets, industry, and capitalism. The left have made him their angel, and so the right their demon.

Rawls makes no attack on capitalism, only on utilitarianism. He asserts the inviolability of the individual as society's primary moral principle and demonstrates that this is incompatible with utilitarianism. For example, under utilitarianism, it makes sense to take Bob's heart, give it to Stan, and to give his lungs to John. You've saved two lives by sacrificing one, so society is on the whole better off with two members (Stan and John) rather than just one (Bob). This is obviously wrong and that's why we want to jettison this (im)moral philosophy.

Another misconception is that Rawls does not accept inequality. This is false: Rawls accepts inequality provided that those at the bottom benefit from the inequality. For instance let's say John wants to become rich and so invents a pill that for ten dollars/person eliminates the risk of cancer in his hometown. John sells the pill and becomes rich and everyone is cured from cancer. John is better off than anyone else, but everyone else is better off than they would have been under an egalitarian society.

Yet another misconception is that Rawls wants to establish a Utopian plan for a perfect society. He does not. Rawls is not a revolutionary trying to reinvent society; he is a theoritical moral philosopher, a professional academic researcher, who seeks to isolate the basic principles that define what we mean by "Justice". This is a fair goal and a valid program of study. Everyone wants a just society; after all does anyone campaign for an unjust or unfair society? But we disagree as to what we mean by "Justice".

The real object of Rawls's work is to replace utilitarianism with a better concept of the social good, or of Justice. A Theory of Justice is his attempt at this.

Vincent Poirier, Tokyo


A thorough analytic treatment of social ethics.   February 25, 1998
rgvandewalker@juno.com (California)
41 out of 59 found this review helpful

Rawls exposition is clear; He defines Justice as the first virtue of society, and then defines Justice as Fairness, and proceeds from there to a description of a set of formally fair procedures for constructing a just society. Chief among those is his doctrine of "The Original Position", i.e. the situation in which a person takes no thought for personal advantage, including one's own in-born abilities, and then attempts to construct an ethical framework to guide the constitution of society. Although the work is vague, it is because he necessarily works at a very high level of abstraction. I also believe his work is -wrong- (because I think valuing human life is the first virtue of human society, not justice), but it is the clearest description of Kantian analytic social theory ever presented. As such, if it -is- wrong, it is because analytic social theories are wrong as a class, not because Rawls made mistakes. A very good book.