John Rawls Views on the Theory of

Justice
Article shared by : <="" div="" style="margin: 0px; padding:
0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 16px; vertical-align: bottom; background:
transparent; max-width: 100%;">

John Rawls Views on the Theory of Justice!

Introductory:
John Rawls is a top political scientist and academician of United States. He
was born in 1921 and passed away in 2002. His most famous work is A
Theory of Justice first published in 1970 and its revised edition was
published in 1990. In the revised edition, Rawls claims, some important
sections and views have been revised. Some political scientists claim that it
is the most important work in the English speaking world after the Second
World War. Rawls championed the cause of liberalism and challenged the
conventional thought of equality and attainment of justice.

In 1993 his another important work— Political Liberalism was published.

Mainly these two works constituted his thought system which is modern
liberalism. Even the social democrats and opponents of liberalism could not
keep themselves away from the tremendous influence Rawls created in the
academic circle.

It is interesting to note that during the heyday of Soviet communism and

Cold War Rawls offered an alternative scheme of political liberalism which
was based on minimal state concept. He did not regard inequality as basis
of society and enemy of social progress. Equality cannot be accepted as an
important highway leading to the big capital of justice.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Equality, inequality and other related ideas are to be judged in the

background of social justice and social progress. He propounded his theory
keeping the idea in mind that American capitalist system cannot be
thoroughly revised or rejected. It has revised itself frequently.
Definition of Justice:
Rawls says that the conception of justice is an inherent nature of our social
as well as practical life. Barker has expressed a similar idea. However, in
the opinion of Raws “Justice in the first virtue of social intuitions as truth is
of system of thought”. Justice is related to the social institutions which
guide and mould the actions and ideas of social beings.

We cannot imagine of a well ordered society whose core concept is not

justice. Justice binds all men and institutions of society. The joining
capacity and feature of justice has been forcefully advocated by Barker and
Rawls shares the views of Barker.

John Rawls has viewed justice in the background of society and for this
reason he says that the main concern of the subject matter of justice is
social structure which is the core of the society. That is justice deals with
the basic social structure. The social institutions are very important in the
sense that they take the responsibility of distributing the fundamental rights
and duties efficiently.

It is also the important task of the social institutions to allocate judiciously

the privileges and advantages for the people of society. Constitution, social,
political and economic arrangements are included into these social
institutions. Thus justice may conveniently be regarded as a social principle
which determines the ways and procedure of distributing the rights and
duties for the members of society. He further calls justice a social scheme
on the basis of which rights, duties, opportunities and condition are allotted.
Thus justice is both a principle and a scheme.

In the opinion of Barker justice is a social reality and is originates from

social thought. But social thought does not arise or develop in a single day
or at a particular point of time. Different views and cross currents of opinion
help the formation of social thought and it relates to the conception of
justice.

So we can say after Rawls that “various conceptions of justice are the
outgrowth of different notions of society against the background of
opposing views of the natural necessities and opportunities of human life”.
In any liberal society opposing views must exist side by side and out of
them a common opinion will one day emerge which will give rise to justice.
So justice may duly be regarded as a “proper balance between competing
claims (emphasis added)”. This point of Rawls reminds us of Rousseau’s
general will which is the outcome of deliberations held at open general
meeting and participated by all citizens.

Rawls’ theory of justice consists of “certain distributive principles for the

basic structure of society”. In the light of this analysis John Rawls defines
justice in the following words. “The concept of justice I take to be defined by
the role of its principles in assuming rights and duties in defining the
appropriate division of social advantages. A conception of justice is an
interpretation of this role”. Justice is, thus, an interpretation of principles
that are suggested for the distribution of rights and duties and at the same
time division of social advantages among all the members of body politic.

Justice as Fairness:
The main theme of Rawls’ theory of justice is it is interpreted as fairness.
The dictionary meaning of fairness is appropriateness or just: In Rawls’
conception that arrangement can be called just or appropriate which does
not create any scope of partiality or inappropriate. The principles for the
distribution of rights, duties and advantages will be applied in such manner
as will give no controversy.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Rawls explains the term fairness in the following way:

“I shall try to use this principle to account for all requirements that are
obligations as distinct from natural duties. This principle holds that a person
is required to do his part as defined by the rules of an institution when two
conditions are met, first the institution is just (or fair) that is it satisfies the
two principles of justice and second, one has voluntarily accepted the
benefits of the arrangement”.

From the above definition of fairness we can form certain features

some of which are the following:
ADVERTISEMENTS:

(1) According to John Rawls fairness denotes obligations. Obligation

means an act which a person morally or legally is bound to do. Obligations
are different from natural duties.
(2) When a person is legally or morally bound to do an act or perform a
duty his liberty will be restricted.

(3) Fairness also implies that the members of the society are engaged in
advantageous cooperative venture. Here two things are important.
Individuals cooperate with each other. This cooperation places all the
individuals participating in the act creates an atmosphere of mutual
advantages for them all. This means that cooperation will create no
disadvantage to anybody.

(4) Rawls further says that the institutions must be fair or just. They must
keep themselves above parochial interests. In many societies there are
such institutions which have been created to serve group’s interests and
such institutions cannot serve the interests of justice.

(5) General public will accept the arrangements of the institutions

ungrudgingly. They will have no reservations or objections.

(6) While discussing the nature of obligation one point is required to be

mentioned here. Obligations give rise to the performance of duties which
are not moral duties. The institutional or constitutional obligations impose
duties upon individuals.

The constitutional or institutional obligations induce a man to perform some

duties which ensure the realisation of justice. The performance of
institutional duties enables an individual to manage a democratic society
and furtherance of general welfare. We, therefore, conclude that the
obligations with a strong emphasis on its nature, institutional arrangement
and to actively cooperate with the duties made by the institution or any
other official declaration are included into the fairness principle.

When the condition of fairness is fully satisfied the concept of justice will
not remain far behind. We thus see that fairness, defined by Rawls, in his
own way, practically constitutes the core of the theory of justice. But in
close analysis it will be found that it is nearer to the traditional idea of
justice which states that justice means to give everyone his due share.

Contract Theory and Justice:

We have just now elaborated Rawls’ view of justice as fairness. We now
turn our attention to the origin of justice as fairness. After good deal of
labour Rawls concludes that justice as fairness can aptly be traced to the
social contract theory explained by Locke, Rousseau and Kant. He states
that the contract theory has several facets such as formation of civil society
set up a government. But Rawls is not concerned with all these facets. His
chief aim is how the original agreement helped the establishment of justice
in society.

The rational and free individuals met together and settled among
themselves the principles of original contract:
(1) One such principle is they would cooperate among themselves to
further their interests.

(2) The society shall be established on the principle of equality.

(3) Subsequently other terms of agreement may be finalised but these two
terms—Cooperation and equality shall guide and control these terms.

(4) On the basis of contract a society or government will be constituted but

the purpose of this government (or society) shall be to ensure justice. John
Rawls claims that the justice established in this way can be called justice
as fairness.

The basic condition of the contract is that the persons who made the
contract agreed to cooperate with each other and Rawls believes that this
is a very important condition for furthering justice. Through the
instrumentality of cooperation all the contracting individuals will fix up the
principles that will determine the division of social benefits and allot
fundamental rights and duties to which they are all entitled. Not only this
the terms of the agreement will regulate the claims of persons.

This indicates that none will be allowed to claim anything which he cannot
do. So far as this interpretation is concerned it is quite correct to say that
contract theory builds up the foundation of justice as fairness.

Modus Operandi:
Rawls has very briefly stated how contract established justice as fairness.
In the state of nature all its inhabitants enjoyed equality and after forming a
contract they finalised certain terms and conditions for the realisation of a
number of purposes. This contract opened the way of attaining justice.
They decided the principles for the allotment of rights, duties and all the
social advantages.

But the interesting fact is that all the members of the state of nature were
absolutely ignorant of various aspects of society. For example, the
relationship among the members of the state of nature, position of the
individuals in the society, relationship between individual and the society
etc. They did not know their fortune. Rawls calls this un-awareness as the
veil of ignorance. (The veil of ignorance, we shall discuss later on.)

For the sake of clarification let us quote Rawls, “The principles of justice
are chosen behind a veil of ignorance. This ensures that no one is
advantaged or disadvantaged in the choice of principles by the outcome of
natural chance or the contingency of social circumstances”. Justice
originated from the fair agreement or bargain. The members of the state of
nature entered into contract to make their lives easy, hurdle- free and more
comfortable. This made way for arrival of justice.

Reason of Fairness:
We have discussed how a contract initiated justice of fairness and at
present we shall lay our hands on the analysis of reasons. According to
Rawls the initial position (before the civil society was set up) was
appropriate because all the members of the state of nature were similarly
advantaged and disadvantaged. None had the capacity to manipulate the
situation in his favour.

This appropriate position at the original stage that is at the state of nature
was quite congenial for justice which would be fair. The people of the state
of nature had very few choices and alternatives and they had to act and
decide with those limited choices.

Another reason of why contract theory provided justice as fairness is the

people of the state of nature voluntarily assembled together to set up a
society and all of them were on equal footing. In the contract theory we find
this interesting premise. Though the contention of the contract theoreticians
is not founded on historical fact and data the premise they thought was to
some extent real. Mention has been made that the parties to the contract
were rational.
The main argument behind this assumption is that they abandoned the
state of nature and adopted a judicious decision. Rawls thinks that
rationality also acts for achieving justice as fairness. Irrational or self
interest seeking men cannot be regarded as builders of justice as fairness,
because they will manipulate everything in their favour ignoring the general
interests of the community.

Veil of Ignorance:
One of the very strong pillars of Rawls’ theory of justice is veil of ignorance
which is an imaginary or hypothetical situation. When the members of the
state of nature built up a civil society all of them were the prisoners of veil
of ignorance. This veil of ignorance is a very important element of justice as
fairness. Rawls has explained the concept elaborately in his book.

Different aspects of the concept are stated below:

1. The parties to the contract were not well conversant with the particulars
which are associated with society. For instance the nature, formation,
function etc., of the society. The ignorance of these facts did not deter them
from setting up civil society.

2. People were not well acquainted with their won position such as to what
class they belonged? What was their exact status in society? What position
people occupied in society.

3. They were also ignorant of the rights, duties, privileges, opportunities

etc. Naturally they could not determine the principles and modus operandi
of their distribution.

4. They had not formed any idea about good or bad, just and unjust;
rationality and irrationality; abilities and inabilities; strength and weakness
Because of this ignorant people were not in a position to form an opinion in
favour of any one. They had not the ability to disapprove anything. In fact,
all of them started their life (which may be called civil life) with a clean slate.
This was a very important factor for attaining justice. At least Rawls thinks
so.

5. People at the initial situations did not develop any idea about economics,
political condition or institution about civilisation or cultural condition.
6. Restricted knowledge or ignorance about the environment in which they
lived stood on the way of acquiring adequate idea about certain basic facts.
Some of the basic facts are: production of necessary goods, the
employment of capital, protection of environment, proper and economic use
of natural resources. All these elements of ignorance were the
characteristic features of the people of the original position. According to
Rawls the original position or situation is the state of nature.

Rawls in this way has analysed the different aspects of the veil of
ignorance. We treat this concept as an important part of his theory of
justice. But all these aspects of ignorance did not stand on the way of
achieving justice.

Rawls says, “As far as possible the only particular facts which the parties
know is that their society in subject to the circumstances of justice and
whatever this implies.” Rawls further says that the veil of ignorance was not
a peculiar characteristic feature of the people of original position but was
absolutely natural for them.

The great German philosopher Kant had an idea about this veil of
ignorance and he referred it in his famous doctrine of categorical
imperatives. Kant was not alone. Even in Rousseau’s writing we get a
reference to it. People of the state of nature were ignorant of civil society
and because of that they enjoyed liberty. In the opinion of Rousseau
civilisation threw a great assault upon the realisation of liberty and because
of this they felt the necessity of a new form of society.

Reflective Equilibrium:
Reflective equilibrium occupies an important place in Rawls’ methodology.
How Rawls explains it? “I assume that eventually we find a description of
the initial situation that both expresses reasonable conditions and yields
principles which match our considered judgments duly pruned and
adjusted. This state of affairs I refer to as reflective equilibrium. It is an
equilibrium because at last our principles and judgments coincide; and it is
reflective, since we know to what principles our judgments conform and the
premises of their derivation”.

Let us put the idea of John Rawls in a comparatively simple language. “We
must constantly check the conclusion of our moral reasoning against our
initiative moral motions and possibly readjust the conditions of the original
position so as to derive principles which are consistent with these
fundamental moral beliefs”.

In order to arrive at certain conclusions in regard to justice individuals

prepare judgments of the distribution of right, duties and privileges. We at
the same time decide the principle. Rawls says that there shall be an
equilibrium between principles on the one hand and judgments on the
other. We check the conclusions in the background of morality or ethics.
Until an equilibrium situation is reached adjustment and readjustment
process continues.

Rawls further observes that this equilibrium position cannot be stable

because when new situation emerges the old equilibrium position changes
or is disturbed. Since society is in a fluctuating condition an equilibrium can
never be stable. Individuals always check the condition in the light of new
situation or circumstances.

Naturally the old equilibrium cannot remain in its position. The old
equilibrium disappears and makes way for a new one. In this way the whole
process moves from one place or position to another.

Justice would be fair if there is a consistency between the principles

decided in the light of the original position and our judgments. If there is
inconsistency that would give birth to a faulty view about justice. In Rawls’
analysis several factors have been found to interfere and the most
important one is the individuals always analyse the entire phenomenon in
the background of their moral reasoning. In other words, morality always
guides them to take an action or to deceive about the attainment of justice.

In support of our contention we again quote a very lengthy passage from

Rawls’ book. “From the standpoint of moral theory the best account of a
person’s sense of justice is not the one which fits his judgments prior to his
examining any conception of justice but rather the one which matches his
judgments in reflective equilibrium? This state is one reached after a
person has weighed various proposed conceptions and he has either
revised his judgments to accord with one of them or held fast to his initial
convictious”.
Intuitionism:
While explaining justice as fairness Rawls has briefly discussed intuitionism
to support the theory. Dictionary defines intuitionism as the theory that
primary truth and principles are known by intuition. The intuition means an
ability to understand without the need for conscious reasoning. We want to
see how Rawls has applied these ideas to his analysis of justice as
fairness.

When the individuals are confronted with the task of taking a decision about
justice they start to analyse various matters which they think relevant. First
of all their duty is to weigh various principles which conform to the concept
of justice.

This the individuals do by weighing different principles against one another

and this they do by applying intuition and not conscious reasoning. Intuition
and not reason is the technique they apply. The aim of the individuals is to
arrive at what is just and what is unjust. If we scan Rawls’ analysis in
regard to the importance of intuitionism in the determination of justice we
shall find it has a great role in finalising the concept of justice and its
principles.

Intuitionism or intuitionist theory is based on two ideas. One is there are

number of first principles “which may conflict to give contrary directives”. In
the second place in intuitionism there is no specific method. Individuals try
to reach a balance through the mechanism of intuitionism. Rawls’ view
point is for deciding what is justice as fairness men apply intuitionism and
no empirical methods.

Two Principles of Justice:

Two Principles Stated:
We have now reached the most crucial section of Rawls’ theory of justice.
The main structure of his theory is based on two principles and these he
has stated in his book. The first principle is: “each person is to have an
equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties
compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others.”

The second principles runs as follows:

“Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both
(a) Reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage and

(b) Attached to positions are offices open to all.”

These two principles are so much important that concept of justice cannot
be analysed without them. Not only this the theory of justice revolves
around these two basic principles. The principles relate to the fundamental
structure of society. Again how the rights, duties and privileges are to be
distributed among the individuals is decided by these principles.

Interpretation of the First Principle:

Rawls admits that it is very difficult to make a list of all liberties which
individuals can claim. Because in different socio-economic and political
structures nature and number of liberties shall differ. In spite of this
preliminary drawback we must try to show what the principle exactly
means.

In a society there shall exist an extensive list of equal basic liberties. All the
persons shall have equal right to all these liberties. No one can claim more
than what others have got. Several things are very important here. (1) A
society must publicly announce all the liberties to which its members shall
be entitled. In other words, the members shall have equal right to all these
liberties. These may alternatively be called social values.

The social values include economic, cultural, political, religious freedom. In

distributing these rights the authority of the state will not make any
discrimination on the basis of race, sex, caste, language etc.

Though Rawls does not categorically state, we surmise that the picture of a
democratic state was very much active in his mind because only in a
democracy an extensive list of liberty can be found. In fact, Rawls has
prepared his theory of justice completely in the background of liberal state
and politics. Such states have an elaborate scheme of liberties.

Rawls reminds us that mere announcement of liberties is not of prime

importance. The authority must take care that none (because of
manipulation or partiality adopted by authority) gets more than the other.
The simple implication is that unequal distribution of liberties is not only
intriguing but also the main cause of injustice. In the scheme of Rawls
liberty has been prioritized.
It means that justice is vital no doubt but if liberty is not given priority and a
discrimination crops up in allotting rights and liberties injustice will be an
inevitable consequence. For this reason in Rawls’ scheme liberty has been
given first preference. Hence we find that mere declaration of rights and
liberties does not constitute justice, implementation is of vital importance.

Interpretation of the Second Principle:

We believe that the second principle is more important than the first
principle.

The second principle has two parts. In these two parts there are two
phrases:
(1) Everyone’s advantage and

(2) Open to all. Rawls himself admits that both these phrases are
ambiguous.

So it is not at all easy to arrive at any definite conclusion. But in spite of this
ambiguity these two famous phrases cannot be abandoned.

In the first place, government will make utmost efforts to decide the
principles on the basis of which all the rights, liberties, duties and privileges
will be equally distributed. This principle further asserts that the political
system shall not make any discrimination.

We have already mentioned this earlier. This principle has another aspect.
Primarily the authority will not allow any type of inequality. Because strictly
viewed, inequality or unequal distribution of rights and privileges is an
anathema of justice.

But in the second principles Rawls makes heavy concessions for

inequalities. He, here, imposes two powerful conditions. Inequalities or
unequal distribution of rights, liberties duties and privileges will be allowed
on the condition that it will be to everybody’s advantage or in other words,
one will not be in disadvantageous position and the other will be in
advantageous position. This type of discrimination is harmful for the
society.

Again Rawls observes that some may get greater privileges while others
will get less. But the reason of this unequal distribution will be allowed on
the condition that the privileges and opportunities shall be open to all. Its
implication is every one shall have adequate freedom to reach the door of
privileges.

There shall be no restrictions. In any political system there are many

agencies which allocate the rights, liberties and privileges on behalf of the
state. Rawls is of opinion that the agencies must be efficient. If it is not so
the advantages or privileges generated by society will not be able to reach
every one. Moreover, the allocation of privileges will be so efficient that it
cannot be altered further. Allocation of privileges will reach the maximum
level.

While distributing the privileges among the citizens the authority must take
care of the fact that its doors shall be open to all. That is it must be
accessible to all. This accessibility is part of the ambitious scheme—all
rights, duties and privileges are open to all. The two things—accessibility to
government and open to all-are inseparable. If any person feels that he is
deterred from having opportunities which are allotted to others and behind
this deprivation there is no valid reason.

The rectification is possible only, if the citizen or the aggrieved person

enjoys the accessibility to the authority, “Assigning rights and duties” writes
John Rawls “is thought to give a scheme which allocates wealth and
income,” authority and responsibility, in a fair way (emphasis added)
whatever this allocation turns out to be. It is clear from Rawls’ view that
allocation denotes not simply the income and wealth but also the
opportunity to participate in the affairs of the government.

Other Aspects of Two Conditions:

For the realisation of equal liberty it is essential that the economy will have
a free market system. It is a very important precondition and if it is not
satisfied there is no question of equal liberty. Free market means the
market or the operation of the market shall be regulated by the basic
principles of supply and demand and there shall be no interference of state
or any other authority on behalf of the state.

In such an economy individuals will have ample opportunity to enjoy equal

liberty. Of course, the state will lay down the principles which will be carried
out by all concerned. In this connection Norman Barry observes: The
competitive market shall be regulated by the fair equality of opportunity
principle. This principle then sanctions those social policies which are
designed to mitigate the effects of social contingencies which give some
groups and individuals, unfair advantages over others.

But there is one objection against this assumption or principle and this is it
is egalitarian in nature. We believe that it is to some extent Utopian. It
cannot be expected that everybody will have the opportunity to enjoy equal
liberty in an economic structure which is regulated by this principle. Utopian
because those who control and manage the economy will not allow others
to reap full benefit of such an economy.

Rawls has offered us a way out. While implementing the scheme of

distributing opportunities, rights and duties the authority must give due
consideration to natural talents. Rawls has argued that if the structure of
society is modified that will provide ample scope for the distribution of
wealth and income on the basis of natural abilities and talents.

The holder/owner of natural abilities and talents will get higher returns or
remuneration. This will lead to inequality. But Rawls and many others
apprehend that this type of distribution of income and wealth on the basis
of natural talents is arbitrary and may encourage criticism.

Rawls, therefore, suggests a midway by pointing out that prioritization of

natural talents and abilities will give no problem if this goes to the benefit of
the least advantaged. “Those with natural talents are entitled to high
earnings only if such inequalities are to the benefit of the least
advantaged.”

The moot point here is that inequalities are not, Rawls assumes, harmful
for society if they are capable for generating benefits for all including the
least advantaged and by pronouncing this Rawls made a welcome for the
inequalities directly and bestowing good wishes to capitalism.

We now turn to the concept of efficiency which has a very important role in
the field of the distribution of goods and privileges. The realisation of justice
is closely connected with this distribution. Rawls has said that if the
distribution of goods and privileges and the production of commodities are
efficient then the realisation of justice will be possible.
If on the other hand there is inefficiency the victim will be justice. Instead of
justice there will come injustice. From the analysis of Rawls it appears to us
that the concept of justice is really a complex notion and its attainment
largely depends upon the good deal of efficiency of production of goods
and articles and their distribution.

Now the question is what is efficiency and inefficiency? If the distribution of

goods, income, wealth and privileges is efficient there will be no further
scope of distribution no scope for arrangement and rearrangement. That is
the distribution system will be excellent.

On the other hand, if it is inefficient there will be scope for further

arrangement and redistribution. Rawls says: “An arrangement of the basic
structure is efficient when there is no way to change this distribution so as
to raise the prospects of some without lowering the prospects of others”.

It is necessary to add few words to the idea of benefit. The aim of justice is
to give maximum benefit to all including the least advantaged. Should
benefit be interpreted in terms of utility? Do the two terms carry identical
meaning? It can categorically be stated that Rawls does not use the term
benefit in the sense of utility used by the utilitarians.

The utilitarian’s thought of maximisation of utility irrespective of the

distribution and remodelling of social structure. In the existing structure of
society individuals will maximise their utility. But Rawls enters into the
depth the matter He has also discussed justice in a greater perspective.
“The striking feature of utilitarian view of justice is that it does not matter
how the sum of satisfactions is distributed among individuals any more than
it matters”.

Pure Procedural Justice:

According to Norman Barry Rawlsian theory of justice is blessed with
certain advantages and this is chiefly due to the reason that his theory of
justice is based on a system of pure procedural justice. We are to go
through his ideas about procedural justice. Explaining procedural justice as
pure form Rawls says that the activities of a person depend on what the
rules empower him to do. Without the authority of rules/laws man cannot do
anything.
Of course, if he does anything without the authorisation of law that will be
illegal. Simply stated, procedural justice envisages that individuals at first
claim some rights and privileges, the principles determine the
process/procedure by which these calims are to be satisfied and this in turn
is legitimised by the basic structure.

What is pure procedural justice? The “pure procedural justice obtains when
there is not independent criterion for the right result; instead there is a
correct or fair procedure such that the outcome is likewise correct or fair
provided that the procedure has been properly followed”.

This is, in brief, the pure procedural justice. Rawls claims that in order to
understand the pure procedural justice it is necessary to compare it with
perfect and imperfect procedural justice.

What do we mean by perfect procedural justice? The fairness of justice and

other things such as division of wealth etc. is decided by an independent
criterion. Again before the commencement of procedure the criterion must
exist.

The Persons concerned with the attainment of the procedural justice are
sure that they would be able to reach the goal. If we look at the real
situation we shall find that such type of perfect procedural justice is rare.

In order to explain the imperfect procedural justice Rawls cites an example.

He says that such form of justice in generally found in criminal trial cases.
The lawyers adopt various procedures and arrangements to find out the
culprit. The arrangements are selected to fit the situation and they are not
previously selected. The important feature of imperfect procedural justice is
there is no flexible procedure to arrive at conclusion.

In the light of the above analysis we can reasonably point out certain
features of pure procedural justice.

These are briefly stated below:

(1) In procedural justice no separate or independent criterion is used.

(2) For pure procedural justice a fair or correct procedure is followed so that
a fair justice can be built up.
(3) Determination of the fair procedure is not enough. Such a procedure
must be scrupulously observed.
(4) There is another aspect of pure procedural justice and summarily stated
it is— an impartial institution is to be set up or their small be a number of
impartial institutions.

(5) Mere setting up of impartial institutions is not sufficient; they must have
opportunity to function impartially and efficiently.

(6) All the institutions or branches of the political system must cooperate
with each other. This cooperation is indispensable and without it there shall
arise chaos.

Basic Structure:
Any analysis of justice is bound to remain incomplete without any reference
to basic structure because basic structure according to John Rawls is basic
or fundamental to the theory/concept of justice. “The basic structure”
defines Rawls, “is a public system of rules defining a scheme of activities
that leads men to act together so as to produce a greater sum of benefits
and assigns to each certain recognised claims to a share of proceeds.”

It is of prime importance for a comprehensive analysis of justice. It can be

explained in a slightly different way. It is a way in which the most important
social institutions allocate rights, duties, privileges and responsibility among
the members of the community. It further denotes the cooperation between
the individuals and the various segments of the basic structure.

The important institutions include the constitution the major political, .social
and economic institutions which are involved in a number of activities
connected with the administration of state. The effects of the basic
structure on justice are profound. Its presence in the stages of justice is felt
from the very beginning to the end. It is also an integral part of pure
procedural justice.

Assessment:
Rawlsian theory of justice is confronted with a number of criticisms
and some of them are stated below:
1. Rawls’ theory of justice has been framed in the background of liberal
capitalist system. There is a general grievance against the capitalist system
that the division of society into clear-cut classes, ownership of the means of
production by very few persons, gross inequality of income between the
classes etc. create injustice and the rectification of this situation was
strongly felt. Rawls’ theory of justice was a type of palliative to this
condition. David Easton wanted to justify the capitalist system by his
behaviouralism which indirectly stated that liberal political system
possessed some self regulatory mechanisms which could withstand the
onslaught on capitalism.

Rawls justified the inequalities in the distribution of income, wealth and

privileges on the ground that it might be in the advantages to all. He does
not utter a single word about the change of basic structure of society. He
has introduced some concepts such as “veil of ignorance” “reflective
equilibrium” etc. to elaborate his core ideas and support the existing liberal
economy’s basic structure.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

But we believe that all these are in vain and our stand will be strengthened
if we seek the assistance of Ralph Miliband’s critical analysis of capitalist
system which he has made in The State in Capitalist Society (1973). Our
humble submission is so long as the capitalist system remains intact justice
in real sense will remain a far cry.

2. Rawls has said that natural talents and abilities are to be properly
rewarded. Our objection is to what extent these natural talents and abilities
will come to the benefit of the society as a whole and the least advantaged
in particular still is a matter of conjecture. Who are least advantaged? Who
will decide it? There may be several categories of benefit and which
category is most wanted who will settle it?

All these are highly vexed issues and a balanced theory of justice requires
an acceptable solution to all these issues and questions. But, the critics are
of opinion that by rewarding the natural talents and abilities to their holders,
an illuminating theory of justice cannot be constructed.

3. Rawls has said that economic inequalities are acceptable if they are
everyone’s advantage and if offices are open to all. Rawls himself admits
that “everyone’s advantages” and “open to all”—these two phrases are
ambiguous and we also agree with him.

How can an ordinary citizen deprived of all amenities and economic

strength or opportunities compete with other persons for the post of
American presidency. Cost of campaign requires millions of dollars and a
poor or middle class man cannot imagine to contest for the post of
presidency.

4. From his analysis we come to know that justice can be achieved through
the implementation of efficiency. But who will implement it? Will the owners
of capital and means of production invite the most efficient person to
shoulder the responsibility of management in order to ensure efficiency? If
anybody feels that the owners of production, in order to ensure an efficient
system of production, will invite others to start an efficient system that will
be a Utopian idea.

5. “A very difficult problem for Rawls is the identification of the least

advantaged. This clearly cannot be literally the worst-of in any society and
must refer is some class of persons. Rawls always refers to the
representative man of the least advantaged group. He gives definitions of
such a person but his whole approach has been vehemently criticised. This
is because his methodology precludes him from considering the actual
disadvantages of individuals”.

It has further been observed that Rawls’ definition precludes many

individuals from the scope of special need and care. Barry believes that
Rawls’ analysis creates a big loophole in the body of his theory and this
makes his theory, to a large extent, incomplete. He has however made a
scope for necessary changes in his prescription when he says that various
refinements can be made in practice.

6. Barry has drawn our attention to another limitation of Rawls’ theory of

justice. “The nature and justification of the priority rule has been criticised.
While in principle this provides a determinate solution to the possible
conflicts between principles the priority of equal liberty over economic
advantage has been challenged”.
 7. The liberals also have strongly criticised his theory on the ground that it
is very much egalitarian in nature and Rawls could not deny this charge.
Rawls thought that the criteria suggested by him are difficult to apply and
they are extremely egalitarian. Even Nozick could not fully support his
theory.

Home ››

Related Articles:
1. Errnnest Barker’s Views on Theory of Justice

Upload and Share Your Article:

 Title*
 Description*
 Your Name*
 Your Email ID*

 Upload Your File

Drop files here or

 Type bellow words

 LATEST

 Directive Principles of State Policy | Essay | India | Political ScienceNOVEMBER 14,

2017
 Essay on Justice | India | Political ScienceNOVEMBER 14, 2017
 Essay on Fundamentals Rights | Citizens | India | Political ScienceNOVEMBER 14, 2017
 Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy | Political
ScienceNOVEMBER 14, 2017

 List of Political Institutions in IndiaNOVEMBER 14, 2017

Upload Your Knowledge on Political science:
Upload Now
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Contact Us
© 2017 PoliticalScienceNotes - All rights reserved