John Rawls: Philosophy

Harvard University professor John Rawls destroyed the notion that political philosophy was dead and revived the discussion among intellectuals about the nature of justice. Most of his philosophical theories are summed up in A Theory of Justice (1971), the instantly popular book in which Rawls attempts to present a grand theory with a comprehensive discussion of normative standards (standards based on the average or median achievement of any large group in any particular category, in this case social) which he tried to apply to the idea of justice (simply defined as giving every man their just due). More or less, Rawls presented a form of modern pluralism in his book, basing his theories on societal obligations to the disadvantaged. He based his theories on a social contract, which was the agreement among men created from a hypothetical state of nature which effectively established the entity of society. People chose the principles of this contract without knowing their natural positions or abilities in the social order, where the discussion of justice comes in. Rawls was opposed to the utilitarian position of justice, believing that it was not just the outcome of pure utility, and was also opposed a purely intuitive view of ethics, which states that people have some source of knowledge or intuition that explains moral judgments and the right way of life.

Then, the issue of justice itself was addressed by Rawls. Being the first requirement of a society which was rationally acceptable to its members, justice wa based on a core of fairness. A theory of justice should have therefore provided acceptable standards for a just distribution of social primary goods, like liberty, income, wealth, and opportunity. Inequality in distribution was permissible only if it improved the position of the worst-off social group. Liberty could be only restrained for the sake of greater liberty. This theory was in essence dubbed distributive justice. It has raised the ire of several libertarian and conservative intellectuals and politicians, particularly that of fellow Harvard professor Robert Nozick, who advocated a minimal state of government, in which it is restricted to provide only the most rudimentary of services and have the least jurisdiction over individual action and welfare as possible. Some have also called it the return of welfare state economic thinking, although it was not quite so blunt about the availability of social and economic help for the lower classes.