A Theory of Justice is a 1971 work by the philosopher John Rawls (d 2002). As its name implies, the work attempts to provide an ethical foundation to the concept of Social Justice.
Rawls claims to have arrived at a set of principles of justice that would be the ones developed if members of a society determined their society’s principles whilst being utterly blind to their own interests – “the Original Position.”
Some of Rawls’ principles are liberal mainstays such as civil and political equality, and equal opportunity, other principles are left familiar such as his principle of just savings which requires a society leave resources and healthy environment for future generations.
In the liberal tradition Rawls’ appears to argue the maximum freedom, though he curiously limits this with the nebulous idea of “basic” liberties. Rawls’ basic liberties don’t appear to include the right to property which leaves Rawls right outside the liberal tradition.
Even less familiar in a liberal frame and more so in a Socialist is Rawls’ proposal for strict material equality in what he calls primary goods, only limited by the degree that some inequality is required to provide sufficient prosperity for the least well off. It would appear here that Rawls is acknowledging the experience of the Soviet Union where in the absence of personal financial incentives the equality that was shared was poverty more so than wealth.
My problem with Rawls is that his principles of justice are contradictory, it amazes me that anyone gets past first base with his philosophy without recognising its inconsistencies.
How does one arrive at an equality of outcome? Is an equal material outcome the inevitable natural outcome? If so then there’s no need for a principle.
Surely the only circumstance in which all members of a society have the same equal outcomes would be if they had equal talents, effective decision making and luck. Even the most cursory social observer readily recognises that such a claim is absurd. Some members of society do better than others due to better talent, perseverance and plain luck.
So in the absence of natural equality, how might Rawls’ material equality eventuate? If some members do better than others, but equality is a required principle then how might want redistribute the unequal gains of some to another? Such income redistribution requires compulsion as taxation which conflicts with Rawls principle of freedom.
Though to be fair to Rawls’ the contradiction of his freedom with his equality can be resolved if we understand that right to property isn’t one of Rawls’ basic liberties, which would explode any claim Rawls’ had to being a liberal. Equally Rawls’ apparent contradiction can be resolved if you understand him to say as much freedom as practicable with as much equality as practicable, but if this is the case, his philosophy amounts to “as much freedom and equality possible” which is a fairly trite and uninteresting statement.