Rawls’s Theory of justice

Blogs

May 28, 2025 deepanalysis

Rawls social contract for his theory of justice.

How can a hypothetical agreement do the moral work of a real one?

In A Theory of Justice, Rawls argues that the way to think about justice is to ask what principles we would agree to in an initial situation of equality.
Suppose we gathered to choose the principles to govern our collective life – to write a social contract. What principles would we chose?

Key challenge

: Different people would favour different principles, reflecting their various interests, moral and religious beliefs and social positions.
Some people are rich, some are poor; some are powerful and well connected; others, not.
We might settle a compromise. But even the compromise would likely reflect the superior bargaining power of some over others.
There is no reason to assume that a social contract arrived at in this way would be a just arrangement.

Rawls thought experiment:

Suppose that when we gather to choose the principles , we don’t know where will wind up in the society.
Imagine that we choose behind a “veil of ignorance” that temporarily prevent us from knowing anything about who in particular we are.
We don’t know our class or gender, our race or ethnicity, our political opinions and religious convictions, sexual orientations.
Nor do we know our advantages and disadvantages – whether we are healthy or frail, highly educated or a school drop out, born to a supportive family or a broken one.
If no one knew any of these things, we would choose, in effect, from an original position of equality. Since no one would have a superior bargaining position, the principles we would agree to would be just.

This is the Rawls’s idea of social contract which signifies a hypothetical agreement in an original position of equality.

Human beings are rational. Also self-interested.
Rawls does not assume that we are all motivated by self-interest in real life; only that we set aside our moral and religious convictions for purposes of the thought experiment.

the first principle provides equal basic liberties for all citizens, such as freedom of speech and religion. This principle takes priority over considerations of social utility and the general welfare.
The second principle concerns social and economic equality. Although it does not require an equal distribution of income and wealth, it permits only those social and economic inequalities that work to the advantage of the least well off members of society.

Rawls arguments: (analysis related with first principle)

Behind veil of ignorance, each of us would think, “for all I know, I might wind up being a member of an oppressed minority.”

Behind veil of ignorance, we don’t know where we will wind up in society, but we do know that we will want to pursue our ends and be treated with respect.

In case we turn out to be a member of an ethnic or religious minority, we don’t want to find ourselves as victims of religious persecution or racial discrimination.
No one would want to risk being the Christian thrown to the lions for the pleasure of the crowd. (in ancient times it was being done)
In order to protect against these dangers, we would reject utilitarianism and agree to a principle of equal basic liberties for all citizens, including right to liberty of conscience and freedom of thought.
And we would insist that this principle take priority over attempts to maximize the general welfare.
We would not sacrifice our fundamental rights and liberties for social and economic benefits.

We would not choose a purely laissez-faire, libertarian principle. Why?

Nor would we choose a purely laissez-faire, libertarian principle that would give people a right to keep all the money they made in a market economy.
Key dilemma here: rational person would think. “I might wind up being Bill Gates, but then again, I might turn out to be a home less person. So I’d better avoid a system that could leave me destitute and without help”
To guard against the risk of finding ourselves in crushing poverty, we might at first thought favour an equal distribution of income and wealth. It is not required. It won’t help those who are bottom. If we pay equal to doctor and drivers, people will be less motivated to become doctors, and it is going to restrict their services to who can pay well. Thus, making things difficult for those who are at the bottom. ( you may argue that we already distributed equal wealth, what if your wealth being lost in an act of god, fire or any other means, in that situation you need some kind of cushion. Here comes the logic of introducing the difference principle.
Suppose that by permitting certain inequalities, such as higher pay for doctors than for bus drivers, we could improve the situation of those who have the least—by increasing access to health care for the poor. Allowing for this possibility we would adopt Rawls’s Difference principle.

Difference principle:

Only those economic inequalities are permitted that work to the benefit of the least advantaged members of society.