Rawls’s Political Philosophy and its Critics
Explain Rawls’s first principle of justice. Does he show that it would be rational to choose it
from the Original Position?
Introduction:
My essay shall be split into two sections. The first section will explain Rawls’ (1999) first
principle of justice. In his book, A Theory of Justice (Rawls 1999) Rawls defines the first
principle as “Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal
basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all” (pp. 266). From this, I
shall explain in detail what Rawls (1999) means when he refers to ‘equal basic liberties.’
This will allow me to address the second section. This section will focus on whether Rawls
(1999) thinks it is rational to choose the first principle of justice from the Original position. I
will attempt to answer this by arguing that Rawls (1999) does think it is rational due to
citizens in the veil of ignorance having access to the maximin principle for protection of
basic liberties. This will subsequently convey how the maximin account strives for lexical
priority of the first principle over the second - this idea is one I do not support - and I will
use Hart’s (1973) essay to show this. My conclusion will be one that argues they conveys
Rawls (1999) is right to choose the first principle of justice from the original position
however, I do not agree and think it is necessary to have a lexical priority of the first
principle over the second principle of justice. This shall be discussed further in my essay.
First Section:
The first principle of justice affirms that all citizens should have basic liberties as well as
equal access to these liberties to ensure that a just society is achieved. Basic liberties vary
, from citizens having freedom of speech and assembly to the right to hold personal property
(Rawls, pp. 53). In addition, Rawls (1999) insists that everyone should have an equal set of
basic liberties as unequal rights would not benefit those who get the lesser share of those
rights (Rawls, pp.11). Rawls (1999) wants to avoid this at all cost as his conception of
society is defined by fairness and everyone having justice. The fulfilment of these basic
liberties within the first principle of justice must be a priority over any other liberties. Rawls
(1999) calls this the lexical priority (Rawls, pp.37), this is the idea that we should prioritise
principles in the order of Liberty Principle, Fair Equality of Opportunity and the Difference
Principle. This means that basic liberties cannot be traded off for other social goods. This can
be shown through an example that if there was a policy that gave the right to for university
students to have draft exemptions for the reasons that educated civilians will increase
economic productivity. With reference to the Rawls (1999) lexical priority, Rawls would
argue that even if this meant slower growth as well as decrease in the position of the least
advantage, it would be a drastic infringement on basic liberties as if a draft is put into place,
then all require to be equally subject to it. Furthermore, due to this lexical priority, Rawls
(1999) believes that citizens under the veil of ignorance and the original position will choose
the first principle; equal basic liberties as it obtains equal liberties for all citizens. As I have
presented the main concept of the first principle of justice, this will allow me to argue
why Rawls thinks it is rational to choose it from the original position.
Second section:
I will now show why Rawls (1999) believes that it is rational to choose the first principles of
justice from the original position. In the original position, artificial rational agents must make
a unanimous decision about the principles of justice. Moreover, the party decides these
principles behind the Veil of Ignorance. Within this, there are people with epistemic
Explain Rawls’s first principle of justice. Does he show that it would be rational to choose it
from the Original Position?
Introduction:
My essay shall be split into two sections. The first section will explain Rawls’ (1999) first
principle of justice. In his book, A Theory of Justice (Rawls 1999) Rawls defines the first
principle as “Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal
basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all” (pp. 266). From this, I
shall explain in detail what Rawls (1999) means when he refers to ‘equal basic liberties.’
This will allow me to address the second section. This section will focus on whether Rawls
(1999) thinks it is rational to choose the first principle of justice from the Original position. I
will attempt to answer this by arguing that Rawls (1999) does think it is rational due to
citizens in the veil of ignorance having access to the maximin principle for protection of
basic liberties. This will subsequently convey how the maximin account strives for lexical
priority of the first principle over the second - this idea is one I do not support - and I will
use Hart’s (1973) essay to show this. My conclusion will be one that argues they conveys
Rawls (1999) is right to choose the first principle of justice from the original position
however, I do not agree and think it is necessary to have a lexical priority of the first
principle over the second principle of justice. This shall be discussed further in my essay.
First Section:
The first principle of justice affirms that all citizens should have basic liberties as well as
equal access to these liberties to ensure that a just society is achieved. Basic liberties vary
, from citizens having freedom of speech and assembly to the right to hold personal property
(Rawls, pp. 53). In addition, Rawls (1999) insists that everyone should have an equal set of
basic liberties as unequal rights would not benefit those who get the lesser share of those
rights (Rawls, pp.11). Rawls (1999) wants to avoid this at all cost as his conception of
society is defined by fairness and everyone having justice. The fulfilment of these basic
liberties within the first principle of justice must be a priority over any other liberties. Rawls
(1999) calls this the lexical priority (Rawls, pp.37), this is the idea that we should prioritise
principles in the order of Liberty Principle, Fair Equality of Opportunity and the Difference
Principle. This means that basic liberties cannot be traded off for other social goods. This can
be shown through an example that if there was a policy that gave the right to for university
students to have draft exemptions for the reasons that educated civilians will increase
economic productivity. With reference to the Rawls (1999) lexical priority, Rawls would
argue that even if this meant slower growth as well as decrease in the position of the least
advantage, it would be a drastic infringement on basic liberties as if a draft is put into place,
then all require to be equally subject to it. Furthermore, due to this lexical priority, Rawls
(1999) believes that citizens under the veil of ignorance and the original position will choose
the first principle; equal basic liberties as it obtains equal liberties for all citizens. As I have
presented the main concept of the first principle of justice, this will allow me to argue
why Rawls thinks it is rational to choose it from the original position.
Second section:
I will now show why Rawls (1999) believes that it is rational to choose the first principles of
justice from the original position. In the original position, artificial rational agents must make
a unanimous decision about the principles of justice. Moreover, the party decides these
principles behind the Veil of Ignorance. Within this, there are people with epistemic
