Student ID: 4314752
Explain Rawls’s first principle of justice. Does he show that it would be rational to
choose it from the Original Position?
John Rawls developed a way of constructing two principles of justice that distribute
the benefits and burdens associated with social and political practices in a way that
is fair to all. In the following essay, I will attempt to explain in depth Rawls’ first
principle of justice and how he reached this, as well as the basic liberties Rawls
makes reference to in it. I will assess whether Rawls provides sufficient evidence to
show that it would be rational for agents in his Original Position to come up with his
first principle of justice. This will allow me to explain Rawls’ main justifications (the
Maximin Principle and the Veil of Ignorance) for choosing the Principles of Justice.
Furthermore, I will touch on the second condition of Rawls first principle: it’s Lexical
Priority over his second Principle of Justice. There seems to be controversy
regarding the necessity of this priority and I will explore Hart’s (1973) objection to this
condition as well as Rawls response. I will argue that although I feel Rawls does
effectively show it would be rational to choose the first principle in the Original
Position and he is right in doing so, it is not always appropriate for it to take lexical
priority over the second principle of justice.
Rawls’ “Original Position” (Rawls, 1971) is a position of fairness and impartiality
whereby agents who are rational, mutually disinterested, free and with epistemic
constraints (Langtry, 1985) (i.e. they know nothing about themselves but only
biological and psychological facts) agree on principles of justice that can be used to
decide how to set up a just society. The reference to “mutually disinterested”
, Student ID: 4314752
individuals in this context means persons are only interested in bettering themselves,
rather than holding loyalties to others. In this original position, Rawls specifies that
principles created should not be tailored to selfish interests, nor should luck or social
standing give someone an advantage.
Rawls attempts to make use of the idea of “rational choice” in the original position,
using the term “rational” in the context of choice. In other words, rational here means
choosing sensible means for an end. In the original position, this end is to secure
primary goods. Thus, people should make a rational choice in the Original Position
about how they want a society to run so that they can secure primary goods. Rawls
feels this is the ultimate goal regardless of your conception of the good, which I will
explain in further detail.
Rawls (1971) first principle of justice (referred to as the Liberty Principle throughout)
is as follows: “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”. This
essentially means that Rawls says sets out a list of basic liberties which he believes
should be granted to all equally, so that all may benefit to the same degree. These
are: freedom of speech and assembly, right to vote and hold office, freedom of
thought, freedom of person, right to hold personal property and freedom from
arbitrary arrest and seizure (Rawls, 1971). I feel that it is important to note that this
list possibly misses some important rights that should be included in the picture of
our ideal society, such as the right to not be discriminated against.
Explain Rawls’s first principle of justice. Does he show that it would be rational to
choose it from the Original Position?
John Rawls developed a way of constructing two principles of justice that distribute
the benefits and burdens associated with social and political practices in a way that
is fair to all. In the following essay, I will attempt to explain in depth Rawls’ first
principle of justice and how he reached this, as well as the basic liberties Rawls
makes reference to in it. I will assess whether Rawls provides sufficient evidence to
show that it would be rational for agents in his Original Position to come up with his
first principle of justice. This will allow me to explain Rawls’ main justifications (the
Maximin Principle and the Veil of Ignorance) for choosing the Principles of Justice.
Furthermore, I will touch on the second condition of Rawls first principle: it’s Lexical
Priority over his second Principle of Justice. There seems to be controversy
regarding the necessity of this priority and I will explore Hart’s (1973) objection to this
condition as well as Rawls response. I will argue that although I feel Rawls does
effectively show it would be rational to choose the first principle in the Original
Position and he is right in doing so, it is not always appropriate for it to take lexical
priority over the second principle of justice.
Rawls’ “Original Position” (Rawls, 1971) is a position of fairness and impartiality
whereby agents who are rational, mutually disinterested, free and with epistemic
constraints (Langtry, 1985) (i.e. they know nothing about themselves but only
biological and psychological facts) agree on principles of justice that can be used to
decide how to set up a just society. The reference to “mutually disinterested”
, Student ID: 4314752
individuals in this context means persons are only interested in bettering themselves,
rather than holding loyalties to others. In this original position, Rawls specifies that
principles created should not be tailored to selfish interests, nor should luck or social
standing give someone an advantage.
Rawls attempts to make use of the idea of “rational choice” in the original position,
using the term “rational” in the context of choice. In other words, rational here means
choosing sensible means for an end. In the original position, this end is to secure
primary goods. Thus, people should make a rational choice in the Original Position
about how they want a society to run so that they can secure primary goods. Rawls
feels this is the ultimate goal regardless of your conception of the good, which I will
explain in further detail.
Rawls (1971) first principle of justice (referred to as the Liberty Principle throughout)
is as follows: “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”. This
essentially means that Rawls says sets out a list of basic liberties which he believes
should be granted to all equally, so that all may benefit to the same degree. These
are: freedom of speech and assembly, right to vote and hold office, freedom of
thought, freedom of person, right to hold personal property and freedom from
arbitrary arrest and seizure (Rawls, 1971). I feel that it is important to note that this
list possibly misses some important rights that should be included in the picture of
our ideal society, such as the right to not be discriminated against.
