John Rawls's theory of justice as fairness argues that a just society is one whose basic institutions would be chosen through a fair and impartial decision-making procedure. It protects equal basic liberties while permitting inequalities only under strict conditions.
The Reasoning Behind Justice as Fairness
Rawls asks us to imagine an original position in which rational individuals choose principles for organizing society. They deliberate behind a veil of ignorance, meaning they do not know their class, wealth, talents, ethnicity, gender, religion, or conception of the good.
Because nobody knows where they will end up in society, no one can design principles to favour their own circumstances. Rawls therefore claims that the parties would choose two principles:
| Principle | Requirement | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Equal basic liberties principle | Each person receives an equal and adequate scheme of basic liberties compatible with the same scheme for everyone. | Protects liberties such as freedom of conscience, expression, association, and political participation. |
| Second principle | Inequalities must satisfy fair equality of opportunity and the difference principle. | Offices must be genuinely accessible to all, and inequalities must benefit the least advantaged members of society. |
The principles have lexical priority. Equal basic liberties cannot be sacrificed to increase wealth, and fair equality of opportunity takes priority over the difference principle.
For example, higher salaries for doctors could be just if positions are fairly accessible and the salary incentive improves healthcare for the least advantaged. Inequality is therefore not automatically unjust.
A common misconception is that Rawls demands complete economic equality. He instead allows unequal outcomes when they improve the position of the least advantaged compared with available alternatives.
IB Exam Technique
In an IB Philosophy response, define the original position and veil of ignorance before explaining both principles and their priority. For evaluation, consider whether hypothetical agreement creates real moral obligations, whether the least advantaged can be identified clearly, and whether Rawls gives insufficient weight to individual entitlement or personal responsibility.
