John Rawls defines justice as fairness in his seminal work “A Theory of Justice” as a principle that aims to ensure that all individuals have equal rights and opportunities in society. Here’s a breakdown of what he means by justice as fairness and its significance compared to utilitarianism:
Justice as Fairness
- Fairness as Equal Opportunity: Rawls argues that fairness means ensuring that all individuals have equal access to basic rights and liberties, and that social and economic inequalities should only be permitted if they benefit the least advantaged members of society.
- Original Position and Veil of Ignorance: Rawls introduces the concept of the “original position,” a hypothetical scenario where individuals are behind a “veil of ignorance” that prevents them from knowing their own social status, wealth, talents, or personal characteristics. In this position, individuals would rationally choose principles of justice that are fair because they do not know how these principles will affect them personally once the veil is lifted.
- Principles of Justice: Rawls proposes two principles of justice:
- First Principle: Each person has an equal right to the most extensive basic liberties compatible with similar liberties for others.
- Second Principle: Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage, and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.
- Procedural Fairness: Rawls emphasizes procedural fairness over outcomes. He argues that a fair procedure for determining principles of justice, such as the original position behind the veil of ignorance, leads to fair outcomes that everyone can accept as just.
Comparison with Utilitarianism
- Focus on Distribution: Utilitarianism, particularly classical utilitarianism, focuses on maximizing overall happiness or pleasure and minimizing pain or suffering. It does not inherently prioritize equal distribution of goods and resources unless doing so maximizes overall utility.
- Treatment of Individuals: Utilitarianism can potentially justify sacrificing the rights or happiness of a minority for the greater good of the majority, as long as it maximizes utility. In contrast, Rawls’s justice as fairness insists on protecting the rights and interests of all individuals, especially the least advantaged.
- Fairness vs. Utility: Rawls argues that justice as fairness provides a more robust framework for ensuring fairness in the distribution of goods and resources. By focusing on fair procedures that all rational individuals would agree to behind the veil of ignorance, Rawls aims to mitigate biases and ensure that decisions are not based solely on maximizing utility but on principles that are fair to all.
Significance
Rawls’s concept of justice as fairness is significant compared to utilitarianism because:
- Rights and Liberties: It prioritizes protecting basic rights and liberties for all individuals, which can be overlooked in utilitarian calculations that focus solely on aggregate utility.
- Fair Equality of Opportunity: It emphasizes fair equality of opportunity, ensuring that everyone has a fair chance to succeed regardless of their social or economic background.
- Focus on the Worst Off: Rawls’s theory places a strong emphasis on improving the condition of the least advantaged members of society, which is a crucial aspect of justice that utilitarianism may neglect if it does not contribute to overall utility.
In summary, Rawls’s justice as fairness offers a principled approach to justice that prioritizes equal rights, fair opportunities, and protection of the least advantaged. It contrasts with utilitarianism by emphasizing procedural fairness and the distribution of goods and resources in a way that benefits everyone equally, particularly those who are most vulnerable in society.