Introduction
Different concepts of justice derive from distinct perspectives on society, human needs, and potential for positive social evolution. Usually, justice is associated with an equitable and adequate social structure that aims to fulfill essential human rights. It is regarded as a social notion, and harmonic social structure is commonly perceived as the only fair basis for the sound development of global communities.
Nowadays, a great variety of theories of justice exist, but the theory suggested by John Rawls is considered the most influential conception of the 20th century. The key role in Rawls’ stance is given to the idea of the social contract. His theory is grounded on the identification of hypothetical ideal situations in which all citizens are responsible for the political and economic welfare of their society. The main argument provided by the philosopher in ideal theory refers to the fact that hypothetically developed principles of justice serve as the only reasonable basis for efficient problem-solving in a world that is far from its ideal state. In this way, another component of Rawls’ perspective, non-ideal theory, strives to find a way to achieve distant ideal goals. His concept aims to detect the effective, realistic, and ethical methods for moving in the desired direction whereas ideal theory principles serve as the basis for the practical implementation of non-ideal theory methods.
Rawls’ ideal theory continues to provoke disputes among political philosophers and practitioners. While supporters consider it a practical method for problem-solving, the opponents of the theory impugn its validity and accuse its intuitive nature of insufficiency of rationalization of supporting its practical utility. Despite the potential disadvantages discussed by the opponents of Rawlsian ideas, this paper argues that ideal theory is a useful component of the theory of global justice. The following literature review and analysis of distinct perceptions of justice aims to identify the scope and utility of ideal theory application as a method for the achievement of consent at the level of international political relations.
Global Justice
Social Justice and Sociality
The notion of justice refers to the alignment between the social roles of diverse citizens and their status, their rights and responsibilities, acts and rewards, merits and recognition, etc., while the failure proportionally to correlate these aspects of social performance can be regarded as an injustice.
The literature review makes it clear that the conceptual content of justice definition and perceptions of justice are not universal for all times and cultures – they always depend on particular historical experiences and contexts. Philosophers suggest that cultural values and beliefs define the content of the justice principles in particular social environments. However, there are many similar features among the diverse perspectives on social justice that indicate some common features of human sociality and their theoretical descriptions. Thus, the formation of these similar social characteristics may be influenced by the universal human needs and human nature itself.
The majority of modern researchers regard a human as a social being, and it is considered that the essence of sociality is rooted in the alignment of individual and collective needs. Although total harmony in relations between society and individuals is hardly achievable, Hossain and Ali suggest regarding harmonic relations between citizens and society as a higher rule of their mutual expediency. It means that individual needs should be fulfilled only when taking into account the needs of other citizens and social welfare while the interests of the whole society should be realized by considering the interests of each social agent. It is suggested to resolve potential conflicts between individuals and society according to the principle of social unity that encourages tolerance and security in order to maintain social equality. Only this kind of social structure can be perceived as harmonious.
According to Brian Barry, social justice is a mutual advantage that can be approached merely when the principle of social impartiality is fulfilled. Along with equal opportunities, impartiality ensures equal access to social advantages by all citizens. Social impartiality denotes an equal quality of life, level of life satisfaction, and status of individuals in any social system. Because the absolute equitability of individuals is unreachable due to the natural demographic differences (age, physical capability, intellectual aptitude, etc.), it is important to consider these aspects of inequality that do not lead to the elimination of impartiality but, on the contrary, strengthen and deepen it. Thus, the unity of equality and natural inequality, their proportional correlation, as well as the impartial treatment of all citizens, comprise the content of social justice in multiple aspects: political, legal, moral, etc.
Rawls’ Perspective on the Concept of Justice
John Rawls regards fairness as the initial merit of social institutions and justice as fairness can be characterized by the criterion of reciprocity, “viewed and applied between free and equal citizens.” According to Rawls’ perspective, an individual has a right to freedom and social integrity grounded in the principle of fairness and it cannot be violated even by the most prospering society and political structure.
The principle of fairness is the basis of Rawls’ view of justice. Justice as fairness, in its turn, implies the implementation of equality and cooperation principles that will be accepted by reasonable individuals, pursuing their own interests in initial equal circumstances. The principle of fairness does not allow the freedom of any citizen to become a subject of the political bargain. And based on this, justice is perceived by Rawls as the expression of personal dignity and the basis of individual self-respect.
Potential Controversies
The principle of fairness grounded in Rawls’ theory does not have a solid rationale and is expressed as an intuitive idea. Intuitivism is defined by the author “as the doctrine that there is an irreducible family of first principles which have to be weighed against one another by asking ourselves which balance, in our considered judgment, is the justest.” The intuitive idea of justice as fairness relies on the comprehension of justice principles as the objects of initial agreement that would perfectly suit particular circumstances, and these principles should be equally accepted by the parties interested in the promotion of their interests.
Rawls attempts to mitigate his intuitive claims and give them rationalization by introducing the principle of reflective equilibrium. The major methodological aspect of the principle involves the comparison of distinct moral principles and judgments that may lead to the establishment of balance among diverse arguments relevant to a particular case. However, such a method does not necessarily lead to complete rationalization and validation of any moral judgment. Based on this, there is no objective criterion for morality. And Rawls’ concepts may lead to subjectivism and consequent irrationalism in the understanding of justice.
Ideal Theory
Major Principles
In his vision of justice as fairness, Rawls managed to give a second wind to the model of a social contract by emphasizing the hypothetical nature of peoples’ agreements on justice. In this situation, the terms of a social contract and the contract itself are described as hypothetical, non-actual. Ultimately, the major advantage of the Rawlsian concept is not merely in its capability to realize the idea of justice as a social agreement but also in its attempt to include the ideas of freedom and human dignity into his perception of justice.
According to Rawls’ position, justice as fairness is based on the natural state of social equality that can be aligned with the traditional perspective on social contracts. Such an initial state of equality cannot be perceived as an actual state of affairs, but only as a hypothetical ideal condition applied to lead societies to the formation of a particular idea of justice.
The concept of social contract inevitably entails the possibility of individuals’ noncompliance with the accepted ideal norms of behavior and principles of justice. The problems of partial compliance and violation of social contracts’ terms are actual problems that can be faced in the real-world context. As Rawls states, it is important to base the decision-making process aimed to deal with those topical compliance issues on the ideal theory because it provides the only reasonable ground for the systematic comprehension of the most important social and political problems.
Rawls’ claims are supported by many researchers. For example, recent research of global justice concepts in relation to global poverty issues suggests the implementation of a hypothetical analysis of the ideal principles targeting these problems instead of the mere reflection on non-ideal outcomes. It is stated that “fundamentally appropriate assessment of global circumstances of justice should … provide the ideal grounds of … equality.” Such perspective suggests regarding the nature and the objectives of the ideal and fair society as the fundamental part of the justice theory and provides the frameworks for the development of a profound understanding of the actual situation in the society.
Rawls’ concept of justice is the social ideal, and the principles of this kind of justice comprise a significant portion of this concept. The notion of a social ideal is correlated with the view of a community striving to comply with the principles of justice as fairness and characterized by a high level of social cooperation. At the same time, the ideal society is always rooted in the voluntary mechanisms of its development. It means that a community approaches its ideal state in case liberal and equal citizens autonomously and consciously accept the principles of justice in the context of fair conditions. According to Rawls’ perspective, a reasonable liberal individual would choose the best of the possible schemes of basic goods distribution even in the most unfavorable conditions. It means that in these hypothetical conditions, a reasonable citizen would choose the principles of justice suggested by Rawls.
Non-Ideal Theory
International relations are associated with conventionality, the versatility of political systems, and behavioral motives. Thus, the use of ideal theory as the basis for political decision-making at the international level is appealing, and it may be regarded as a premise for undertaking effective actions.
Rawls distinguishes several types of societies, and because the global system requires their cooperation and consensus, the principles of Rawls’ liberal theory of justice should be accepted by all social structures. While the ideal theory provides the methods for the well-ordered societies – liberal and decent peoples – to utilize the principles of justice and create a fair social environment, non-ideal theory can be applied to deal with two other forms of states – burdened societies and outlaw states. Overall, the non-ideal theory may be regarded as the theory of noncompliance. In its non-ideal section, the theory of justice faces the real-world environment and attempts to respond to the problems that occur there.
The major quality of decent and liberal peoples is their desire to live in a world where all nations would recognize the ideal principles of justice and would follow them. And the non-ideal theory thus can be applied by well-ordered societies to achieve this objective in an efficient and morally acceptable way. Such understanding of non-ideal theory bases itself upon the designed ideal conceptions that serve as the goals in political decision-making.
Significance of Ideal Theory
The global political sphere can be regarded as the generalized realm of international relations, and the concept of justice regulating domestic political activities may be efficiently applied to international politics as well. At the level of global society and international cooperation, the use of liberal methods of the hypothetical social contract for the development of the theory of justice becomes possible because the concept of ideal society excludes the consideration of particular economic and cultural features and geographical differences of diverse states. According to Rawlsian principles of justice, the cooperating international parties should consider only the general human values and such an approach is characterized by a high level of impartiality. In this way, it is possible to say that the initial hypothetical equal state introduced by Rawls in his theory effectively suits the concepts of global justice in international relations.
The principles of ideal theory may serve as the major instruments for the initiation of efficient decisions at the international level. And the application of the hypothetical ideal agreement method may be effective because it implies the consideration of common interests and values rather than national characteristics.
Conclusion
It is possible to conclude that the basic rights and liberties and the concept of global justice related to them essentially correspond to the current practice of international cooperation, international law, and policy. By reflecting the major principles required for the achievement of consensus at the global level and providing a potential ground for the creation of the global social system, Rawls’ ideal theory may serve as the basis for the development of a new form of international relations that would take the stand on common moral values.
References
Barry, Brian. A Treatise on Social Justice, Volume 1. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1889.
Hossain, Anayet and Korban Ali, “Relation Between Individual and Society.” Open Journal of Social Sciences 2, no.8 (2014): 130-137.
Rawls, John. The Law of Peoples: With, The Idea of Public Reason Revisited. London: Harvard University Press, 2001.
Rawls, John. Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999.
Sangiovanni, Andrea. “Justice and the Priority of Politics to Morality.” The Journal of Political Philosophy 16, no.2 (2008): 1-28.
Ypi, Lea. “On the Confusion between Ideal and Non-ideal in Recent Debates on Global Justice,” Political Studies 58, no.3 (2010): 536-555.