John Rawles’ theory of justice was not a new statement in moral philosophy. It was actually a revision of Locke’s, Rousseau’s, and Kant’s ideas (Guyer, 2018). Therefore, there are many similarities between his beliefs and the already existing ones. Yet, Rawles added his own understanding of justice and conveyed it in the form of principles. There are two basic beliefs laying the foundation for his theory.
The first principle is that everyone should have equal rights, which do not extend beyond other people’s freedom. This implies that there is a limit to rights, which is distinguished by the intersection with the others. A person cannot appeal to their privileges when someone else’s freedom is jeopardized. The most important implication is that a certain level of economic and social inequality is acceptable to society.
This idea leads to the second principle, which is structuring the inequality in such a way that all people should have access to social and work benefits. Rawles ascertains the freedoms, which cannot be compromised; they include the freedom of speech, the freedom of consciousness, the right to property, and other classic human privileges. Yet, once the access to the basic necessities is assured, inequality is allowed.
The first principle is the most important because it lays the foundation for the second one’s limitations. Rawles deems inequality essential for society, yet it should be controlled. The ultimate purpose is the common good, which pertains to everyone. Paradoxically, it cannot be achieved without inequality, but the excess of wealth disparity can undermine social welfare entirely. Therefore, the highest priority is placed on the balance between right and liberties, which is the first principle.
Reference
Guyer, P. (2018). Principles of justice, primary goods and categories of right: Rawls and Kant. Kantian Review, 23(4), 581-613. Web.