Summary
Rawls’s conception of economic justice is based on a well-ordered society where every person has equal basic rights and everyone’s fundamental needs are met. It assumes cooperation, empathy, profound understanding, respect, equal opportunities, and rewards for those who contribute to society the most. Rawls’s concept is a powerful innovation that would destroy stereotypes, increase the level of productivity and happiness, and create genuine equality in society.
The author tends to create a free, equal, unbiased, and happy community by means of his conception. He claims that all social values, such as freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and respect, must be distributed fairly unless an unfair distribution is “for everyone’s advantage” (Rawls, 2005, p. 607). The author states that by default, people are all unequal; however, government and the population can do their best to provide every human being with the best circumstances possible.
His concept of “justice as fairness” offers equality by default, and freedom, and every person has the same fundamental rights, regardless of the place, family, or society of birth. There are two principles of justice that the author offers. The first one: “Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for others” (Rawls, 2005, p. 606). The second one: “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 offices and positions open to all” (Rawls, 2005, p. 606). However, it does not mean that justice and fairness are the same; this means that justice has to be applied like fairness.
Rawls’s theory assumes that any decisions must be made no matter the person’s age, gender, nationality, status, religion, number of children, wealth, and many other factors. This theory is brilliant due to its genuine equality and fair treatment. By means of this attitude, there would not be any bias, stereotypes, or prejudice. Society would look completely different because every decision nowadays is influenced by any kind of stereotype and is unfair.
There would probably not be any social roles or obligations this way, such as “a woman should be a mother, behave in a low-key way, be obedient and silent.” Or such as “a man has to be masculine all the time, does not have to cry or feel scared or anxious, he has to be a hero all the time.” Moreover, such biases as “black people are criminals,” “wealthy people have more power and are seen as better ones,” and “Muslim people are terrorists” would not exist.
It is hard to conceive how ubiquitous stereotypes are and how it rules societies. The vast majority of impressions and attitudes are formed due to them: there is a minority of unbiased people. Rawls’s theory would make the world look completely different: every institution would work. Differently, new people would take essential positions, and probably, there would be new world leaders, more liberal and respectful. Inequality makes the population unhappy, many people suffer from it, and it is hard to talk about happiness in this case. Any display of discrimination, humiliation, or objective feeling of unfairness will affect a person and have severe consequences. Without it, society would have fewer problems, more freedom and opportunities and feel much happier.
The veil of ignorance is Rawls’s idea that people will adopt fairness of distribution if they ignore their societal position. In other words, they will be fair if they do not know how this decision will affect them. The key is to separate from personal circumstances and think rationally. The principles that support the author’s ideas are the difference and liberty principles. The liberty principle suggests that everyone can enjoy maximum freedom without crossing somebody else’s boundaries. The difference principle states that everyone has to have equal opportunities, and the ones who provide the best benefit for society have to be rewarded the most. This means that people are different, and this must be respected; they have the freedom to be this way.
Nozick’s Objection
Through Wilt Chamberlain’s argument, Nozick tried to show that Rawls’s principles of distribution were discordant with liberty. He attempted to demonstrate that only an equal distribution without any personal differences considered is just. In Nozick’s opinion, individual rights are supreme by default, and society doesn’t have to strive for moral equality. He stated that the point is for the market to be free and fair and whether the outcome is acceptable or nor does not matter.
Response to the Objection
Nozick’s theory is inaccurate and would not lead to a more productive or happier society. Everybody is different from the moment of birth, and somebody during life contributes to the community more, somebody – less. It is highly unfair to reward equally somebody who changes the whole system and helps millions of people and somebody who helps one person equally. It would evoke many negative emotions in people and result in a lack of motivation. Every person must be respected a priori, without any biases; meanwhile, they have to be awarded for their deeds and intentions: according to what they give this world.
Reference
Rawls, J. (2005). A theory of justice. Belknap Press.