Introduction
Several theories have been devised to explain the structuring of modern-day societies and communities. These theories are regarded as having substantial positive effects on the structuring and restoration of society; various views and theories were put forth to achieve natural cohesion in civilization. This is done in the fight for a society free from tricks, lies, injustice, and inequality, among other issues, that a person faces in their relationships with those around them (Sætra). It should be clear that John Rawls’ claim that justice is equivalent to equity and Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan theory are regarded as particularly important in the organization of society, and stand out among other theories.
Hobbes presents a compelling argument against the fool violating the social contract. While Rawls presents the concept of supererogatory justice, which makes an outstanding argument for justice in terms of liberties, it is marred by a glaring flaw that the unintelligent can exploit. The concealment of ignorance makes it difficult to effectively refute the fool’s claim. The ideology of justice as fairness and its corollary, the “maximin” strategy, cannot adequately address the comparison and measurement issues raised by Rawlsian analysis. Additionally, the attraction to consistency on which the latter part of Rawls’s argument varies, depending, is based on a flawed political and historical sociology, which further complicates the case from the outset.
Conception of Justice
Justice now has a formal definition as well as a purpose. The right act, in its purposeful sense, furthers the greater good. Purposive justice relates to what Hobbes and Rawls refer to as distributive justice and justice for institutions. In its most formal sense, an exemplary act abides by predetermined guidelines. Formal justice is closely connected to what Hobbes and Rawls refer to as distributive justice and the fair treatment of individuals. According to Blau, a just act should include both a procedural and a purposeful element, or as behavior that follows established laws yet is directed towards some substantive good.
In other words, procedural justice regulates the achievement of specific objectives, while substantive justice specifies the appropriate means to achieve them (Blau). This essay will focus on formal justice, as Hobbes and Rawls frequently discuss it. Because humans are naturally equally endowed with physical and mental faculties, Hobbes’ definition of equality centers on this idea to explain the understanding of justice and societal peace.
Rawls contends that justice, at a global scale, only occurs among people, not between individuals. Even though a veil of ignorance is used to construct international justice, the decision-makers are still society’s representatives and are mandated to advocate for the community members. According to Rawls, their priorities would be entirely dissimilar, with a heavy focus on respecting sovereign rights and only making allowances in the event of grave human rights breaches (Sætra).
This implies that Rawls’ theory holds that it is essential for leaders and the government to devise laws and regulations that serve the interests of the people. Additionally, any lingering inequality is not ethically disturbing as long as all inhabitants of societies have structures that allow their people to lead respectable lives. To compete with utilitarianism and its desire to address moral, social, and economic realities, Rawls aims to develop an alternative comprehensive theory (Sætra). ‘One explanation [for utilitarianism’s popularity] is that it has been advocated by a long line of excellent authors who have amassed a body of thought that is astonishing in its extent and sophistication.
However, people occasionally forget that the renowned utilitarians Hume, Adam Smith, Bentham, and Mill were also world-class social theorists and economists. The moral philosophy they developed was tailored to serve their larger objectives and fit into a comprehensive framework (Nalli and Santori). According to Hobbes, the root causes of the current state of war are complete equality, the nature of man, and self-preservation. Given that it is also part of human nature to cause damage in the pursuit of survival, the concept of self-preservation in Hobbes’ state of nature accepts this behavior. Each person has their own idea of self-preservation and survival.
Theories of Justice
It should be evident that Rawls advocates a theory of justice as reciprocity, defined as “a moral concept between impartiality on the one side and mutual advantage on the other” (Nalli and Santori 5). Gibbard was right to doubt Rawls’s endorsement of Barry’s conflation of justice with objectivity and mutual benefit. ‘Justice as fairness,’ in Barry’s view, teeters precariously between objectivity and mutual gain; in Gibbard’s view, it rests precariously on reciprocity, Rawls writes.
Gibbard’s justice perspective is valid in this case, and most people would agree with his opinion (Nalli and Santori, 7). This is also clear from Rawls’s two principles of justice, which include the principles of justice for people and justice for institutions, as well as fairness (Nalli and Santori 8). If an institution is just, it adheres to the two principles of justice. If one has taken advantage of the opportunities available within the institution, one is obligated to do one’s share, as stipulated by the organization’s norms.
Rawls’ two principles of justice suggest that people take on responsibilities when they voluntarily make or accept pledges, enter into contracts, or accept other benefits from others. Justice as fairness warns us early on that those who advocate for legal arrangements are led to believe that political responsibility necessitates a conscious, performative act within the sense of a promise or contract. Instead, it is necessary to intentionally engage in or embrace the advantages of an activity considered fair. This theory holds that humans are motivated to take responsibility when an opportunity presents a worthy compensation, rather than when nothing is promised in a contract.
Hobbes and Rawls propose societal contracts that explain how society is structured. Hobbes’s perspective presents the Leviathan, whereas Rawls’s presents the Theory of Justice. In Rawls’s view, equality is plausible if its proponents can demonstrate that individuals would consent to it when allowed to make that decision. He then constructs a hypothetical situation to demonstrate how people vote in a political system. His “initial posture,” which is analogous to a condition of nature, is where this is. Then, with everyone hiding behind a “veil of ignorance,” he begins his thought experiment. In doing so, individuals learn nothing about themselves or their society, including their socioeconomic status, level of wealth, innate skills, or the allocation of material resources.
The next step is for them to determine the structure of their civilization. Since they cannot agree on what is best for themselves, community members push for a state that adheres to Rawls’ two principles of justice. The initial principle is autonomy, which promotes the equal right to personal freedom and respect for one’s decision (Nalli and Santori).
The guiding assumption is the distinction principle, which supports equality by promoting differences that help people experiencing poverty (Nalli and Santori). When people are unaware of one another’s privileges and opportunities, they tend to form more equitable communities where everyone has equal privileges. This implies that disparities only arise when wealth is not shared fairly among the community members.
Conclusion
These two theorists have a strong relationship that can teach us something about their ideas of formal justice. I argue that contrary to Brian Barry’s portrayal of Hobbes as an advocate of justice as collective benefit and Rawls as an advocacy organization of both justices as mutual success and justice as objectivity, the two philosophers adhere to the same tradition of justice, justice as mutuality, which bases commitments of mutual recognition not only on explicit express, as well as on tacit acceptance of benefits.
Hobbes appears more conservative in the modern sense because his entire political system is predicated on maintaining the stability of the commonwealth. A traditional cultural monarchy can only achieve this peace with sovereignty over religion (Nili). Hobbes is strongly opposed to power division and the shift in tradition, as he witnessed its consequences firsthand in England during the English Civil War.
He also supports censorship and unquestioning loyalty to the sovereign. This means that Hobbes believes in a democracy where individuals are given equal chances, and everybody is equal before the law. From the two theories described in this essay, the Rawls and Hobbes theories of justice explain the perceived justice in modern communities and how peaceful existence is affected for the betterment of human life.
Works Cited
Blau, Adrian. “How (Not) to Use the History of Political Thought for Contemporary Purposes.” American Journal of Political Science, vol. 65, no. 2. 2020. Web.
Nalli, Federica, and Paolo Santori. “The Economic Principle of Political Liberalism: A Comparison of Rawls and Sugden.” Review of Political Economy. 2021, pp. 1–18. Web.
Nili, Shmuel. “A Poggean Passport for Fairness? Why Rawls’ Theory of Justice Did Not Become Global.” Ethics & Global Politics, vol. 3, no. 4. 2010, pp. 277–301. Web.
Sætra, Henrik Skaug. “Toward a Hobbesian Liberal Democracy through a Maslowian Hierarchy of Needs.” The Humanistic Psychologist, 2020. Web.