A Theory of Justice - Book Summary

Step into the world of one of the greatest minds in political philosophy.

Have you ever sat down and pondered what fairness truly means? What shapes a society into being considered just? How should we, as a society, allocate resources and opportunities? These deep, probing questions are the bedrock of John Rawls's influential work, "A Theory of Justice".

Since its release in 1971, this seminal piece has been a lightning rod of discussion and debate in the realm of political philosophy. It provides a unique lens through which we can assess and critique societal structures, and nudges us towards fine-tuning our personal understanding of fairness.

In the short span of our journey together, we will delve into one of the most impactful ideas presented in Rawls's work — that a truly equitable society must be constructed on the principles which unbiased individuals would agree upon in unison.

So, buckle up and let's set off into the world of justice and equality.

Framing a fresh social agreement

How does one arrange a society that allows people with diverse interests to live together in harmony? The answer, according to philosopher John Rawls, comes down to a single element that underpins all societal institutions — justice. Above all else, society and its regulations need to be fair. After all, individuals do not get to select the society they are born into, yet they are expected to abide by its laws, with the threat of punishment hanging over any violation.

This concept is what philosophers often refer to as a social contract. This isn't an actual historical document, but rather a foundational narrative that attempts to rationalize societal functioning and outlines the mutual obligations between individuals and society.

Take for instance the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, an influential thinker from seventeenth-century England. Hobbes argued that life in our original “state of nature” — the pre-government era — was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Thus, he proposed that individuals would willingly sacrifice a measure of their personal freedom to a governing authority in exchange for protection and the opportunity to lead a reasonably decent life. This implicit agreement, according to Hobbes, is what gives the state its legitimacy.

Fast forward to the Cold War era, and John Rawls articulates his Theory of Justice, a product of a time when democratic societies were engulfed in geopolitical struggles between capitalist and communist ideologies, social unrest, and fervent ideological debates.

So, what kind of social contract does Rawls propose for these times? What does justice look like in his view? Let's delve into that next.

When justice pulls down her blindfold

Imagine you've been tasked with creating a fair taxation code. To do this, you decide to conduct a poll, inquiring who should be taxed and how much, and offering different schemes for respondents to choose from. Unfortunately, the result is disheartening. The wealthy want the poor to pay. The poor, on the other hand, propose that the rich should pay. Stockholders shift the burden to landowners and vice versa. Everyone chooses in line with their best interest, leaving you back at square one.

The well-known adage, "justice is blind," encapsulates the notion that fairness is predicated on impartial, unbiased judgment, stripped of self-interest. This perspective forms the backbone of John Rawls's philosophy. Rawls's primary query is: If we were unaware of our position in the societal hierarchy, what principles would we use to organize society?

Rawls refers to this concept as the "veil of ignorance." Picture the classic statue of Lady Justice, blindfolded and wielding a set of scales — a symbol of impartiality. Or consider the common practice of cake-cutting, where one person divides the cake, unaware of which slice they will receive, incentivizing them to make the slices as equal as possible. This is a practical illustration of the veil of ignorance.

What does this mean when it comes to shaping society?

Imagine, for a moment, that you've been granted the power to determine the societal structure. However, you're yet to be born, and you have no idea of your social standing. Will you be born into affluence or poverty? What will be your gender, ethnicity, or talents? All of this is a mystery. This is what Rawls dubs the "original position", a term parallel to Thomas Hobbes's "state of nature."

So, wearing your veil of ignorance and blind to your future social standing, how would you organize society?

Rawls argues that the logical and equitable choice would be a society that guarantees the best possible outcomes for the worst off — for those who unluckily lack wealth, privilege, or talent. In essence, a society's value should be judged by the condition of its least fortunate members. But what does this mean in practice? Would you choose laissez-faire capitalism, where the markets are free, and the outcomes are unpredictable?

Rawls's response would be negative. Such a system could lead to extreme inequality, with individuals being born into varying levels of wealth and possessing different levels of talent — much of this being a matter of pure luck. With the veil of ignorance firmly in place, laissez-faire capitalism would appear as an unnecessarily risky gamble.

Would a communist system, ensuring equal outcomes for all, then be the answer?

Again, Rawls would disagree. Absolute equality has the potential to stifle the motivation to work hard and apply one's talents effectively. Market systems, despite their inherent inequality, generate wealth that can benefit everyone. Therefore, permitting a degree of inequality can, in fact, enlarge the "cake," according to Rawls.

So, revisiting our initial starting point, it's rational to favor market societies over communist ones, provided the wealth generated benefits even the least fortunate. The smallest slice of cake one might receive should still be larger than what one would receive in a society with absolute equality.

And there it is — a defense of liberal capitalist societies, albeit not an unconditional one. According to Rawls's social contract, the individual is indeed required to accept the social structure, but society's institutions are also morally obligated to significantly assist those who are less fortunate. In the end, those in advantageous positions can only justify the existing inequality by significantly aiding and empowering those less fortunate.

Wrapping it up

From ancient times to the modern era, political philosophers have grappled with the complexities of constructing robust and harmonious societies, as well as identifying the quintessential ideals to aspire to. Rawls's theory of justice brings forth one such ideal: justice as an embodiment of fairness.

In this perspective, a fair system is what an impartial, rational, and self-interested individual would choose, from behind a "veil of ignorance" that blurs their personal biases. This choice, according to Rawls, would translate into a just society — one that guarantees the highest possible degree of social benefits for the least fortunate.

Rawls's work adds depth to our understanding of the concept of justice, throwing down the gauntlet to examine and challenge how closely our society aligns with this ideal.