Summary Of A Theory Of Justice By John Rawls

In ‘A theory of Justice’ John Rawls attempts to establish a set of principles to which the institutions of society can be built upon and a method through which primary goods can be distributed equally, Rawls names these principles ‘justice as fairness’. Rawls argues that society is a shared agreement between all parties to ensure society remains equal and free. In order to determine what terms of social cooperation would ensure a free and equal society Rawls appeals to a form of ‘social contract’ theory in which there is a hypothetical original scenario in which all rational parties would agree to a set of conditions and terms that would form a just society, this is referred to as the argument from ‘the original position’ and is an integral …show more content…
Consequently if it were found that rational individuals would instead choose a different principle in this hypothetical situation it would undermines the importance of the original position with regards to Rawls overarching argument. A number of thinker’s have chosen this route of criticism. Economist John Harsanyi argues that in the original position, under a veil of ignorance, rational individuals would instead choose classic utilitarianism over Rawls egalitarian principles. Harsanyi argues that it would be human nature to take the risk and hope that they would be placed in the highest place in society, and would therefore attempt to ‘maximise the maximum’, even if this resulted in some positions in society lacking basic liberties, or if it meant society lacking equality of opportunity, this is known as the ‘maximax criterion’ and it is argued if parties in the original position were to follow this criterion it would result in principles of utilitarianism rather than the principles of ‘justice as fairness’. This differs from Rawls’ view that people imagine themselves being placed in the worst position in society, and are therefore interested in ‘maximising the minimum’ to ensure that even if they are placed in the lowest position they will still have access to basic liberties and equality of opportunity, this is known as the ‘minimax criterion’. Deciding between these methods of reasoning is challenging as it is difficult to imagine how the parties in the ‘original position’ would act. However, Harsanyi believes the parties in Rawls’ idea of the original position display risk-averseness, unwilling to take the risk in being placed in a higher position in society; he claims that this quality is counterintuitive to human nature where humans are willing to take