A Theory of Justice

A Theory of Justice Plot Summary

Introduction

How can we create a society that treats all its members fairly? This fundamental question has challenged philosophers and political thinkers throughout history. The theory of justice as fairness offers a compelling answer by reconceptualizing society as a system of fair cooperation among free and equal persons. Rather than deriving principles of justice from utilitarian calculations or religious doctrines, this theory asks what principles would be chosen by rational individuals in an initial position of equality, behind a "veil of ignorance" that prevents them from knowing their place in society. The theory addresses several interconnected questions: What makes social institutions just or unjust? How can we balance individual liberty with social equality? What principles should govern the distribution of social and economic advantages? How do people develop the moral psychology necessary to support just institutions? By answering these questions through a social contract approach, the theory provides a systematic framework for evaluating existing arrangements and guiding social reform. It demonstrates that justice is not merely an abstract ideal but a practical possibility—a society organized around principles of fairness can achieve stability through the congruence between justice and human good.

Chapter 1: The Original Position and Veil of Ignorance

The original position represents a hypothetical situation designed to yield fair principles of justice. In this thought experiment, individuals must determine the fundamental principles that will govern their society while situated behind a "veil of ignorance" that prevents them from knowing their own place in society—their class position, social status, natural abilities, intelligence, or even their conception of the good. This constraint ensures that principles are chosen impartially, without being tailored to advantage particular individuals or groups. The veil of ignorance is essential to this conception of fairness. By removing knowledge of contingent facts about oneself, it eliminates the possibility that principles will reflect bias toward particular social positions or natural endowments. Someone who might be wealthy cannot argue for principles that favor the wealthy, because they don't know whether they will be wealthy. This creates a remarkable symmetry among participants—since everyone lacks the same information, everyone is equally situated. The resulting principles reflect genuine impartiality rather than bargaining power or social advantage. The parties in the original position are conceived as rational and mutually disinterested, seeking to advance their own interests but lacking knowledge of what those specific interests are. This combination of rationality and ignorance leads them to focus on securing primary goods—rights, liberties, opportunities, income, wealth, and the social bases of self-respect—that would be valuable regardless of their particular life plan. They must consider principles from the perspective of someone who might occupy any position in society, including the least advantaged position. The original position is not presented as an actual historical event or even as something that could actually happen. Rather, it serves as a procedural device that helps us think clearly about justice by modeling our moral reasoning. When we want to determine whether a principle is just, we can ask whether it would be chosen in the original position. This provides a systematic way to check our intuitions about justice against a procedural standard of fairness, helping us move beyond personal biases and social conditioning. The constraints of the original position embody deeply held moral convictions about fairness. They reflect the idea that morally arbitrary factors—like being born into wealth or with natural talents—should not determine one's life prospects. By removing knowledge of these contingencies, the original position ensures that the principles chosen will not reward or punish people for circumstances beyond their control. This connects to the fundamental moral intuition that justice should be based on fairness rather than fortune. The original position transforms abstract questions about justice into a concrete problem of rational choice. Instead of asking directly what justice requires, we ask what principles would be chosen by rational individuals under conditions of fairness. This approach has profound implications for how we think about social institutions, economic distribution, and the moral foundations of a democratic society. It provides both a philosophical justification for principles of justice and a practical guide for evaluating existing arrangements.

Chapter 2: Two Principles of Justice

The two principles of justice that emerge from the original position form the core of justice as fairness. The first principle establishes that each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others. These basic liberties include political liberty, freedom of speech and assembly, liberty of conscience, freedom of personal property, and freedom from arbitrary arrest. The second principle addresses social and economic inequalities, stating that they are justified only if they benefit the least advantaged members of society (the difference principle) and are attached to positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. These principles are arranged in a specific order of priority, with the first principle taking absolute precedence over the second. This "lexical ordering" means that basic liberties cannot be sacrificed for greater economic advantages. Liberty can only be restricted for the sake of liberty itself. Similarly, within the second principle, fair equality of opportunity takes priority over the difference principle. This ordering reflects the conviction that certain rights and opportunities are so fundamental that they cannot be compromised even for significant economic benefits. The difference principle represents a particularly innovative aspect of the theory. Unlike strict egalitarianism, which would require equal shares for all, the difference principle permits inequalities that work to improve the position of those worst off. This principle can be understood as an agreement to regard the distribution of natural talents as a common asset and to share in the benefits of this distribution. It embodies a principle of reciprocity, where those who have been favored by nature may gain from their good fortune only on terms that improve the situation of those less fortunate. The principles apply primarily to the "basic structure" of society—the major political, economic, and social institutions that distribute fundamental rights and duties and determine the division of advantages from social cooperation. They are not meant to govern individual conduct directly but to establish the background conditions against which individual actions take place. This focus on institutional arrangements distinguishes justice as fairness from theories that emphasize individual virtue or particular outcomes. These principles stand in stark contrast to utilitarian approaches, which might sacrifice the fundamental interests of some individuals to maximize overall welfare. Instead, they express the idea that each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. This reflects the Kantian idea that individuals are to be treated as ends in themselves, not merely as means to the greater satisfaction of others. The principles thus establish a framework for social cooperation that respects the separate existence and equal moral worth of each person. The two principles would have far-reaching implications for actual societies. They would require robust protections for civil liberties, measures to ensure fair equality of opportunity through education and training, and economic arrangements that benefit the least advantaged. While they do not mandate a particular economic system, they would rule out both laissez-faire capitalism (which fails to secure fair value of political liberties and fair equality of opportunity) and command economies (which restrict basic liberties). The principles thus provide a standard for evaluating existing institutions and a guide for reform.

Chapter 3: Equal Liberty and Fair Opportunity

Equal liberty forms the cornerstone of justice as fairness, establishing that each person must have an equal right to the most extensive system of basic liberties compatible with a similar system for all. These basic liberties include political liberty (the right to vote and hold public office), freedom of speech and assembly, liberty of conscience and freedom of thought, freedom of the person, and the right to hold personal property. The priority of liberty means these rights cannot be sacrificed for economic advantages or greater social welfare—they can only be limited for the sake of liberty itself. The priority of liberty reflects a conception of persons as free and equal moral beings with fundamental interests that cannot be compromised. In the original position, rational individuals would not risk their basic freedoms for economic gains because these freedoms are essential to pursuing any conception of the good life. Liberty of conscience provides a compelling example—since parties don't know their religious or philosophical convictions, they would not gamble with their ability to practice their beliefs freely. They would reject arrangements where a dominant religion or ideology could suppress others. Fair equality of opportunity extends beyond formal legal equality to address the effects of social contingencies. It requires not merely that positions and offices be open to all in a legal sense, but that everyone with similar abilities and motivation should have similar prospects regardless of their social class of origin. This means that the education system should be designed to even out class barriers, not simply to reinforce existing advantages. Fair equality of opportunity acknowledges that natural talents and abilities are undeserved from a moral standpoint—they result from a natural lottery—and therefore the advantages that flow from them should be distributed fairly. The principle of participation applies these ideas to the political domain, establishing that all citizens should have an equal right to take part in the political process. This includes not only formal voting rights but the "fair value" of political liberties—ensuring that citizens of similar ability and motivation have roughly equal chances to influence political decisions regardless of their economic or social class. Without this fair value, political equality becomes merely formal, allowing those with greater resources to dominate the political process and undermine the equal worth of liberty. In practice, these principles would require robust constitutional protections for basic rights, campaign finance regulations to prevent wealth from determining political outcomes, and significant investments in education to counteract the effects of social class on opportunity. They would also support measures to prevent excessive concentrations of economic power that might threaten the fair value of political liberties. The goal is to create background institutions that naturally produce just outcomes rather than requiring constant intervention to correct injustices after they occur. Consider how these principles might apply to educational policy. A system that provides excellent education only to those who can afford private schools clearly violates fair equality of opportunity. But even public education systems that rely heavily on local funding often perpetuate inequality by providing better resources to wealthy communities. Justice as fairness would support reforms that ensure all children receive an education that develops their talents regardless of family background, not merely as a matter of welfare but as a requirement of justice. This illustrates how the principles provide practical guidance for evaluating and reforming social institutions.

Chapter 4: The Difference Principle and Economic Justice

The difference principle represents a distinctive approach to economic distribution that permits inequalities only when they benefit the least advantaged members of society. Unlike systems that distribute goods according to merit, moral desert, or utility maximization, this principle focuses on how social and economic arrangements affect those in the most vulnerable positions. It embodies the idea that the distribution of natural talents and abilities is morally arbitrary, and that the benefits flowing from these talents should be shared in ways that improve everyone's situation. The principle operates within a framework of background institutions that maintain fair equality of opportunity. This means that positions of advantage must be open not only formally but substantively to all citizens with the relevant talents and willingness to use them. The educational system, for instance, should be designed to improve the long-term expectations of the least favored, perhaps by devoting more resources to their education rather than seeking to maximize aggregate skill levels. To understand how the difference principle works in practice, imagine a society considering different economic policies. Policy A might produce slightly more total wealth than Policy B, but under A, the least advantaged group would be worse off than under B. The difference principle would reject Policy A in favor of B, even at some cost to overall economic efficiency. This reflects the view that gains for those already well-off cannot justify making the worst-off position even more disadvantaged. The difference principle connects to the idea of reciprocity in social cooperation. Those who have been favored by nature do not deserve their greater natural capacities, but neither do they deserve to be deprived of the benefits these capacities enable them to achieve. Instead, the difference principle suggests that the more fortunate are entitled to their natural advantages only on terms that work to the benefit of the less fortunate. A talented entrepreneur, for example, may become wealthy through developing innovative products, but the basic structure should be arranged so that this entrepreneurial activity also improves opportunities and conditions for those less advantaged. In real-world applications, the difference principle would support progressive taxation, robust public education, universal healthcare, and other policies that improve the position of the least advantaged. It would not, however, support complete equality of outcomes if some inequality is necessary to raise the absolute position of the worst-off group. For instance, allowing doctors to earn higher incomes might be justified if this incentive is necessary to ensure adequate healthcare for everyone, including the least advantaged. The difference principle thus offers a middle path between strict egalitarianism and unfettered markets. It acknowledges the productive role of incentives and rewards while insisting that the basic structure channel these productive forces toward the benefit of all, with special attention to those who might otherwise be left behind. This represents a conception of justice that treats society as a cooperative venture for mutual advantage rather than a competition where the winners deserve whatever they can acquire.

Chapter 5: Moral Psychology and the Sense of Justice

The theory of justice extends beyond institutional arrangements to explain how individuals develop a sense of justice that supports these institutions. This developmental account proceeds through three stages: the morality of authority, the morality of association, and the morality of principles. Each stage corresponds to different social contexts and involves distinct psychological processes that gradually build a person's capacity to understand and act from principles of justice. The morality of authority emerges in childhood as children learn to follow parental precepts. When parents love their children and manifestly express this love by caring for their good, children recognize this love and come to love their parents in return. This creates a willingness to follow parental rules, even when these rules constrain the child's immediate desires. The child's guilt feelings when disobeying these rules represent the beginning of moral development. Importantly, in a well-ordered society, parental authority is exercised in accordance with principles of justice, so the child's earliest moral learning aligns with these principles. As individuals mature, they enter the morality of association, where they learn the standards appropriate to various roles and associations—as students, teammates, friends, and eventually citizens. They develop the ability to take others' perspectives and understand cooperative arrangements. When others with evident intention fulfill their duties in these cooperative schemes, individuals develop feelings of friendship and trust toward them. This stage expands moral understanding beyond simple obedience to include appreciation for the mutual benefits of cooperation and the importance of fairness in social relationships. The final stage, the morality of principles, emerges as individuals come to understand and affirm the principles of justice themselves. Having experienced the benefits of just arrangements and developed attachments to others in a well-ordered society, they recognize how these principles secure their good and the good of those they care about. The sense of justice becomes a regulative desire to act from principles that would be chosen in an initial situation of equality. This represents the highest form of moral development, where individuals act justly not merely from attachment to particular persons or institutions, but from commitment to principles themselves. Consider how this developmental account might explain attitudes toward taxation in a just society. A child might initially follow tax laws simply because authority figures say it's required. Later, as a member of various associations, they might understand taxation as part of a cooperative scheme that benefits everyone. Finally, they might come to see taxation as an expression of principles of justice that they would themselves endorse from an impartial standpoint, recognizing that a fair system of taxation is necessary to support institutions that benefit all, especially the least advantaged. This account of moral psychology suggests that a well-ordered society regulated by principles of justice would tend to generate its own support over time. As people grow up under just institutions, they develop the moral sentiments necessary to maintain these institutions, creating a stability that utilitarian or intuitionist theories might lack. The sense of justice becomes not an external constraint but an expression of our nature as free and equal rational beings.

Chapter 6: Stability and the Good of Justice

A well-ordered society achieves stability when its members develop an effective sense of justice that leads them to act in accordance with just institutions even when doing so requires sacrifices of self-interest. This stability depends on the congruence between justice and goodness—citizens must see acting justly as part of their own good, not merely as an external constraint. The theory demonstrates this congruence by showing how justice connects to fundamental human values like autonomy, self-respect, and community. In a just society, individuals express their nature as free and equal moral beings by acting from principles they would acknowledge under conditions that best express this nature. Justice is not imposed from outside but represents what we would choose for ourselves when reasoning from an impartial standpoint. This connection between justice and autonomy means that when we act justly, we realize our nature as self-governing moral agents. Far from being a limitation on freedom, justice becomes an expression of our highest freedom—the capacity to act according to principles we would give to ourselves. Self-respect emerges as perhaps the most important primary good in the theory. A just society supports the self-respect of all citizens by publicly affirming their status as equal persons and by ensuring that the basic structure does not humiliate or degrade anyone. The difference principle, by arranging inequalities to benefit the least advantaged, expresses a commitment to reciprocity that allows everyone to maintain their sense of worth. By contrast, utilitarian arrangements might require some persons to accept lower prospects in life for the sake of others, undermining their self-respect and making the system less stable. The good of community also emerges from justice as fairness. While rejecting the idea of society as an organic whole with its own interests apart from its members, the theory describes a social union in which people enjoy the exercise of their realized abilities and recognize the activities of others as complementing their own. In such a community, individuals participate in the total sum of the realized natural assets of others. This shared final end gives rise to a sense of justice that affirms each person's good while creating a collective good that all can appreciate together. Consider how these features might work together in a concrete situation. When citizens must decide whether to comply with just tax laws, they recognize that these laws express principles they would themselves endorse from an impartial standpoint. Their compliance is not merely prudential but expresses their nature as moral persons. They see themselves as participating in a cooperative venture that benefits all, including the least advantaged. And their sense of worth as citizens does not depend on having more wealth than others, making it easier to accept the constraints of justice. The stability of a just society is further enhanced by its capacity to mitigate destructive psychological tendencies like envy. When basic institutions secure each person's equal status as a citizen and provide fair opportunities for all, the bases for excusable envy are reduced. People's sense of their own worth is not tied primarily to their relative economic position but to their status as equal citizens. This helps explain why the priority of liberty is so important—it establishes a public basis of self-respect that diminishes the significance of economic differences.

Summary

Justice as fairness represents a profound reconceptualization of how we should organize society, offering principles that free and equal persons would choose under fair conditions. By placing the inviolability of each person at the center of the theory, it articulates our deepest intuitions about justice while providing a systematic framework for addressing complex social questions. The two principles—equal basic liberties and the difference principle—together create a vision of society as a fair system of cooperation among citizens who respect one another as moral equals. The enduring significance of this theory lies in its integration of moral psychology with institutional design, showing how just institutions can be both rationally justified and psychologically sustainable. By demonstrating the congruence between justice and human good, it offers hope that a well-ordered society is not merely a philosopher's dream but a realistic possibility. The theory challenges us to see beyond narrow self-interest or simple utility maximization toward a conception of society where institutions express our nature as moral persons capable of a sense of justice. In doing so, it provides not just an abstract ideal but a practical guide for evaluating and reforming our social world.

About Author

Loading...

John Rawls

John Bordley Rawls was an American philosopher and a leading figure in moral and political philosophy. He held the James Bryant Conant University Professorship at Harvard. His magnum opus A Theory of Justice (1971) is now regarded as "one of the primary texts in political philosophy." His work in political philosophy, dubbed Rawlsianism, takes as its starting point the argument that "most reasonable principles of justice are those everyone would accept and agree to from a fair position." Rawls employs a number of thought experiments—including the famous veil of ignorance—to determine what constitutes a fair agreement in which "everyone is impartially situated as equals," in order to determine principles of social justice.Rawls received both the Schock Prize for Logic and Philosophy and the National Humanities Medal in 1999, the latter presented by President Bill Clinton, in recognition of how Rawls's thought "helped a whole generation of learned Americans revive their faith in democracy itself."

Read more