THEORY OF JUSTICE AFTER JOHN RAWLS

Subject Name: Political Science

Academic Year: 2024 Semester: 1st

Submitted by
Kunal Sobti, Nikesh Ojha, Kartik Tripathi, Krishna Bisht,
Kanishka Sharan, Triveni Kalhan

ROLL NUMBER = 33,35,30,32,31,58

INTRODUCTION
 Imagine you're playing a game with your friends, and you want to make sure
everyone has a fair chance to win. The theory of justice is like creating the rules
for that game so that everyone feels they have equal opportunities and nobody is
unfairly treated. Some other philosophies are:

1. Utilitarianism: Focus on the greatest happiness for the most people.

2. Libertarianism: Emphasis on individual freedom and property rights.
3. Communitarianism: Justice is shaped by the values and needs of
communities.
4. Feminist Theories: Ensuring justice includes all genders and addresses
inequalities.
By setting fair rules, the theory of justice aims to create a society where
everyone has equal opportunities and support

John Rawls' Theory of Justice: John Rawls, a famous philosopher, proposed a

way to think about fairness.

JOHN RAWLS THEORY OF JUSTICE

John Rawls was an American Philosopher; he gave the world his famous theory
of justice. His theory of justice describes society of free citizens holding equal
basic rights and cooperating within an equal economic system. He wrote a book
named as A Theory of Justice. A Theory of Justice asserted that a good society
is characterised by a number of virtues. Justice is the first virtue of a good
society. Here is objective of Theory of Justice by John Rawls:

OBJECTIVE:
In A Theory of Justice, Rawls argues for a principled arbitration of liberty and
equality. Principles of justice seek to guide the conduct of the parties. These
parties are recognized to face moderate scarcity, and they are neither naturally
unselfish nor purely selfish. People have goals they want to achieve, but they
 prefer to reach these goals by working together with others in a way that
everyone agrees is fair. So, they aim for mutual cooperation rather than pursuing
their goals alone or through conflict. Rawls offers a model of a fair choice
situation (the original position with its veil of ignorance) within which parties
would hypothetically choose mutually acceptable principles of justice. Under
this situation, Rawls believed individuals will be likely to support a decision
that would be fair and equal for all the members.

Veil Of Ignorance

Rawls describes this thinking as ‘Veil of Ignorance’. He argues that the only
way we can arrive at fair and just rule is if we imagine ourselves to be in a
situation in which we have to make decisions about how society should be
organised although we do not know about position, we would ourselves occupy
in that society. That is, we do not know what kind of family we would be born
in, whether we would be born into an 'upper caste’ or ‘lower’ caste family, rich
or poor household, privileged or disadvantaged. He expects that in such a
situation of complete ignorance about the possible status and position in society,
each person would decide in the way they generally do, that is, in terms of their
own interests. But since no one knows who he would be, and what is going to
benefit him, each will envisage and expect the future society from the point of
view of the worst-off. It will be clear to a person who can reason and think for
himself, that those who are born privileged will enjoy certain special
opportunities. But what if they have the misfortune of selected and born into the
disadvantaged section of society. Rawls also assumes that these hypothetical
people would be conservative risk takers and in a situation of uncertainty would
obviously opt for the least disadvantageous outcome in any choice presented to
them. Hence, they would choose those principles which would maximize the
position of the worst-off, assuming that when the veil is removed, they
themselves would turn out to be the worst-off.
Here the attempt will be to see whether if the resources like education, health,
shelter. Etc are available to all persons, if they are not part of upper-class
families.
 THE TWO PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE:

1. The Principle of Equal Liberty:

This principle states that everyone has an equal right to basic liberties,
such as freedom of speech, assembly, and conscience.
According to the rule of equal liberty, all the citizens of the society should
be given certain liberties that are necessary for human existence. These
liberties are so necessary that they cannot be taken away or infringed. For
example, these liberties include:
 Freedom of Speech
 Freedom of Liberty
 Freedom of Conscience
 Freedom of Equality
These liberties are necessary to secure the rule of law. Rawls doesn't
consider things like making business deals or owning factories as basic rights.
He thinks that focusing too much on economic progress can leave some people
behind.

2. The Principle of Difference and Fair Equality of

Opportunity:
Rawl’s second principle states that social and economic inequalities
need to be arranged properly so that they can:
 Benefit the needy and those who are least advantaged.
 Everyone should have an equal chance to access opportunities,
no matter where they stand in life.
There are two clauses of Rawl’s in second principle of justice.
 Clause {A} of Rawls’ second principle of justice is also known as
the difference principle. It tells us the following features:
Inequality is ok if it Helps the Worst Off: If there’s an unequal
distribution of wealth and income, it’s acceptable as long as the people
who are worst off are still better off than they would be under any other
system.
 Economic Disparity Exists but Should be Minimized: Rawls
acknowledges that some economic disparity is inevitable in any society,
but it should be reduced as much as possible to benefit everyone,
especially those with the least advantages.
Essentially, Rawls says it is fine to have some people richer than others, as long
as even the poorest are better off than they would be in any other setup and that
society works to minimize these inequalities.

Clause {B} of Rawls’ second principle of justice is also called the fair equality
of opportunity principle. Rawls believes that society should give everyone the
basic tools they need to compete fairly. This means everyone should have access
to things like education and healthcare so they can go after the jobs or positions
they want. Simply it means, everyone gets a fair shot at success.

JUSTICE SYSTEM

INTRODUCTION

The justice system is a very complex institution that was established to provide
social control, deterrence, and limitation of crime, as well as punishment for
offenders who violate the law. It basically links organizations, the rules
governing them, the processes involved, and principles meant to secure rights of
persons, provide order, and ensure fair treatment. The various systems, by
country, differ but most are comprised of three elements: law enforcement,
judiciary, and corrections. Let's disassemble the framework, the functions,
principles, and difficulties of the justice system.

TYPES OF JUSTICE
 Under justice, there are various categories embracing equitability in different
jurisdictions as follows:

Distributive Justice: That is about fair distribution of resources in society and

dealing with wealth, opportunities, and privileges. The question of this form of
justice is on how well to divide resources in order to make society balanced and
fair, usually arguing merits, needs, and equality.

Retributive Justice: The primary emphasis of retributive justice is to punish the

wrongdoing. Therefore, for criminal justice, retributive justice is one attempt at
"making" offenders "pay" in direct proportion to the harm they have caused.
Indeed, it has often been encapsulated in the maxim "an eye for an eye."

Procedural justice involves the concept of fairness related to the procedure

leading to the outcome. For instance, with legal matters, procedural justice
would seek the rule of laws, fair trials for the individual, and the application of
transparent processes.

Restorative Justice Restorative justice is a way of repairing harm instead of

punishment. This requires offenders to be accountable for their actions, thereby
making amends with victims and communities. The tide has seen increased
application in criminal justice to advance healing and reduce recidivism. Social
Justice Social justice is the basis of equality of opportunities and rights of its
members as they participate in society. This position focuses on demeaning and
eliminating systemic inequalities based on race, gender, and even economic
classes with a view to rectifying and preventing discrimination and prejudices.

THE THEORETICAL JUSTICE

FRAMMEWORK

Justice has perhaps been one of the most important and central topics in
philosophy, with thinkers such as Plato, Aristotle, Kant, and Rawls having put
forth influential theories regarding what justice might entail and how it should
be achieved.
 Plato: Plato in The Republic defined justice as being a harmonious relation
between parts of the soul and parts of the state. It is when each person serves his
role for the good of order and balance according to Plato.

Aristotle Aristotle distinguished between distributive justice (proportional

distribution of resources, in accordance with merit or need) and reificatory
justice (redress for injustice through the law). His idea calls for a principle of
equality towards equals and inequality towards unequal, based on what defines
them.

According to Kant, justice is grounded on general moral principles and the right
of individuals. Justice had to be impartial and fair since its basis was "done in
the respect of men's rights and dignity.". John Rawls: Rawls opened A Theory of
Justice with "justice as fairness." He would allege that if people were sitting in
an "original position" behind a "veil of ignorance," not knowing their own place
in that society, they would decide on its principles. The idea is supposed to
achieve fairness because it makes sure that the rules will not Favor certain
persons or groups.

JUSTICE IN LEGAL AND POLITICAL SYSTEMS

Justice is an important determiner of the law and political system. Legal justice
aims at ensuring laws that depict ethical and moral standards within society.
Political justice identifies fair governance and representation principles.

Legal Justice: Legal systems are founded on ideas of justice that protect citizens'
rights and allow due process and justice to the law. These are substantive justice
or fairness of the laws and procedure themselves and procedural justice or
fairness in legal procedures. Political Justice Political justice in democracies
establishes systems wherein each has a decentralised voice in the governance
system. It introduces principles like freedom of speech, a right to vote, equality
in front of the law, and addressing issues of inequalities in power and wealth
representation.
 PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE

Justice often acts on very few large principles, for example:

Fairness: This is a feature of justice, wherein all things should be done without
discrimination and prejudice. Equity is expected to provide equal opportunities
and access for them.

Equality: Equality seeks equal treatment of persons, both in the exercise of their
rights and protections before the law. However, often there is a difference of
opinion on whether justice means literal equality-treating equals equally-or
equity-an understanding and consideration of individual differences in need of
support. It is morally correct, going by the moral culture and what society
deems "proper." It encompasses respectability of a human being, his freedom
and self-convenience to make decisions irrespective of his conditions.

Accountability: A part of justice is holding people and institutions accountable

for their actions. Wrongful acts are corrected either through punitive,
compensatory, or corrective measures to regain equilibrium.

CHALLENGE AND DEBATES AROUND

JUSTICE

It is very much complex and there have been many debates regarding how it
might be better interpreted and applied.

This is also reflected through moral, cultural, and religious beliefs in which
viewpoints concerning justice are set and varied based on interpretations. Cases
vary between societal orientation toward retributive justice or more towards
rehabilitation or restorative justice.
 Balancing individual and collective rights: Justice often seeks that fight to be
fair between the rights of one versus the good of all. As demonstrated above,
public safety measures such as surveillance technically infringe on the right to
privacy. One of the characteristics of system-based inequalities in terms of
wealth, race, and gender is to undermine justice in many societies. Always,
social justice activists are extolling changes to regulate such inequalities in
order to have fair opportunities and access to all.

CONCLUSION

Justice is a many-sided concept which includes factors like fairness, equality,

and moral integrity. Maintaining social harmony and protecting the rights of
others is highly important for building trust in society. Though perfect justice is
beyond human achievement because of the complexity that defines a society,
justice is nevertheless a guiding ideal for law, politics, and moral philosophy to
strive for in action. Justice remains the idea that challenges the societies to
continually question the values, challenge inequality, and formulate fairer
institutions that can grow to achieve a world where all human beings can be
treated with respect, dignity, and fairness.

Theory of Justice of John Rawls - A Critical Analysis

INTRODUCTION

John Rawls' theory of justice, articulated in A Theory of Justice (1971), has been
both influential and controversial in the field of political philosophy. His
concept of "justice as fairness" proposes a framework for evaluating social
justice that emphasizes equality and the protection of individual rights. Below is
a critical analysis of Rawls' theory, highlighting its strengths, weaknesses, and
the implications it has for contemporary society
 A CRITICAL ANALYSIS

Strengths of Rawls' Theory

1. Emphasis on Fairness
Rawls' approach prioritizes fairness in the distribution of resources and
opportunities. By introducing the veil of ignorance and the original position,
he ensures that principles of justice are chosen without bias, promoting a system
that is equitable for all individuals regardless of their social status or personal
circumstances.

2. Principles of Justice
Rawls articulates two key principles:
 Equal Liberty Principle: Every individual should have equal rights to
basic liberties.
 Difference Principle: Inequalities are permissible only if they benefit the
least advantaged members of society
. This principle acknowledges the reality of economic disparities while ensuring
that they serve a greater good.

Moral Objectivity

Rawls' use of the veil of ignorance promotes moral objectivity in decision-

making. By requiring individuals to make choices without knowledge of their
personal circumstances, Rawls ensures that the principles chosen are fair and
impartial, minimizing biases related to social status, wealth, or personal
attributes. This approach helps establish a foundation for justice that is
universally applicable, fostering a sense of shared moral responsibility among
citizens

. Compatibility with Democratic Values

Rawls' principles align closely with democratic ideals by emphasizing equal
rights and opportunities for all individuals. His framework encourages active
participation in governance and public discourse, as it is built on the premise
that all members of society should have a voice in determining the principles
that govern them. This democratic compatibility enhances the legitimacy of his
theory in contemporary political contexts

WEAKNESS

. Permissibility of Inequality
Critics argue that Rawls' acceptance of inequalities, even if they benefit the least
advantaged, can undermine true equality and justice Some philosophers
contend that any form of inequality is inherently unjust, regardless of its
intended benefit This criticism raises concerns about whether his framework can
effectively address systemic injustices.

. Practical Application
The theoretical constructs of the original position and veil of ignorance may be
challenging to implement in real-world scenarios. Critics question whether
individuals can genuinely detach from their identities and social contexts to
make impartial decisions about justice This raises doubts about the feasibility of
achieving a well-ordered society as envisioned by Rawls.

Overemphasis on Distributive Justice

Rawls' focus on distributive justice may overlook other important dimensions of
justice, such as retributive or restorative justice. Critics argue that a
comprehensive theory of justice should encompass various aspects beyond mere
distribution, including how individuals are treated within societal institutions.

Different critiques of Scholars on Rawls' Theory

1. Amartya Sen

Sen critiques Rawls for focusing primarily on the distribution of primary

goods without considering individuals' actual capabilities to utilize those goods
effectively. He argues that justice should not only address the allocation of
resources but also ensure that individuals have the capacity to convert those
resources into valuable outcomes in their lives. In his work Inequality
Reexamined, Sen emphasizes the importance of considering personal
circumstances and social contexts that affect people's abilities to achieve their
goals, thus advocating for a broader understanding of justice that includes
capabilities and functionings rather than mere resource distribution

2. G.A. Cohen

Cohen challenges Rawls' acceptance of inequalities under the difference

principle, arguing that it undermines true egalitarianism. In his works, such
as If You're An Egalitarian, How Come You're So Rich?, Cohen contends that
allowing inequalities can perpetuate social injustices and fail to address the
moral implications of wealth disparities. He advocates for a more stringent
interpretation of equality that does not permit any inequality unless it is justified
by a compelling reason related to fairness and justice

3. Norman Daniels
Daniels extends Rawls’ framework by arguing for the inclusion of health care as
a primary good within the theory of justice. He posits that access to health care
is essential for individuals to pursue their life plans effectively and should be
guaranteed within a just society. His work emphasizes the need for health equity
and suggests that a Rawlsian approach should explicitly address health care
rights to ensure fairness in opportunities for all individuals

4. Michael Sandel
Sandel critiques Rawls' reliance on the veil of ignorance as a method for
determining principles of justice, arguing that it abstracts individuals from their
identities and moral commitments. In his book Justice: What's the Right Thing
to Do?, Sandel emphasizes the importance of community values and shared
beliefs in shaping notions of justice, suggesting that moral reasoning cannot be
divorced from personal identity and societal context. He advocates for a more
communitarian approach that recognizes the role of cultural and social factors in
discussions about justice

5. Robert Nozick
Nozick presents a libertarian critique of Rawls in his book Anarchy, State, and
Utopia. He argues against Rawls' difference principle by asserting that
redistributive policies violate individual rights to property and self-ownership.
Nozick defends a minimal state that protects individual freedoms without
interfering in voluntary exchanges, positing that any redistribution is inherently
unjust unless it arises from voluntary transactions or just acquisitions.

Implications for Contemporary Society

Rawls' theory has significant implications for modern debates on social justice,
particularly in discussions surrounding welfare policies and economic reforms.
His principles encourage policymakers to consider the impact of legislation on
the least advantaged, advocating for structures that promote equality of
opportunity and safeguard basic liberties. Moreover, Rawls’ framework serves
as a valuable tool for evaluating social policies through an impartial lens,
fostering discussions about fairness in resource allocation and institutional
practices
. His ideas continue to resonate in contemporary discourse on justice,
influencing movements aimed at reducing inequality and enhancing social
welfare

Conclusion

In conclusion, John Rawls' theory of justice has profoundly influenced

contemporary political philosophy and discussions surrounding social justice.
His concept of "justice as fairness" provides a compelling framework for
understanding the principles that should govern a just society, emphasizing
fairness, equal liberties, and the moral imperative to benefit the least
advantaged.

However, Rawls' theory is not without its critiques. Scholars such as Amartya
Sen, G.A. Cohen, and Michael Sandel have raised important questions about the
adequacy of Rawls' focus on primary goods, the permissibility of inequalities,
and the role of identity in moral reasoning. These critiques highlight the need
for a more nuanced understanding of justice that considers capabilities,
community values, and gender dynamics.

Literature review

John Rawls' A Theory of Justice, published in 1971, is a foundational text in

political philosophy that proposes a framework for understanding justice
through the lens of fairness. Rawls critiques utilitarianism and develops a theory
that emphasizes individual rights and the equitable distribution of resources.
Central Concepts Justice as Fairness
Rawls introduces the concept of Justice as Fairness, which is built on two key
principles derived from a hypothetical social contract. This contract is
formulated in the original position, where individuals choose principles of
justice without knowledge of their personal circumstances, thus ensuring
impartiality—a condition known as the veil of ignorance.
 Two Principles of Justice
Rawls delineates two principles that would be agreed upon in the original
position:
1. Equal Liberty Principle: Each person is entitled to the most extensive set of
liberties compatible with similar liberties for others. This principle prioritizes
fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and assembly.
2. Difference Principle: Social and economic inequalities are permissible only
if they benefit the least advantaged members of society. This principle
emphasizes that any inequalities must improve the situation of those who are
worst off compared to a scenario of strict equality.

Lexical Ordering
Rawls argues that these principles should be lexically ordered, meaning that the
first principle (equal liberties) takes precedence over the second (inequalities).
Within the second principle, fair equality of opportunity is prioritized over the
difference principle, ensuring that everyone has a fair chance to succeed
regardless of their background.

Key Arguments

a. Moral Arbitrary Factors

Rawls contends that factors such as family background and innate talents should
not determine one's life opportunities. He argues for a societal structure that
mitigates these arbitrary influences, promoting fairness and equality.

b. Fair Equality of Opportunity

This aspect ensures that individuals with similar abilities and efforts have
comparable life chances, regardless of their social or economic starting points.
It seeks to create a level playing field where everyone can compete fairly.
 c. Implications for Society
Rawls critiques existing social structures for failing to meet his standards of
justice, advocating for policies aimed at enhancing the welfare of the least
advantaged. These policies might include equitable access to education,
healthcare, and economic opportunities.

Conclusion
In summary, John Rawls' A Theory of Justice offers a compelling vision of a
just society rooted in fairness and equality. His principles challenge traditional
views by emphasizing individual rights while allowing for inequalities only
when they serve to uplift the least advantaged. This framework has significantly
influenced contemporary political philosophy and discussions surrounding
social justice, making it a pivotal work in understanding modern ethical and
political thought.

1 Literature Review on Thomas Nagel's "Rawls and Liberalism”

Conclusion

Thomas Nagel's analysis of John Rawls's contributions to liberalism offers

valuable insights into the complexities of justice, ethics, and political
philosophy. By emphasizing the interconnectedness of ethical reasoning and
political structures, Nagel highlights the relevance of Rawlsian principles in
addressing contemporary issues within pluralistic societies. His critique of
utilitarianism, support
for justice as fairness, and exploration of overlapping consensus underscore the
enduring impact of Rawls's thought on modern liberal discourse. Through this
lens, Nagel contributes significantly to ongoing discussions about how best to
reconcile individual rights with collective responsibilities in pursuit of a just
society.
 2 Literature Review on T.M. Scanlon's "Rawls
on Justification”.

Conclusion

T.M. Scanlon's analysis of John Rawls's theories on justification provides

valuable insights into the complexities of moral reasoning within political
philosophy. By examining the interplay between reflective equilibrium, the
original position, and public reason, Scanlon elucidates how Rawls's framework
offers a compelling vision for understanding justice in a pluralistic society. His
critique highlights both the strengths and challenges inherent in Rawlsian
liberalism, emphasizing its enduring significance in contemporary debates about
social justice and ethical governance. Through this lens, Scanlon contributes
significantly to our understanding of how philosophical frameworks can inform
practical approaches to achieving justice in modern democracies.

3 LiteratureReview on Amy Gutmann's "Rawls on the

Relationship between Liberalism and Democracy”

Conclusion

Amy Gutmann's exploration of the relationship between liberalism and

democracy in Rawls's work provides critical insights into contemporary
political philosophy. By interrogating the democratic implications of Rawlsian
liberalism, she highlights both its strengths and limitations in addressing the
complexities of modern democracies. Her analysis underscores the importance
of public reason and civic engagement in fostering a vibrant democratic society
while recognizing the challenges posed by pluralism. Ultimately, Gutmann’s
work contributes significantly to our understanding of how liberal principles can
coexist with democratic ideals in pursuit of justice and equality within diverse
communities.
 4 Literature Review on Norman Daniels' "Democratic
Equality: Rawls’s Complex Egalitarianism"

Conclusion

Norman Daniels' exploration of John Rawls's concept of democratic equality

provides valuable insights into the complexities and implications of Rawlsian
egalitarianism. By articulating how Rawls’s principles interact and support one
another, Daniels underscores the relevance of democratic equality in
contemporary discussions about justice and social policy. His critique of
alternative egalitarian theories further enriches our understanding of how
Rawls's framework can address systemic inequalities while promoting
individual freedoms within a democratic society. Ultimately, Daniels’ work
contributes significantly to ongoing debates about how best to achieve justice in
diverse communities, reinforcing the importance of integrating moral
considerations into political philosophy.

5 Literature Review on Onora O’Neill’s "Constructivism

in Rawls and Kant"

Conclusion

Onora O’Neill's exploration of constructivism in relation to Rawls and Kant

offers significant insights into contemporary moral and political philosophy. By
articulating how Rawls adapts Kantian principles to address modern ethical
challenges, O'Neill underscores the relevance of constructivist approaches in
fostering democratic deliberation and resolving moral disputes. Her critique
highlights both the potential and limitations of constructivism, encouraging
ongoing dialogue about the role of reason in ethical discourse. Ultimately,
O'Neill's work contributes meaningfully to our understanding of how
philosophical frameworks can inform practical approaches to justice and
morality in diverse societies.
6 Review on Stephen Mulhall and Adam Swift's "Rawls
and Communitarianism"

Conclusion

Stephen Mulhall and Adam Swift's examination of John Rawls’s relationship

with communitarianism provides critical insights into contemporary debates
about justice, community, and individual rights. By addressing common
critiques while defending the compatibility of Rawlsian principles with
communal values, they contribute to a more nuanced understanding of political
philosophy. Their work encourages ongoing dialogue about how best to
integrate individual rights with collective responsibilities in pursuit of a just
society. Ultimately, Mulhall and Swift's analysis reinforces the relevance of
Rawlsian thought in addressing complex social realities while recognizing the
vital role that communities play in shaping moral frameworks 7 Review on

Martha C. Nussbaum's "Rawls and Feminism"

Conclusion

Martha C. Nussbaum's examination of John Rawls's theories through a feminist

lens provides critical insights into the limitations and potential adaptations of
Rawlsian liberalism in addressing gender inequality. By emphasizing the
importance of capabilities over mere formal rights or resources, Nussbaum
offers a robust alternative framework that seeks to ensure substantive equality
for women. Her critique not only enriches feminist discourse but also
encourages ongoing dialogue about how philosophical frameworks can be
adapted to better serve marginalized groups within society. Ultimately,
Nussbaum’s work underscores the need for a comprehensive understanding of
justice that encompasses both individual rights and social conditions essential
for human flourishing.
8 Literature Review on J.E.J. Altham's "Rawls's
Difference Principle"

Conclusion

J.E.J. Altham’s exploration of Rawls’s Difference Principle offers valuable

insights into its theoretical foundations and practical implications for
distributive justice. By articulating how this principle functions within Rawls’s
broader framework of justice as fairness, Altham highlights its relevance in
addressing contemporary social inequalities. His analysis encourages ongoing
dialogue about how philosophical principles can inform policies aimed at
creating a more just society. Ultimately, Altham’s work reinforces the
significance of Rawlsian thought in contemporary discussions about justice,
equality, and social cooperation.

9 Literature Review on Leonard Choptiany's "A Critique

of John Rawls's
Principles of Justice"

Conclusion

Leonard Choptiany's critique of John Rawls's principles of justice provides

essential insights into the limitations and challenges inherent in Rawlsian
liberalism. By highlighting ambiguities in the Difference Principle and
emphasizing the importance of social cooperation and community dynamics,
Choptiany enriches ongoing discussions about justice and equality in political
philosophy. His work encourages a more integrated approach to understanding
justice that incorporates diverse perspectives while remaining committed to
foundational liberal principles. Ultimately, Choptiany’s critique serves as a
valuable contribution to contemporary debates surrounding justice, fairness, and
social responsibility within democratic societies
10 Literature Review on Thomas Pogge's "Rawls and
Global Justice"

Conclusion

Thomas Pogge's exploration of John Rawls's principles in the context of global

justice provides critical insights into contemporary debates about inequality and
moral responsibility. By advocating for the application of Rawlsian concepts
such as the Difference Principle and collective responsibility at an international
level, Pogge enriches discussions about how justice can be realized globally.
His emphasis on reforming unjust institutions and prioritizing human rights
underscores the need for a comprehensive approach to addressing systemic
inequalities that affect millions worldwide. Ultimately, Pogge’s work serves as a
vital contribution to understanding how philosophical frameworks can inform
practical efforts toward achieving global justice.

Bibliography

 https://www.jstor.org/stable/40231607?read-
now=1&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
 https://www.jstor.org/stable/2380099?read-now=1&seq=1

 https://www.jstor.org/stable/40231607?read-
now=1&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents’

 https://books.google.co.in/books/about/
The_Cambridge_Companion_to_Rawls.html?
id=ipMVcT5R2zwC