3051 International Journal of Law Management & Humanities [Vol.

7 Iss 2; 3051]

John Rawls Theory of Justice

INSHA AFREEN1

ABSTRACT
This project work deals with Rawls’ Theory of Justice which he proposed in his famous book
“A Theory of Justice”. Justice is an abstract concept which is subjective in nature. It can
be defined differently by different people, what is just for one may not just for other.
Generally, justice is to treat equals equally and unequals differently. Different philosophers
and jurists have tried to define the term in their own ways. For Aristotle justice is based on
equality, proportionality and maintenance of equilibrium in society. Other jurists also gave
the theories of justice, one such was John Rawls who gave the theory of justice in his famous
book, “A Theory of Justice”.
Rawls theory of justice is based on ‘equality’ and ‘difference’ principles. His theory is
related to the distribution of benefits and burdens among individuals. Rawls theory of justice
could be seen as an alternative to the utilitarian principle of justice.

I. INTRODUCTION
This project work deals with Rawls’ Theory of Justice which he proposed in his famous book
“A Theory of Justice”. Justice is an abstract concept which is subjective in nature. It can be
defined differently by different people, what is just for one may not be just for other. Generally,
justice is to treat equals equally and unequal’s differently.

Different philosophers and jurists have tried to define the term in their own ways. For Aristotle
justice is based on equality, proportionality and maintenance of equilibrium in society. Other
jurists also gave the theories of justice, one such was John Rawls who gave the theory of justice
in his famous book, “A Theory of Justice”.

Rawls theory of justice is based on ‘equality’ and ‘difference’ principles. His theory is related
to the distribution of benefits and burdens among individuals. Rawls theory of justice could be
seen as an alternative to the utilitarian principle of justice2.

1
Author is a student at Aligarh Muslim University, India.
2
Upadhyay, A. K. “RAWLSIAN CONCEPT OF TWO PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE.” The Indian Journal of
Political Science, vol. 54, no. ¾, 1993, pp. 388–97. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41855666. Accessed 9
Dec. 2022.

© 2024. International Journal of Law Management & Humanities [ISSN 2581-5369]

 3052 International Journal of Law Management & Humanities [Vol. 7 Iss 2; 3051]

II. JOHN RAWLS

In 20th century Rawls emerged as an eminent American political and ethical philosopher in
liberal tradition. Rawls was involved in abstract thinking and writing therefore, he came up with
a new concept of justice. He gave principles for a just society. Rawls was awarded the Schock
Prize for Logic and Philosophy and the National Humanities Medal in 1999[2]3. He was
influenced by the ideas of Kant and Aristotle.

He wrote many books such as “A Theory of Justice”, “Political Liberalism”, “The Law of
Peoples”, “Justice as Fairness: A Restatement”. His most notable work is “A Theory of Justice”
which was published in 1971. His theory emerged as an alternative to utilitarianism. It describes
major challenges and problems of distributive justice.

John Rawls' Theory of Justice

John Rawls gave the idea of justice as fairness in his book ‘A Theory of Justice’. He thinks that
justice cannot be secured through utilitarianism in which the greatest happiness of the greatest
number of people is achieved by ignoring the interests and rights of minority. Rawls wanted to
protect the rights of the minority also, hence, he proposed his theory so that maximum benefit
can be given to less advantaged members of the society. Thus, the theory of justice, as believed
by Rawls, helps in functioning of just society in which people should be treated with fairness
and are provided equal basic rights and opportunities. That is why Rawls opposed the utilitarian
arguments and wanted to establish an unbiased theme of social justice based on social contract.

Rawls states that, “His aim was to present a conception of justice which generalizes and carries
to a higher level of abstraction the familiar theory of social contract as found, say, in Locke,
Rousseau and Kant 4.” Thus, he based his theory on the concept of "Social contract". Rawls
theory of Justice is highly influenced by Immanuel Kant's social contract theory. Social
contract is the hypothetical agreement between government and people in the state of nature.
Kant explained his contract as one in which the contract is agreed and accepted by the people
unanimously and not by specific group. Rawls adopted the modified version of social contract
theory “He didn’t take us back to the state of nature, but to an even more primordial (fictitious)
state in which we are ignorant about ourselves 5.” He calls this state as original position where
people do not know the position which they are going to occupy and whether they will end up
at the top or the bottom of the social hierarchy. Thus, from behind this veil of ignorance people

3
https://blog.ipleaders.in/john-rawls-theory-of-justice/. Accessed on 9 Dec. 2022.
4
Suri Ratnapala, Jurisprudence 482 (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2nd edn., 2013)
5
Id. 483

© 2024. International Journal of Law Management & Humanities [ISSN 2581-5369]

 3053 International Journal of Law Management & Humanities [Vol. 7 Iss 2; 3051]

will choose the following principles of justice 6:

First Principle: Each person is to have equal right to the most extensive scheme of basic liberties
compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others.

Second Principle: Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both

a) reasonably expected to be everyone’s advantage, and

b) attached to positions and offices open to all.

These principles of Justice arise out of certain circumstances. These circumstances of Justice
are the conditions that make human cooperation both necessary and possible. Rawls says if
there is a condition of ‘moderate scarcity’ then there will be dispute among people having
conflicting claims and then they will formulate principles of Justice by cooperating their
interest. He says that cooperation is not necessary when the resources are in abundance. On the
other hand, cooperation is not possible when there is scarcity of resources.

The concept of social justice emerges is the core idea of Rawls’ theory of justice. The basic
institution of society, according to Rawls be so constructed as to ensure equal distribution of
social primary goods to all the members of society in just and fair manner. “Rawls therefore
argues that rational thinking, not morality, could lead us to be fair and judge impartially
regarding how to distribute the benefits and burdens of a society.” 7

III. WELL-ORDERED SOCIETY

In his theory of justice, John Rawls has attempted to find a way to create a well-ordered society.
John Rawls presents a hypothetical contract wherein decision-makers come together to lay
down principles of justice for the functioning of a well-ordered society. These principles of
justice are fair and they are created in such a manner that they can be proved beneficial even
for the least advantaged section of a society. The formulation of principles of justice in the
hypothetical situation is done under the following conditions:

(A) Circumstances of Justice

According to Rawls, “circumstances of justice are normal conditions under which human
cooperation is both possible and necessary.”8 To formulate the principles of Justice and
ultimately establish a just society, it is necessary that there exist circumstances of justice.

6
John Rawls, A Theory of Justice 53(Belknap Press of Harvard University Press Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2nd
edn., 1999)
7
https://www.acubeias.com/article/john-rawls-theory-of-justice
8
John Rawls, A Theory of Justice 109(Belknap Press of Harvard University Press Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2nd
edn., 1999)

© 2024. International Journal of Law Management & Humanities [ISSN 2581-5369]

3054 International Journal of Law Management & Humanities [Vol. 7 Iss 2; 3051]

Human cooperation is a necessary element for a well-ordered society. John Rawls mentions
two kinds of circumstances to give rise to justice in a society. These are ‘objective
circumstances’ and ‘subjective circumstances.

Objective circumstances are concerned with natural state of society. Under objective
circumstances human cooperation is both possible and necessary. People live together in a
definite territory. They are of similar strength, intelligence and capacity therefore no one can
dominate the rest. Thus, in this condition mutual cooperation is possible. It is also an important
condition for objective circumstance of justice that there is a moderate scarcity of resources in
a society. Rawls says that Justice can only be achieved when “natural and other resources are
not so abundant that schemes of cooperation become superfluous, nor are conditions so harsh
that fruitful venture must inevitably breakdown.”9 When resources are in abundance that
anyone can use it freely and without depending on others, cooperation in the society will
become unnecessary. On the other hand, when the resources are too scarce to fulfil one’s need,
cooperation will become impossible. Thus, for objective circumstances moderately scarce
resources should be available so that the cooperation can be rendered feasible.

The other type of circumstance is subjective circumstance. Subjective circumstances are related
to cooperation among individuals in a society. When people in a society have similar or
complementary interests and needs but there ends and purposes are different, there arises
conflicts on the distribution of natural and social resources available. In this case mutually
advantageous cooperation among them is possible through principles of justice.

Thus, in brief we can say that the circumstances of justice are the conditions which leads to the
formation of principles of justice. When people propose conflicting claims to the resources
under the condition of moderate scarcity, the circumstances of justice arise. They put forward
these claims to satisfy their own interests so the conflicts arise which need to be resolved to by
those principles of justice.

Rawls tries to describe this by saying, “unless these circumstances existed there would be no
occasion for the virtue of justice, just as in the absence of threats of injury to life and limb there
would no occasion for physical courage” 10

(B) Original Position

Original position as discussed by John Rawls in his book ‘A Theory of Justice’, is the
imagination of a hypothetical scenario in which one do not know the position which he or she

9
Id. 110
10
Ibid. 110

© 2024. International Journal of Law Management & Humanities [ISSN 2581-5369]

3055 International Journal of Law Management & Humanities [Vol. 7 Iss 2; 3051]

is going to occupy. It means a group of people being ignorant of their social, economic, physical
or mental factors comes together to make laws for themselves. They did not know what position
they occupy like rich, poor, privileged or disadvantaged. This imaginary position which
individuals build their mind from their own point of view i.e. being impartial in making
decisions is called an original position by John Rawls. 11 Many political philosophers such as
Thomas Hobbes, Jean Jacques, Rousseau and John Locke who proposed social contract theory,
used the term ‘state of nature’ which plays same role as the term ‘original position’ in Rawls
theory of justice. Rawls developed the original position to create a reflection of the principles
of justice that would exist in the society, based on free and fair interaction between the
population. 12

Original position includes rights, liberties, opportunities and income etc. Formulation of rules
by being there in original position can be understood through an example i.e. the concept of
‘you cut, I choose’ when deciding how to share a cake (not knowing which piece you get
ensures a fair split). Here each person would negotiate in their own best interests. Each person
negotiates behind a veil of ignorance.

(C) Veil of Ignorance

Veil of ignorance is very important to formulate principles of justice in the original position. It
is necessary to make a just society. In the veil of ignorance, the parties are supposed to evaluate
principles solely on the general consideration without knowing various options that can affect
their own case. Behind the veil of ignorance one doesn’t know his class, position or social
status. He is also oblivious of his fortune in the distribution of natural assets. The people making
rules are also unaware of the nature of society they live in i.e.. they do not know the economic
and political conditions and the level of civilization. By ignoring these facts, partiality can be
avoided. For example if I were supposed to formulate rules for society, being a female, I would
try that they are made in favour of females. But if I am ignorant of this fact I would not be
tempted to do so.

Rawls says that the conditions of veil of ignorance may be protested to be irrational. Some may
object that the principles of justice must be made with the help of all the existing information.
Rawls tries to explain how this would not be helpful to create a just society and how veil of
ignorance would rather be favourable. Behind the veil of ignorance parties do not know the
differences among them, everyone is equally rational thus they are convinced by a just

11
https://blog.ipleaders.in/john-rawls-theory-of-justice/ . Accessed on 9 Dec. 2022.
12
https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/esg/a-theory-of-justice/. Accessed on 9 Dec. 2022.

© 2024. International Journal of Law Management & Humanities [ISSN 2581-5369]

 3056 International Journal of Law Management & Humanities [Vol. 7 Iss 2; 3051]

argument. No one has the basis for bargaining at a particular point. No one knows his position
in society so they will make principles that are fair and just for even the worst-off off section
of society. “Therefore we can view the agreement in the original position from the stand point
of one person selected at random.” 13
The restriction on getting particular information in the
original position is of primary importance and it would result in a unanimous choice of a
particular conception of justice.

(D) Maximin Principle 14

Rawls states that if people are subjected to formulate the principles of justice from behind the
veil of ignorance they will not do this on the basis of utilitarianism which talks about the
greatest happiness to the greatest number of people. The reason for this is that behind the veil
of ignorance people are unaware of their position in the society so they would try to make rules
by placing themselves in the worst-off position. Thus, rules are formed under uncertainty. This
uncertainty will guide them to rationally make rules by choosing the best out of worst options
possible so that it can protect the interests of those who are at worst off situation. This principle
is known as ‘maximin’ principle because it attempts to maximize the well-being of those at the
minimum level of society.

IV. TWO PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE

John Rawls has combined the principles of ‘equality' and ‘difference’ in his theory to serve as
the basis in distribution of benefits and burdens among the individuals of a society, which can
arise out of their mutual cooperation. In reality the basic objective of the Rawls theory is to
provide the concept of justice which would serve to be an alternative to the utilitarian principles
of justice.

According to Rawls the ‘two principles of justice' would be formulated in the original position.
This formulation is done from behind the veil of ignorance among various alternatives present.
The two principles of justice given by Rawls are as follows:

First Principle: Each person is to have equal right to the most extensive scheme of basic
liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others.

Second Principle: Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both

a) reasonably expected to be everyone’s advantage, and

13
John Rawls, A Theory of Justice 120(Belknap Press of Harvard University Press Cambridge, Massachusetts,
2nd edn., 1999)
14
https://www.britannica.com/topic/ethics-philosophy/Objections-to-consequentialism#ref885855. Accessed on 9
Dec. 2022.

© 2024. International Journal of Law Management & Humanities [ISSN 2581-5369]

 3057 International Journal of Law Management & Humanities [Vol. 7 Iss 2; 3051]

b) attached to positions and offices open to all.

These two principles are applied to the social system to assign certain basic rights and duties to
people and regulate the distribution of social and economic advantages.

The first principal deals with basic liberties which would be available to each person equally.
This principle is called Liberty Principle. Rawls mentions certain liberties like political liberty
which includes right to vote, to hold public office and freedom of speech and assembly; liberty
of conscience and freedom of thought; freedom of the person from psychological oppression
and physical assault and dismemberment; the right to hold personal property and freedom from
arrest and seizure. 15

The second principle is related to social and economic inequalities prevailing in a society. The
first of the two principles is called difference principle. It says that the existing inequalities in
the distribution of wealth is acceptable only if it benefits the least well-off section of society.
The other principle is called Equal Opportunity principle which says that position of authority
and responsibility must be accessible to all. Thus, it can be understood as, when equal
opportunity is provided to everyone and after that if there are social and economic inequalities,
it must be to everyone’s advantage.

Rawls states that these principles should be applied based on priority. He used the term lexical
order to arrange these principles. Rawls gives priority to the protection of basic rights.
According to him the protection of basic liberties cannot be compromised for greater social and
economic advantages. These liberties can only be limited when they clash with other basic
liberties. Thus, these liberties are not absolute in nature. For example, the right to own private
property or freedom of contract can be compromised because they are not basic. After basic
liberty Rawls places equality of opportunity. He places difference principle last in the order.

V. SIGNIFICANCE OF RAWLS' THEORY OF JUSTICE

The significance of Rawls' theory of justice includes:

I) Rawls theory of justice deals with not only the rights of majority in a society but also that of
minority. He says that the principles of justice should be formulated in such a manner that it
proves beneficial for even the worst-off sections of society.

II) Rawls gives greatest importance to basic liberties. He places basic right on the top in lexical
order and says that it cannot be compromised for greater advantage of society.

15
John Rawls, A Theory of Justice 53(Belknap Press of Harvard University Press Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2nd
edn., 1999)

© 2024. International Journal of Law Management & Humanities [ISSN 2581-5369]

 3058 International Journal of Law Management & Humanities [Vol. 7 Iss 2; 3051]

III) Other significance of his theory is that he wants to establish a just and morally acceptable
society where natural resources are distributed in just fair manner.

IV) He emphasizes that principles of justice are created with impartiality from behind the veil
of ignorance. In this case rules are formed in an uncertain condition and thus rational rules are
created without any biasness.

V) Rawls states that offices and positions should be open to all i.e. everyone should be given
equal opportunity to access those position. So, this theory is very important as far as equality of
opportunity is concerned. Rawls favors positive discrimination in providing equality of
opportunity.

VI) His theory is also important for social welfare functions. Difference principle given by
Rawls talks about maximizing the welfare of the Worst- off individuals.

VI. CRITICISM OF RAWLS' THEORY OF JUSTICE

(A) Conservative and Free Market Critique

The most controversial part of Rawls' theory of justice focuses on his ‘difference principle’,
16
which mentions that the greatest benefit should go to the least advantaged. The difference
principle is not sufficient, since it gives no provision for the size of inequality that is allowed in
comparison with the advantages provided to the people. 17 They argued that it is unfair to take
privilege from the advantaged section as what they have earned and redistribute it for the benefit
of the less advantaged section. They also criticized the concept of fairness as how people come
to be in more or less advantaged positions is relevant to fairness.

(B) Nozick Critique of Rawls

“Robert Nozick has criticized Rawls for not counting freedom to appropriate the fruits of one’s
labor among basic liberties.” 18
In reaction to John Rawls' theory of justice he gave his own
theory known as ‘Entitlement Theory’. This theory holds that if we are entitled to some property
that is justly acquired without force or fraud, then we are free to transfer such property. Thus,
Nozick argues for a minimal state which is limited to narrow functions of protection against
theft, fraud, force and enforcement of contract etc. Government or anybody is not entitled to
take anything (property) from more advantaged that they earned in a just and fair manner and
give it too less advantaged. Hence, no one can force any individual to make use of their money

16
https://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-23-3-c-justice-as-fairness-john-rawls-and-his-theory-of-
justice. Accessed on 10 Dec. 2022.
17
https://doi.org/10.2307/1964238. Accessed on 10 Dec. 2022.
18
Ibid. 489

© 2024. International Journal of Law Management & Humanities [ISSN 2581-5369]

 3059 International Journal of Law Management & Humanities [Vol. 7 Iss 2; 3051]

for the welfare of others.

(C) Communitarian Critique

They rejected the Rawls idea of ‘‘original position’ because individuals can’t be subtracted from
the community, they live in. And you cannot put them in an original position. Hence, any
distributive principle that arises from the original position won't be right because the decision
will be out of the community understanding. So, the individual cannot find the right principle
if they are put in an original position.

For example, in the past, people in many communities believed that part of their agricultural
harvest belonged to the deity or priestly class. Today this may be unacceptable to us but
community life always takes rituals, manners, customs etc. in their life. We can’t ignore it and
make a distributive principle as an individual. Major communitarian thinkers are Michael
Sandel and Michael Walzer.

(D) Feminist Critique19

Susan Mollar Okin mainly points out issues with most justice theories, including Rawls' theory
of justice. According to this critique, most justice theories apply to public and not private life
of the family. Despite a number of laws that govern our family life, such as property,
inheritance, divorce, adoption and so on, theory of justice is silent about inequalities within
families. Rawls's original position failed to acknowledge the difference of men’s and women’s
perceptions and needs. In short, women have been ignored in Rawls’ theory of justice.

Rawls believes that individuals who are more productive due to their natural talent have no right
to get greater rewards. The difference principle is a contract to consider the products of natural
talent as a common asset, but anyone’s talent is not acquired at anyone’s expense and to exhibit
the talent nature has invested one with is a matter of choice. Individuals should live with the
result of their choices. Those who work hard and earn more cannot get subsidized for those that
choose more leisure and less hard work. There must be a proper criterion, otherwise it would
ultimately create injustice in a society.

VII. CONCLUSION
We can conclude that Rawls’ theory of justice is based on an egalitarian concept in which he
wants to establish a well-ordered society for the benefit of all sections of society. He lays down
principles of justice for equal distribution of benefits and burdens in a society. Those principles
would be chosen in the ‘original position’ behind the ‘veil of ignorance’. Through his liberty

19
https://youtu.be/ClhU4KBCg7E. Accessed on 10 Dec. 2022.

© 2024. International Journal of Law Management & Humanities [ISSN 2581-5369]

3060 International Journal of Law Management & Humanities [Vol. 7 Iss 2; 3051]

principle he has tried to protect basic liberties of all. The difference principle deals with the
welfare of disadvantaged sections of society.

In spite of having significance, the theory has certain shortcomings. His concept of the original
position is unrealistic. His difference principle is also controversial because it emphasizes
redistribution of benefits to the least advantaged section from the earnings of the most
advantaged section. Thus, it is considered unfair by some.

Despite having certain problems, Rawls' theory has emerged as an important theory to create a
just and morally acceptable society.

*****

© 2024. International Journal of Law Management & Humanities [ISSN 2581-5369]

 3061 International Journal of Law Management & Humanities [Vol. 7 Iss 2; 3051]

VIII. BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOK

1. John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press Cambridge,
Massachusetts, 2nd edn., 1999

2. Suri Ratnapala, Jurisprudence, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2nd edn., 2013

3. Bentley, D. J. John Rawls: A Theory of Justice. University of Pennsylvania Law Review,

vol. 121, no. 5, 1973, pp. 1070–78. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/3311281. Accessed
9 Dec. 2022.

JOURNAL

1. Upadhyay, A. K. “RAWLSIAN CONCEPT OF TWO PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE.”

The Indian Journal of Political Science, vol. 54, no. ¾, 1993, pp. 388–97. JSTOR,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41855666. Accessed 9 Dec. 2022.

2. “[Rawls: ‘A Theory of Justice’ and Its Critics].” The American Political Science
Review, vol. 86, no. 2, 1992, pp. 488–488. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1964238.
Accessed 9 Dec. 2022.

3. “[Rawls: ‘A Theory of Justice’ and Its Critics].” The American Political Science
Review, vol. 86, no. 2, 1992, pp. 488–488. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1964238.
Accessed 9 Dec. 2022.

*****

© 2024. International Journal of Law Management & Humanities [ISSN 2581-5369]