A Theory of Justice - Original Edition - Chapter I

CHAPTER I. JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS In this introductory chapter I sketch some of the main ideas of the...

CHAPTER I. JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS In this introductory chapter I sketch some of the main ideas of the theory of justice I wish to develop. The exposition is informal and intended to prepare the way for the more detailed arguments that follow. Unavoidably there is some overlap between this and later discussions. I begin by describing the role of justice in social coop- eration and with a brief account of the primary subject of justice, the basic structure of society. I then present the main idea of justice as fairness, a theory of justice that generalizes and carries to a higher level of abstraction the traditional conception of the social contract. The compact of society is replaced by an initial situation that in- corporates certain procedural constraints on arguments designed to lead to an original agreement on principles of justice. I also take up, for purposes of clarification and contrast, the classical utilitarian and intuitionist conceptions of justice and consider some of the differ- ences between these views and justice as fairness. My guiding aim is to work out a theory of justice that is a viable alternative to these doctrines which have long dominated our philosophical tradition. 1. THE ROLE OF JUSTICE Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought. A theory however elegant and economical must be rejected Copyright © 1971. Harvard University Press. All rights reserved. or revised if it is untrue; likewise laws and institutions no matter how efficient and well-arranged must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust. Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. For this reason justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right 3 Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice : Original Edition, Harvard University Press, 1971. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/kcl/detail.action?docID=3300425. Created from kcl on 2024-12-18 15:32:32.  Justice as Fairness by a greater good shared by others. It does not allow that the sacri- fices imposed on a few are outweighed by the larger sum of advan- tages enjoyed by many. Therefore in a just society the liberties of equal citizenship are taken as settled; the rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social in- terests. The only thing that permits us to acquiesce in an erroneous theory is the lack of a better one; analogously, an injustice is tolerable only when it is necessary to avoid an even greater injustice. Being first virtues of human activities, truth and justice are uncompro- mising. These propositions seem to express our intuitive conviction of the primacy of justice. No doubt they are expressed too strongly. In any event I wish to inquire whether these contentions or others similar to them are sound, and if so how they can be accounted for. To this end it is necessary to work out a theory of justice in the light of which these assertions can be interpreted and assessed. I shall begin by con- sidering the role of the principles of justice. Let us assume, to fix ideas, that a society is a more or less self-sufficient association of persons who in their relations to one another recognize certain rules of conduct as binding and who for the most part act in accordance with them. Suppose further that these rules specify a system of co- operation designed to advance the good of those taking part in it. Then, although a society is a cooperative venture for mutual advan- tage, it is typically marked by a conflict as well as by an identity of interests. There is an identity of interests since social cooperation makes possible a better life for all than any would have if each were to live solely by his own efforts. There is a conflict of interests since persons are not indifferent as to how the greater benefits produced by their collaboration are distributed, for in order to pursue their ends they each prefer a larger to a lesser share. A set of principles is re- quired for choosing among the various social arrangements which determine this division of advantages and for underwriting an agree- ment on the proper distributive shares. These principles are the Copyright © 1971. Harvard University Press. All rights reserved. principles of social justice: they provide a way of assigning rights and duties in the basic institutions of society and they define the appropriate distribution of the benefits and burdens of social co- operation. Now let us say that a society is well-ordered when it is not only 4 Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice : Original Edition, Harvard University Press, 1971. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/kcl/detail.action?docID=3300425. Created from kcl on 2024-12-18 15:32:32.  1. The Role of Justice designed to advance the good of its members but when it is also effectively regulated by a public conception of justice. That is, it is a society in which ( 1 ) everyone accepts and knows that the others accept the same principles of justice, and ( 2) the basic social insti- tutions generally satisfy and are generally known to satisfy these principles. In this case while men may put forth excessive demands on one another, they nevertheless acknowledge a common point of view from which their claims may be adjudicated. If men's inclina- tion to self-interest makes their vigilance against one another neces- sary, their public sense of justice makes their secure association to- gether possible. Among individuals with disparate aims and purposes a shared conception of justice establishes the bonds of civic friend- ship; the general desire for justice limits the pursuit of other ends. One may think of a public conception of justice as constituting the fundamental charter of a well-ordered human association. Existing societies are of course seldom well-ordered in this sense, for what is just and unjust is usually in dispute. Men disagree about which principles should define the basic terms of their association. Yet we may still say, despite this disagreement, that they each have a conception of justice. That is, they understand the need for, and they are prepared to affirm, a characteristic set of principles for assigning basic rights and duties and for determining what they take to be the proper distribution of the benefits and burdens of social cooperation. Thus it seems natural to think of the concept of justice as distinct from the various conceptions of justice and as being specified by the role which these different sets of principles, these different conceptions, have in common. 1 Those who hold different conceptions of justice can, then, still agree that institutions are just when no arbitrary distinctions are made between persons in the assign: ·1 g of basic rights and duties and when the rules determine a proper balance between competing claims to the advantages of social life. Men can agree to this description of just institutions since the notions of an arbitrary distinction and of a proper balance, which Copyright © 1971. Harvard University Press. All rights reserved. are included in the concept of justice, are left open for each to interpret according to the principles of justice that he accepts. These principles single out which similarities and differences among per- 1. Here I follow H. L. A. Hart, The Concept of Law (Oxford, The Clarendon Press, 1961), pp. 155-159. 5 Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice : Original Edition, Harvard University Press, 1971. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/kcl/detail.action?docID=3300425. Created from kcl on 2024-12-18 15:32:32.  Justice as Fairness sons are relevant in determining rights and duties and they specify which division of advantages is appropriate. Clearly this distinction between the concept and the various conceptions of justice settles no important questions. It simply helps to identify the role of the prin- ciples of social justice. Some measure of agreement in conceptions of justice is, however, not the only prerequisite for a viable human community. There are other fundamental social problems, in particular those of coordina- tion, efficiency, and stability. Thus the plans of individuals need to be fitted together so that their activities are compatible with one another and they can all be carried through without anyone's legiti- mate expectations being severely disappointed. Moreover, the ex- ecution of these plans should lead to the achievement of social ends in ways that are efficient and consistent with justice. And finally, the scheme of social cooperation must be stable: it must be more or less regularly complied with and its basic rules willingly acted upon; and when infractions occur, stabilizing forces should exist that prevent further violations and tend to restore the arrangement. Now it is evident that these three problems are connected with that of justice. In the absence of a certain measure of agreement on what is just and unjust, it is clearly more difficult for individuals to coordinate their plans efficiently in order to insure that mutually beneficial arrange- ments are maintained. Distrust and resentment corrode the ties of civility, and suspicion and hostility tempt men to act in ways they would otherwise avoid. So while the distinctive role of conceptions of justice is to specify basic rights and duties and to determine the appropriate distributive shares, the way in which a conception does this is bound to affect the problems of efficiency, coordination, and stability. We cannot, in general, assess a conception of justice by its distributive role alone, however useful this role may be in identifying the concept of justice. We must take into account its wider connec- tions; for even though justice has a certain priority, being the most important virtue of institutions, it is still true that, other things equal, Copyright © 1971. Harvard University Press. All rights reserved. one conception of justice is preferable to another when its broader consequences are more desirable. 6 Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice : Original Edition, Harvard University Press, 1971. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/kcl/detail.action?docID=3300425. Created from kcl on 2024-12-18 15:32:32.  2. The Subject of Justice 2. THE SUBJECT OF JUSTICE Many different kinds of things are said to be just and unjust: not only laws, institutions, and social systems, but also particular actions of many kinds, including decisions, judgments, and imputations. We also call the attitudes and dispositions of persons, and persons them- selves, just and unjust. Our topic, however, is that of social justice. For us the primary subject of justice is the basic structure of society, or more exactly, the way in which the major social institutions dis- tribute fundamental rights and duties and determine the division of advantages from social cooperation. By major institutions I under- stand the political constitution and the principal economic and social arrangements. Thus the legal protection of freedom of thought and liberty of conscience, competitive markets, private property in the means of production, and the monogamous family are examples of major social institutions. Taken together as one scheme, the major institutions define men's rights and duties and influence their life- prospects, what they can expect to be and how well they can hope to do. The basic structure is the primary subject of justice because its effects are so profound and present from the start. The intuitive notion here is that this structure contains various social positions and that men born into different positions have different expectations of life determined, in part, by the political system as well as by economic and social circumstances. In this way the institutions of society favor certain starting places over others. These are especially deep inequalities. Not only are they pervasive, but they affect men's initial chances in life; yet they cannot possibly be justified by an appeal to the notions of merit or desert. It is these inequalities, pre- sumably inevitable in the basic structure of any society, to which the principles of social justice must in the first instance apply. These principles, then, regulate the choice of a political constitution and the main elements of the economic and social system. The justice of a social scheme depends essentially on how fundamental rights Copyright © 1971. Harvard University Press. All rights reserved. and duties are assigned and on the economic opportunities and social conditions in the various sectors of society. The scope of our inquiry is limited in two ways. First of all, I am concerned with a special case of the problem of justice. I shall not consider the justice of institutions and social practices generally, nor 7 Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice : Original Edition, Harvard University Press, 1971. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/kcl/detail.action?docID=3300425. Created from kcl on 2024-12-18 15:32:32.  Justice as Fairness except in passing the justice of the law of nations and of relations between states ( § 58). Therefore, if one supposes that the concept of justice applies whenever there is an allotment of somethin& ra- tionally regarded as advantageous or disadvantageous, then we are interested in only one instance of its application. There is no reason to suppose ahead of time that the principles satisfactory for the basic structure hold for all cases. These principles may not work for the rules and practices of private associations or for those of less compre- hensive social groups. They may be irrelevant for the various in- formal conventions and customs of everyday life; they may not elucidate the justice, or perhaps better, the fairness of voluntary cooperative arrangements or procedures for making contractual agreements. The conditions for the law of nations may require differ- ent principles arrived at in a somewhat different way. I shall be satisfied if it is possible to formulate a reasonable conception of justice for the basic structure of society conceived for the time being as a closed system isolated from other societies. The significance of this special case is obvious and needs no explanation. It is natural to conjecture that once we have a sound theory for this case, the remain- ing problems of justice will prove more tractable in the light of it. With suitable modifications such a theory should provide the key for some of these other questions. The other limitation on our discussion is that for the most part I examine the principles of justice that would regulate a well-ordered society. Everyone is presumed to act justly and to do his part in up- holding just institutions. Though justice may be, as Hume remarked, the cautious, jealous virtue, we can still ask what a perfectly just society would be like. 2 Thus I consider primarily what I call strict compliance as opposed to partial compliance theory ( § § 25, 39). The latter studies the principles that govern how we are to deal with injustice. It comprises such topics as the theory of punishment, the doctrine of just war, and the justification of the various ways of opposing unjust regimes, ranging from civil disobedience and mili- Copyright © 1971. Harvard University Press. All rights reserved. tant resistance to revolution and rebellion. Also included here are questions of compensatory justice and of weighing one form of insti- tutional injustice against another. Obviously the problems of partial 2. An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, sec. III, pt. I, par. 3, ed. L.A. Selby-Bigge, 2nd edition (Oxford, 1902), p. 184. 8 Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice : Original Edition, Harvard University Press, 1971. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/kcl/detail.action?docID=3300425. Created from kcl on 2024-12-18 15:32:32.  2. The Subject of Justice compliance theory are the pressing and urgent matters. These are the things that we are faced with in everyday life. The reason for beginning with ideal theory is that it provides, I believe, the only basis for the systematic grasp of these more pressing problems. The discussion of civil disobedience, for example, depends upon it (§§ 55-59). At least, I shall assume that a deeper understanding can be gained in no other way, and that the nature and aims of a perfectly just society is the fundamental part of the theory of justice. Now admittedly the concept of the basic structure is somewhat vague. It is not always clear which institutions or features thereof should be included. But it would be premature to worry about this matter here. I shall proceed by discussing principles which do apply to what is certainly a part of the basic structure as intuitively under- stood; I shall then try to extend the application of these principles so that they cover what would appear to be the main elements of this structure. Perhaps these principles will tum out to be perfectly general, although this is unlikely. It is sufficient that they apply to the most important cases of social justice. The point to keep in mind is that a conception of justice for the basic structure is worth having for its own sake. It should not be dismissed because its principles are not everywhere satisfactory. A conception of social justice, then, is to be regarded as providing in the first instance a standard whereby the distributive aspects of the basic structure of society are to be assessed. This standard, however, is not to be confused with the principles defining the other virtues, for the basic structure, and social arrangements generally, may be efficient or inefficient, liberal or illiberal, and many other things, as well as just or unjust. A complete conception defining principles for all the virtues of the basic structure, together with their respective weights when they conflict, is more than a conception of justice; it is a social ideal. The principles of justice are but a part, although per- haps the most important part, of such a conception. A social ideal in tum is connected with a conception of society, a vision of the way in Copyright © 1971. Harvard University Press. All rights reserved. which the aims and purposes of social cooperation are to be under- stood. The various conceptions of justice are the outgrowth of differ- ent notions of society against the background of opposing views of the natural necessities and opportunities of human life. Fully to un- derstand a conception of justice we must make explicit the concep- 9 Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice : Original Edition, Harvard University Press, 1971. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/kcl/detail.action?docID=3300425. Created from kcl on 2024-12-18 15:32:32.  Justice as Fairness tion of social cooperation from which it derives. But in doing this we should not lose sight of the special role of the principles of justice or of the primary subject to which they apply. In these preliminary remarks I have distinguished the concept of justice as meaning a proper balance between competing claims from a conception of justice as a set of related principles for identify- ing the relevant considerations which determine this balance. I have also characterized justice as but one part of a social ideal, al- though the theory I shall propose no doubt extends its everyday sense. This theory is not offered as a description of ordinary meanings but as an account of certain distributive principles for the basic structure of society. I assume that any reasonably complete ethical theory must include principles for this fundamental problem and that these principles, whatever they are, constitute its doctrine of justice. The concept of justice I take to be defined, then, by the role of its principles in assigning rights and duties and in defining the appropriate division of social advantages. A conception of justice is an interpretation of this role. Now this approach may not seem to tally with tradition. I believe, though, that it does. The more specific sense that Aristotle gives to justice, and from which the most familiar formulations derive, is that of refraining from pleonexia, that is, from gaining some advantage for oneself by seizing what belongs to another, his property, his re- ward, his office, and the like, or by denying a person that which is due to him, the fulfillment of a promise, the repayment of a debt, the showing of proper respect, and so on. 3 It is evident that this definition is framed to apply to actions, and persons are thought to be just insofar as they have, as one of the permanent elements of their character, a steady and effective desire to act justly. Aristotle's definition clearly presupposes, however, an account of what properly belongs to a person and of what is due to him. Now such entitlements are, I believe, very often derived from social institutions and the legitimate expectations to which they give rise. There is no reason to Copyright © 1971. Harvard University Press. All rights reserved. 3. Nicomachean Ethics, 1129b-1130b5. I have followed the interpretation of Gregory Vlastos, "Justice and Happiness in The Republic," in Plato: A Collection of Critical Essays, edited by Vlastos (Garden City, N.Y., Doubleday and Company, 1971), vol. 2, pp. 70f. For a discussion of Aristotle on justice, see W. F. R. Hardie, Aristotle's Ethical Theory (Oxford, The Clarendon Press, 1968), ch. X. 10 Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice : Original Edition, Harvard University Press, 1971. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/kcl/detail.action?docID=3300425. Created from kcl on 2024-12-18 15:32:32.  3. Main Idea of the Theory think that Aristotle would disagree with this, and certainly he has a conception of social justice to account for these claims. The definition I adopt is designed to apply directly to the most important case, the justice of the basic structure. There is no conflict with the traditional notion. 3. THE MAIN IDEA OF THE THEORY OF JUSTICE My aim is to present a conception of justice which generalizes and carries to a higher level of abstraction the familiar theory of the social contract as found, say, in Locke, Rousseau, and Kant. 4 In order to do this we are not to think of the original contract as one to enter a particular society or to set up a particular form of govern- ment. Rather, the guiding idea is that the principles of justice for the basic structure of society are the object of the original agreement. They are the principles that free and rational persons concerned to further their own interests would accept in an initial position of equality as defining the fundamental terms of their association. These principles are to regulate all further agreements; they specify the kinds of social cooperation that can be entered into and the forms of government that can be established. This way of regarding the principles of justice I shall call justice as fairness. Thus we are to imagine that those who engage in social coopera- tion choose together, in one joint act, the principles which are to assign basic rights and duties and to determine the division of social benefits. Men are to decide in advance how they are to regulate their claims against one another and what is to be the foundation charter of their society. Just as each person must decide by rational reflection what constitutes his good, that is, the system of ends which 4. As the text suggests, I shall regard Locke's Second Treatise of Government, Rousseau's The Social Contract, and Kant's ethical works beginning with The Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals as definitive of the contract tradition. For all of its greatness, Hobbes's Leviathan raises special problems. A general Copyright © 1971. Harvard University Press. All rights reserved. historical survey is provided by J. W. Gough, The Social Contract, 2nd ed. (Oxford, The Clarendon Press, 1957), and Otto Gierke, Natural Law and the Theory of Society, trans. with an introduction by Ernest Barker (Cambridge, The University Press, 1934). A presentation of the contract view as primarily an ethical theory is to be found in G. R. Grice, The Grounds of Moral Judgment (Cambridge, The University Press, 1967). See also § 19, note 30. 11 Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice : Original Edition, Harvard University Press, 1971. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/kcl/detail.action?docID=3300425. Created from kcl on 2024-12-18 15:32:32.  Justice as Fairness it is rational for him to pursue, so a group of persons must decide once and for all what is to count among them as just and unjust. The choice which rational men would make in this hypothetical situation of equal liberty, assuming for the present that this choice problem has a solution, determines the principles of justice. In justice as fairness the original position of equality corresponds to the state of nature in the traditional theory of the social contract. This original position is not, of course, thought of as an actual his- torical state of affairs, much less as a primitive condition of culture. It is understood as a purely hypothetical situation characterized so as to lead to a certain conception of justice. 5 Among the essential features of this situation is that no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does any one know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like. I shall even assume that the parties do not know their conceptions of the good or their special psychological propensities. The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance. This ensures that no one is advantaged or disadvantaged in the choice of principles by the outcome of natural chance or the contingency of social circumstances. Since all are similarly situated and no one is able to design principles to favor his particular condi- tion, the principles of justice are the result of a fair agreement or bargain. For given the circumstances of the original position, the symmetry of everyone's relations to each other, this initial situation is fair between individuals as moral persons, that is, as rational be- ings with their own ends and capable, I shall assume, of a sense of justice. The original position is, one might say, the appropriate initial status quo, and thus the fundamental agreements reached in it are fair. This explains the propriety of the name "justice as fairness": it conveys the idea that the principles of justice are agreed to in an initial situation that is fair. The name does not mean that the con- 5. Kant is clear that the original agreement is hypothetical. See The Meta- physics of Morals, pt. I (Rechtslehre), especially §§47, 52; and pt. II of the essay Copyright © 1971. Harvard University Press. All rights reserved. "Concerning the Common Saying: This May Be True in Theory but It Does Not Apply in Practice," in Kant's Political Writings, ed. Hans Reiss and trans. by H. B. Nisbet (Cambridge, The University Press, 1970), pp. 73-87. See Georges Vlachos, La Pensee politique de Kant (Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, 1962), pp. 326-335; and J. G. Murphy, Kant: The Philosophy of Right (London, Macmillan, 1970), pp. 109-112, 133--136, for a further discussion. 12 Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice : Original Edition, Harvard University Press, 1971. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/kcl/detail.action?docID=3300425. Created from kcl on 2024-12-18 15:32:32.  3. Main Idea of the Theory cepts of justice and fairness are the same, any more than the phrase "poetry as metaphor" means that the concepts of poetry and meta- phor are the same. Justice as fairness begins, as I have said, with one of the most general of all choices which persons might make together, namely, with the choice of the first principles of a conception of justice which is to regulate all subsequent criticism and reform of institutions. Then, having chosen a conception of justice, we can suppose that they are to choose a constitution and a legislature to enact laws, and so on, all in accordance with the principles of justice initially agreed upon. Our social situation is just if it is such that by this sequence of hypothetical agreements we would have contracted into the general system of rules which defines it. Moreover, assuming that the original position does determine a set of principles (that is, that a particular conception of justice would be chosen), it will then be true that whenever social institutions satisfy these principles those engaged in them can say to one another that they are cooperating on terms to which they would agree if they were free and equal persons whose relations with respect to one another were fair. They could all view their arrangements as meeting the stipulations which they would acknowledge in an initial situation that embodies widely accepted and reasonable constraints on the choice of principles. The general recognition of this fact would provide the basis for a public accept- ance of the corresponding principles of justice. No society can, of course, be a scheme of cooperation which men enter voluntarily in a literal sense; each person finds himself placed at birth in some par- ticular position in some particular society, and the nature of this position materially affects his life prospects. Yet a society satisfying the principles of justice as fairness comes as close 1s a society can to being a voluntary scheme, for it meets the principles which free and equal persons would assent to under circumstances that are fair. In this sense its members are autonomous and the obligations they recognize self-imposed. Copyright © 1971. Harvard University Press. All rights reserved. One feature of justice as fairness is to think of the parties in the initial situation as rational and mutually disinterested. This does not mean that the parties are egoists, that is, individuals with only cer- tain kinds of interests, say in wealth, prestige, and domination. But they are conceived as not taking an interest in one another's interests. 13 Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice : Original Edition, Harvard University Press, 1971. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/kcl/detail.action?docID=3300425. Created from kcl on 2024-12-18 15:32:32.  Justice as Fairness They are to presume that even their spiritual aims may be opposed, in the way that the aims of those of different religions may be op- posed. Moreover, the concept of rationality must be interpreted as far as possible in the narrow sense, standard in economic theory, of taking the most effective means to given ends. I shall modify this concept to some extent, as explained later ( § 25), but one must try to avoid introducing into it any controversial ethical elements. The initial situation must be characterized by stipulations that are widely accepted. In working out the conception of justice as fairness one main task clearly is to determine which principles of justice would be chosen in the original position. To do this we must describe this situation in some detail and formulate with care the problem of choice which it presents. These matters I shall take up in the immediately succeed- ing chapters. It may be observed, however, that once the principles of justice are thought of as arising from an original agreement in a situation of equality, it is an open question whether the principle of utility would be acknowledged. Offhand it hardly seems likely that persons who view themselves as equals, entitled to press their claims upon one another, would agree to a principle which may require lesser life prospects for some simply for the sake of a greater sum of advantages enjoyed by others. Since each desires to protect his interests, his capacity to advance his conception of the good, no one has a reason to acquiesce in an enduring loss for himself in order to bring about a greater net balance of satisfaction. In the absence of strong and lasting benevolent impulses, a rational man would not accept a basic structure merely because it maximized the algebraic sum of advantages irrespective of its permanent effects on his own basic rights and interests. Thus it seems that the principle of utility is incompatible with the conception of social cooperation among equals for mutual advantage. It appears to be inconsistent with the idea of reciprocity implicit in the notion of a well-ordered society. Or, at any rate, so I shall argue. Copyright © 1971. Harvard University Press. All rights reserved. I shall maintain instead that the persons in the initial situation would choose two rather different principles: the first requires equality in the assignment of basic rights and duties, while the second holds that social and economic inequalities, for example inequalities of wealth and authority, are just only if they result in compensating 14 Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice : Original Edition, Harvard University Press, 1971. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/kcl/detail.action?docID=3300425. Created from kcl on 2024-12-18 15:32:32.  3. Main Idea of the Theory benefits for everyone, and in particular for the least advantaged members of society. These principles rule out justifying institutions on the grounds that the hardships of some are offset by a greater good in the aggregate. It may be expedient but it is not just that some should have less in order that others may prosper. But there is no injustice in the greater benefits earned by a few provided that the situation of persons not so fortunate is thereby improved. The intui- tive idea is that since everyone's well-being depends upon a scheme of cooperation without which no one could have a satisfactory life, the division of advantages should be such as to draw forth the willing cooperation of everyone taking part in it, including those less well situated. Yet this can be expected only if reasonable terms are pro- posed. The two principles mentioned seem to be a fair agreement on the basis of which those better endowed, or more fortunate in their social position, neither of which we can be said to deserve, could expect the willing cooperation of others when some workable scheme is a necessary condition of the welfare of all. 6 Once we decide to look for a conception of justice that nullifies the accidents of natural en- dowment and the contingencies of social circumstance as counters in quest for political and economic advantage, we are led to these principles. They express the result of leaving aside those aspects of the social world that seem arbitrary from a moral point of view. The problem of the choice of principles, however, is extremely difficult. I do not expect the answer I shall suggest to be convincing to everyone. It is, therefore, worth noting from the outset that justice as fairness, like other contract views, consists of two parts: ( 1 ) an interpretation of the initial situation and of the problem of choice posed there, and (2) a set of principles which, it is argued, would be agreed to. One may accept the first part of the theory (or some variant thereof), but not the other, and conversely. The concept of the initial contractual situation may seem reasonable although the particular principles proposed are rejected. To be sure, I want to maintain that the most appropriate conception of this situation does Copyright © 1971. Harvard University Press. All rights reserved. lead to principles of justice contrary to utilitarianism and perfec- tionism, and therefore that the contract doctrine provides an alterna- tive to these views. Still, one may dispute this contention even though 6. For the formulation of this intuitive idea I am indebted to Allan Gibbard. 15 Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice : Original Edition, Harvard University Press, 1971. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/kcl/detail.action?docID=3300425. Created from kcl on 2024-12-18 15:32:32.  Justice as Fairness one grants that the contractarian method is a useful way of studying ethical theories and of setting forth their underlying assumptions. Justice as fairness is an example of what I have called a contract theory. Now there may be an objection to the term "contract" and related expressions, but I think it will serve reasonably well. Many words have misleading connotations which at first are likely to confuse. The terms "utility" and "utilitarianism" are surely no ex- ception. They too have unfortunate suggestions which hostile critics have been willing to exploit; yet they are clear enough for those prepared to study utilitarian doctrine. The same should be true of the term "contract" applied to moral theories. As I have mentioned, to understand it one has to keep in mind that it implies a certain level of abstraction. In particular, the content of the relevant agree- ment is not to enter a given society or to adopt a given form of government, but to accept certain moral principles. Moreover, the undertakings referred to are purely hypothetical: a contract view holds that certain principles would be accepted in a well-defined initial situation. The merit of the contract terminology is that it conveys the idea that principles of justice may be conceived as principles that would be chosen by rational persons, and that in this way conceptions of justice may be explained and justified. The theory of justice is a part, perhaps the most significant part, of the theory of rational choice. Furthermore, principles of justice deal with conflicting claims upon the advantages won by social cooperation; they apply to the relations among several persons or groups. The word "contract" suggests this plurality as well as the condition that the appropriate division of advantages must be in accordance with principles ac- ceptable to all parties. The condition of publicity for principles of justice is also connoted by the contract phraseology. Thus, if these principles are the outcome of an agreement, citizens have a knowl- edge of the principles that others follow. It is characteristic of con- tract theories to stress the public nature of political principles. Finally Copyright © 1971. Harvard University Press. All rights reserved. there is the long tradition of the contract doctrine. Expressing the tie with this line of thought helps to define ideas and accords with natural piety. There are then several advantages in the use of the term "contract." With due precautions taken, it should not be mis- leading. 16 Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice : Original Edition, Harvard University Press, 1971. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/kcl/detail.action?docID=3300425. Created from kcl on 2024-12-18 15:32:32.  4. The Original Position A final remark. Justice as fairness is not a complete contract theory. For it is clear that the contractarian idea can be extended to the choice of more or less an entire ethical system, that is, to a system including principles for all the virtues and not only for justice. Now for the most part I shall consider only principles of justice and others closely related to them; I make no attempt to discuss the virtues in a systematic way. Obviously if justice as fa