Rawls' Theory of Justice Explained: Justice as Fairness

Communitarianism is a philosophical movement that critiques liberal democracy by reviving collective consciousness in modern society. It operates in tension between modernity and conservatism, drawing from Aristotle, Aquinas, Hegel, and Tocqueville, contrasting with liberal foundations in Locke, Rousseau, and Kant. Four core critiques include: rejection of the 'unencumbered self' (humans are always born into communities), critique of social atomization and market dominance, the need to revitalize traditional values, and the importance of collective identity. Rawls' theory of justice prioritizes justice over the good, with two principles: equal basic liberties and the difference principle (inequalities must benefit the least advantaged). Sandel's critique asks what obligates citizens to share if they are atomistic individuals without community ties. Rawls' difference principle relies on the 'natural lottery' - talents are luck, not achievement, so they should only benefit the least advantaged. However, Sandel argues this is philosophically problematic because being a member of a particular community is itself a matter of luck. The dilemma is: either accept liberal individualism (making Rawls' principle unsustainable) or recognize ourselves as members of communities with collective consciousness that provides ethical basis for distribution.

The modern emphasis on personal liberty conflicts with moral and political obligations. Sandel led a critique of Rawls and contemporary liberalism in the 1980s, recognizing community's importance. The error of individualists is believing the self can be separated from social roles and historical positions. We are children of someone, citizens of a city, members of professions or groups. Our heritage constitutes our moral starting point—we do not arrive at the world in a vacuum. Communitarianism does not advocate moral rules overriding individual liberty but argues it is naive to believe personal moral values should not play a role in politics. Asking citizens to leave moral convictions at the door may guarantee tolerance but produces the opposite. A politics devoid of moral engagement impoverishes civic life.

Michael Sandel's central critique of liberal theory is the concept of the 'unencumbered self' - the idea that individuals can exist as free, autonomous beings independent of their social attachments. Sandel argues this is unrealistic because we are born into specific families, cultures, and communities that shape our identities and values. He proposes the 'encumbered self' - individuals are fundamentally shaped by their particular attachments to families, communities, and traditions. The example of a rich person and a poor person illustrates that justice should take particular circumstances into account rather than treating everyone as abstractly equal.

The liberal-communitarian debate arose from criticism of John Rawls' liberalism, which argued that principles of justice and fundamental rights should not depend on any particular conception of the good life or virtue, as this honors individual freedom. Critics argued this was impossible because we are encumbered beings defined by our communities, traditions, backgrounds, and cultural experiences—an important part of human agency. Some who were labeled communitarians were uncomfortable with the term because it suggested justice is merely relative to prevailing community values, which would deprive justice of its critical character. Others embraced the label to promote policies giving greater weight to community claims. The communitarian movement faded partly because some resisted the label for these reasons, though the underlying critique of strict neutrality in political philosophy remains influential.

Communitarians like Michael Sandel and Michael Walzer critique Western liberalism (particularly John Rawls' theory) for prioritizing abstract individual rights over the concrete goods and values embedded in community life; Sandel argues that liberalism's 'veil of ignorance' creates an unrealistic, isolated self that fails to account for how individuals are always already embedded in social contexts, while Walzer proposes 'complex equality' as an alternative to Rawls' simple equality, emphasizing that no single good should dominate over others in a just society.

Amartya Sen's capabilities approach differs from Rawls' primary goods approach by focusing on what people can actually do and be, rather than what resources they possess. The capabilities approach recognizes that different people need different resources to achieve the same functionings. This approach avoids the paternalism of needs-based approaches and the static nature of resource-based approaches. It emphasizes the importance of individual agency and the ability to convert resources into valuable functionings.

Rawls' theory uses 'primary social goods' as the metric for justice—things any rational person would want regardless of their conception of the good life. Sen's powerful criticism is that this is fetishistic: it focuses on resources rather than what people can actually do and be with those resources. For example, equal resources to a legless person and someone with functioning legs don't achieve real equality since the legless person must spend income on mobility devices. Sen argues we should focus on 'capabilities'—what people are enabled to do and be, considering their personal traits and circumstances. Martha Nussbaum later suggested marrying capabilities to an objective list of what's genuinely good for people.

Amartya Sen critiques Rawls' focus on expected income as too crude because it ignores differences in people's abilities to use resources. Sen proposes measuring 'capabilities' - what people can actually do and function as. The goal should be maximizing people's capabilities, compensating for actual functional differences. Sen accepts the difference principle but applies it to capabilities rather than income. Rawls acknowledged limitations in addressing injustice within families, global justice, and intergenerational justice. Rawls was agnostic on capitalism versus socialism, recognizing neither official versions satisfied his criteria.

The capabilities approach, developed by Martha Nussbaum in collaboration with economist Amartya Sen, provides a framework for evaluating whether governments are fulfilling their functions. Unlike Rawls's theory which was situated in contexts of unlimited scarcity (developed societies) and used American liberal language, this approach aims to broaden the framework to evaluate all types of societies. It departs from classic Western liberal presentations by focusing on what individuals are capable of doing rather than just their freedoms and opportunities.

Martha Nussbaum critiques Rawls' theory for requiring conditions that cannot be met by all people, such as being in the same time period, having similar mental and physical capacities, and seeking mutual benefit. She develops the capability approach as an alternative, incorporated into the United Nations Development Programme's Human Development Reports since 1990. This approach measures progress by education, health, and other dimensions rather than solely by GDP per capita. Nussbaum describes this as bringing ethical philosophy to economic development, moving from purely material connotation to ethical dimension recognizing human dignity. The capability approach represents a 'Tazhir' of the concept of Tazkiyah (purification), which involves transforming human consciousness from material concerns to spiritual and ethical concerns. She distinguishes three types of capabilities: basic capabilities (natural endowments), internal capabilities (acquired through social interaction), and composite capabilities (combination of internal capabilities and external conditions). The central question is 'What is a person able to do and be?' This question is asked by people in all walks of life, even those not educated, and does not require philosophical training.

John Rawls' 'Political Liberalism' (1993) represents a fundamental shift from his earlier 'Theory of Justice' (1971). While both establish 'justice as fairness,' the latter moves from abstract moral philosophy to concrete political application. Rawls distinguishes between moral theory (assuming citizens endorse principles from detachment) and political liberalism (addressing acceptance in actual democratic societies). Modern societies feature 'reasonable pluralism'—multiple incompatible comprehensive doctrines (religious, philosophical, moral) that cannot be reconciled. Rawls identifies this as the central problem: how can stable, just societies of free and equal citizens exist despite deep divisions? His solution is the 'overlapping consensus'—citizens support both their comprehensive doctrine and a shared political conception. Rawls traces this challenge to historical developments: the Protestant Reformation fragmented religious unity, creating rival salvationist religions; the modern state emerged with centralized power; and modern science developed. When authoritarian religion divides, it produces equally authoritarian rivals, creating the problem of coexistence. Some saw no basis for tolerance since accepting heresy about salvation was unacceptable. Others insisted on tolerance as a modus vivendi, viewing religious division as a disaster requiring acceptance rather than resolution. This historical context gave rise to freedom of conscience and thought as genuine values.

Rawls evolved from presenting a comprehensive moral theory in 1971 to developing 'Political Liberalism' in 1993. The earlier work grounded justice in a particular conception of the good life, while the later work sought a more modest political theory acceptable to people with diverse religious, philosophical, and moral beliefs. This shift represented an attempt to achieve greater political stability in pluralistic democratic societies by focusing on conditions of fair cooperation rather than ultimate ends.

In 'Political Liberalism' (1993), Rawls revises his earlier work by arguing that 'A Theory of Justice' presented liberalism as a comprehensive doctrine rather than merely a political conception of justice. Rawls argues this was an unrealistic requirement, as it would demand that people share liberal views of the good life. Political liberalism instead offers a conception of justice for the basic structure of society that can be accepted by people holding different comprehensive doctrines. Modern democratic societies are characterized by reasonable pluralism - a plurality of incompatible yet reasonable doctrines. Political liberalism must be impartial with respect to the viewpoints of reasonable comprehensive doctrines and find terms of social cooperation that can be accepted by citizens with fundamentally different worldviews. Rawls reformulates the central problem of political liberalism as follows: how is it possible for a stable and just society of free and equal citizens to exist over time when they are deeply divided by reasonable religious, philosophical, and moral doctrines?

Rawls' later work, 'Political Liberalism' (1993), represented a significant development in his theory of justice. In this work, Rawls addressed the challenge of how a just society could be organized in the face of reasonable pluralism - the fact that people hold different and often incompatible conceptions of the good life. Rawls argued that a just society should be organized around a 'political conception of justice' that could be accepted by people holding different comprehensive doctrines. This work represented Rawls' attempt to extend his theory of justice beyond the specific context of liberal democratic societies to address the broader challenge of how different groups and individuals could live together in a just society.

Rawls acknowledged practical limitations, noting his proposal applies mainly to developed countries with limited scarcity. From the late 1980s, he adopted a pragmatic stance, renouncing metaphysical foundations and embracing overlapping consensus—where different comprehensive doctrines can agree on political principles regardless of deeper disagreements. While this provides practical guidance for assessing political systems, critics argue it detaches from rational decision-making theory. Rawls took for granted concepts of rationality and reasonableness that later proved controversial. Despite criticisms, his work marked a turning point in political philosophy, providing tools to assess whether political systems fulfill basic functions. Key questions remain: Can a model applicable to all societies of any development level and cultural tradition be found? Rawls' legacy continues inspiring thinkers working to build more solid theoretical foundations and develop universally applicable models of justice.

The difference principle permits social and economic inequalities only if they benefit the least advantaged members of society. This principle requires that positions and offices be open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. The savings principle complements this by requiring current generations to preserve adequate capital and social foundations for future generations, preventing complete consumption of resources. Together, these principles justify welfare policies, progressive taxation, and affirmative action as mechanisms for ensuring that social arrangements benefit the most disadvantaged.

Rawls proposed the 'veil of ignorance' as a thought experiment where participants design society while unaware of their own position—rich or poor, able-bodied or disabled. Without self-interested bias, rational individuals would adopt the maximin principle: maximize the minimum outcome for the least advantaged. This yields two principles: First, equal basic liberties for all citizens including freedom of speech, religion, and property ownership. Second, fair equality of opportunity and the difference principle allowing inequalities only if they benefit the least advantaged. These principles translate into policies like affirmative action, universal healthcare, disability support, and progressive taxation, ensuring social arrangements work to improve conditions for society's most disadvantaged members.

Rawls' principle of difference (the 'difference principle') states that inequalities are acceptable only if they benefit the least advantaged members of society. This principle justifies progressive taxation and public funding of services like healthcare and education. The idea is that those who benefit from inequalities (through higher incomes) should contribute to society in ways that help those who are born into disadvantaged circumstances. This principle aims to compensate for natural and social inequalities that are beyond individual control.

Rawls's difference principle addresses the problem of inequality arising from unequal starting positions. Even when everyone has equal opportunities (like equal education), natural talents and circumstances create unequal outcomes. Rawls argued that such inequalities are acceptable only if they work to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society. This principle supports policies like progressive taxation, where wealth is redistributed from those who have gained more to those who have gained less, thereby achieving 'justice as fairness' - a society where everyone can reasonably accept the basic structure of institutions.

John Rawls's difference principle can be used to justify a more heavily progressive tax system by helping the least advantaged members of society. However, Rawls attempted to define principles of justice without affirming any particular conception of the good life or the good. Critics argue it is neither possible nor desirable to detach questions of justice and distribution from questions about the good life and valuation.