Rawls' Two Principles of Justice: A Theory of Justice Explained

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.

This section explores communitarian responses to liberal individualism through three philosophers. Charles Taylor's recognition politics addresses how modern liberalism fails to respect cultural identities, arguing individuals need recognition from others to form their identity properly. His communitarianism critiques treating individuals as atomistic beings, emphasizing that humans establish identity through dialogue within communities. Amitai Etzioni critiqued liberalism for overemphasizing individual rights at the expense of community values, proposing 'responsive communitarianism' that respects individual rights while emphasizing community responsibilities. His 'new golden rule' extends the traditional principle by adding responsibility to the community, arguing rights come with obligations. Michael Sandel argued that liberalism's prioritization of individual freedom fails to address complex moral dilemmas, contending humans are formed within communities with identity shaped by community values. He criticized Rawls's unencumbered self as unrealistic, advocating for public philosophy that engages citizens in deliberating about shared purposes and values rather than limiting justice to procedural concerns.

Michael Sandel (माइकल सेंडल) is considered the father of modern communitarianism. In 1982, he published 'Liberalism and the Limits of Justice' (लिबरलिज्म एंड द लिमिट्स ऑफ जस्टिस), marking the emergence of communitarianism as a serious philosophical movement. Sandel's work critiqued the dominant liberal tradition, particularly John Rawls' ideas, arguing that liberal philosophy had overemphasized individual rights at the expense of community values. Sandel's communitarian approach emphasizes that individuals are fundamentally shaped by their communities and that political philosophy should account for this social context.

This section introduces communitarianism as a major alternative to liberalism that emerged in the 1980s. Key representatives include Alasdair MacIntyre, Charles Taylor, Michael Walzer, and Michael Sandel. For communitarians, freedom and conscious choice are impossible in a vacuum - they are always historical and connected to specific moral ontologies. They criticize liberals for starting from a false anthropology that understands humans as abstract, isolated individuals. Sandel argues that while freedom of choice is a powerful moral idea, it does not tell us how to live. He states that freedom of choice is not an adequate foundation for a just society, and politics stripped of substantive moral obligations leads to the degradation of civic life.

Contemporary liberalism claims a just society governs according to neutral principles of justice without endorsing particular conceptions of the good life. This aspiration rests on a conception of the 'unencumbered self'—a moral agent prior to its purposes and ends, choosing through acts of will to relate to its aims. Sandel identifies this as an impoverished view of the self that treats individuals as disconnected from the purposes and communities giving meaning to human flourishing. Drawing on Hegel's critique of Kant and Aristotle's conception of politics oriented toward a telos (purpose), Sandel argues that freedom and personhood must be situated in ethical life, not abstracted from it. This critique forms the foundation of his challenge to liberal neutrality.

The capabilities approach focuses on what people are actually able to do and be, rather than just the resources they have. Amartya Sen's capabilities approach focuses on increasing people's overall capabilities to achieve what they value. He argues that justice should be evaluated based on what people are actually able to do and be, not just on resources they possess. Sen argues that capabilities are closely linked to political freedom—when people lack capabilities (such as freedom from famine), it is often due to inadequate political systems rather than lack of resources. Martha Nussbaum proposes a capabilities approach that identifies ten central capabilities that should be guaranteed to all citizens. She argues that these capabilities are non-compensable—meaning that if one capability is lacking, it cannot be compensated by having more of another.

The Capabilities Approach, developed by Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum, is a theoretical framework that evaluates individual wellbeing, social arrangements, and institutional quality by focusing on what people are actually able to do and what lives they can live, rather than just measuring resources or outcomes. The approach centers on four core commitments: (1) distinguishing between capabilities (the substantial freedoms individuals have to achieve valuable functionings) and functionings (the actual states and activities people achieve, such as being nourished, healthy, or literate); (2) valuing each individual as an end in themselves; (3) acknowledging value pluralism—recognizing that people have different value ends and should be free to choose their own paths to flourishing; and (4) differentiating between means (the resources and conditions needed to achieve development) and ends (the actual achievements and freedoms themselves). This framework critiques resourcism (which evaluates arrangements only by resource access) and utilitarianism (which focuses only on aggregate wellbeing), instead incorporating non-monetary measures like happiness and emphasizing that people are active agents who bring about change through their choices and capabilities.

The capability approach, developed by Nobel laureate Amartya Sen, proposes that justice should be evaluated by examining what people are actually able to do and be, rather than focusing solely on income distribution or formal rights; this approach recognizes that converting resources into meaningful capabilities depends on individual circumstances (such as disability, age, and health) and environmental factors, making standard income-based poverty measures inadequate for understanding true human deprivation.

The capabilities approach, developed by Amartya Sen, asserts that any theory of justice has an informational basis and an evaluative space. A good theory of justice should be sensitive to functionings and capabilities. Functionings are valuable beings or doings constitutive of human life, valuable in themselves for executing life plans, such as nutrition, locomotion, and communication. Capabilities are defined as substantive freedom to choose and realize certain functionings in favor of others valued according to one's particular life project. Martha Nussbaum proposes central capacities that guarantee minimally a dignified life: life, bodily health, bodily integrity, senses, imagination and thought, emotions, practical reason, affiliation, and control over material and political environment. These capacities are plural, irreducible, interrelated, and interdependent, with an architectural character where certain functionings and capabilities enable construction of others.

Martha Nussbaum proposes a capability approach to human development that focuses on what people are actually able to do and be, rather than merely on economic indicators like GDP. This approach emphasizes that political systems should guarantee a dignified life for all people by providing them with the real opportunities and resources necessary to develop their capabilities, which she identifies as ten central capabilities including life, health, bodily integrity, emotions, practical reason, affiliation, other species, play, and control over one's environment. Nussbaum argues that this framework, rooted in both liberal traditions and Kantian ethics, offers a more comprehensive alternative to purely economicist approaches to social progress, addressing issues of justice, equality, freedom, and human flourishing across diverse contexts.

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.

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 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.

John Rawls' 'Political Liberalism' addresses how modern democratic societies, characterized by diverse comprehensive doctrines (religious, philosophical, and moral worldviews), can achieve stable and just governance. Rawls proposes that political justice should be independent of any particular comprehensive doctrine, focusing instead on constitutional essentials and basic justice principles that all reasonable citizens can accept. This 'overlapping consensus' allows citizens with different fundamental beliefs to agree on shared political principles, enabling peaceful coexistence despite reasonable disagreements. Public reason requires citizens to justify political decisions using arguments that all reasonable citizens could accept, rather than relying on their specific comprehensive doctrines.

John Rawls cleverly addressed liberalism's pluralism problem by arguing liberal societies can be stable without requiring citizens to share one ethical conception of the good. Different traditions can converge on certain substantive moral values held in common. However, Rawls underestimated market capitalism's destructive power, which prioritizes immediate gratification of desire. This destroys the capacity of average people to adopt any conception of the good, as they become too busy consuming. The threat to liberal democracy is not absence of common theory but market capitalism's erosion of moral reasoning capacity. Rawls's conception of how politically liberal society can be stable depends on certain substantive moral values being held in common across traditions.

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 formulates justice principles through the 'original position' - a hypothetical scenario where individuals don't know their future social position, talents, or circumstances. In this position of ignorance, rational individuals would accept two principles: equal basic liberties and the difference principle. The difference principle permits inequalities only if they benefit the least advantaged and attach to positions open to all. For example, government subsidies for low-income workers are just because they benefit the least advantaged without harming the wealthy. This principle justifies progressive taxation and welfare state policies, establishing that natural endowments (talents, abilities) are morally arbitrary and should only benefit the least fortunate.

The difference principle states that social and economic inequalities should be arranged to benefit the least advantaged members of society. This reverses utilitarian thinking by prioritizing the poor. A progressive taxation system exemplifies this: higher earners pay higher percentages to fund welfare schemes. The principle ensures that any inequality in society works to benefit those who are least advantaged, gradually reducing poverty and moving society toward greater equality.

Rawls' difference principle states social inequalities must benefit the least advantaged. This allows some inequality if it helps the poor. Rawls synthesizes liberalism and socialism as liberal egalitarianism. Every state implements this through affirmative action, free health facilities, and tax policies benefiting the poor. The goal is bringing deprived sections to mainstream society.

John Rawls's difference principle can justify progressive taxation by helping the least advantaged, but his attempt to define justice without affirming any conception of the good life is criticized as philosophically flawed. The moral case for redistribution depends on cultivating community, shared identity, and solidarity. Rawls sought to make redistribution compatible with American individualism by avoiding particular conceptions of shared purposes, which critics view as politically ineffective. Progressive taxation cannot be detached from questions of commonality and mutual responsibility.