Rawls and Idealism

By Anonymous

 Rawls, in my opinion, has an extremely short and weak argument for a fundamental aspect of the theory of justice that he goes on to spend quite a bit of time thinking about. While much time is spent on the theory of Justice, some of the basic premises, including the fact that it is idealist and for a basic structure, are given only a few pages. The main place where he addresses this account, in section two, is:

"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."

He goes on to discuss the original contract that is used in the the formation of the first society. He also discusses the original position of an equal society:

"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 historical 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."

This an example of a methodology that can skew an argument completely. Rawls, here, is viewing society in a way that is not real. He acknowledges that this is hypothetical. Someone like Marx might argue that there is no point in using a hypothetical if we are trying to understand reality. In starting this theory out with premises that don't actually exist--hypothetical premises--the entirety of the rest of the argument could be foundationally faulty. 

In reality, society is far from ideal. This is something that Rawls admits in section 1. Then why should he work so hard to create an ideal theory? An argument may be that then we can compare reality with an ideal. In this way, we could take a situation in reality and see how it differs from an ideal. For example, if someone owes someone something and then doesn't deliver it fully, it is far from ideal and the injustice is easily identifiable. But, if from the beginning of time, people have been not giving people what they owe, and people have been harming innocent, and unfair structures have been put in place, why should we always be comparing to an ideal? The historical injustices that exist will make it so we can never even get close to an ideal (unless in a vacuum when you don't acknowledge the historical injustices). 

For this reason, I see an important and dangerous fault with the ideal theory, Systems of justice that are built on a sense of justice that is simple, non-real and ideal, and in reality justice is extremely complex and non-ideal, the theory will not be compatible with the reality that it aims to address.

Comments

  1. GioMarch 1, 2023 at 11:40 PM

    Hey Josh. I think Rawls answers this question in §4.

    "It is natural to ask why, if this agreement is never actually entered into, we should take any interest in these principles, moral or otherwise. The answer is that the conditions embodied in the description of the original position are ones that we do in fact accept. Or if we do not, then perhaps we can be persuaded to do so by philosophical reflection" (19).

    Rawls's argument is very similar to Rousseau's in the sense that the best way to ensure people are being treated justly is to have them be their own rulers as much as possible. This is accomplished by them being governed by rules that they decide as a collective. His chief objective with the original position is to try to answer "what would people who are free and equal chose?" He believes that the answer to that question is how we should construct society. It comes from basic principles that free and equal people would agree upon. To properly understand this hypothetical ideal situation, the veil of ignorance is an extremely important concept to grasp as well as his conception of rationality.

    The beautiful thing about this is that our current values can be used as a check on our conception of the initial situation, and vice versa. This process continues until a reflective equilibrium is reached. This concept is explained pretty succinctly on page 18. I would encourage you to reread §4 with your criticisms of Rawls in mind and see if your questions are answered. If not, I would love to hear more of your dissent in seminar.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Henry LongMarch 1, 2023 at 11:54 PM

    How can you describe things as "injustices" or "unfair" without some ideal conception of what is truly just or truly fair? The word "Injustice" is but a negation of the word justice, and "unfair" is but a negation of the word fair. While the implementation of justice may be "extremely complex and non-ideal," how can one have any conception of justice if not based in an ideal?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Livia: Táíwò and Economic Success in the Global South

By
  Reconsidering Reparations by Professor Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò illuminates the large extent to which racism and colonialism played in creating the current global economic structure, in which the global north dominates the global south. Additionally, this book highlights how current policies implemented by global institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank have further strengthened and reaffirmed this positioning. Taking into account this global historical perspective, we can better understand how “consequences flow from some other parts of the world to other parts, often across national borders, and in ways that complicate geographically and politically narrow ways of thinking about reparations” (24). Thus, some sort of international obligation of social justice must be exist. Táíwò’s emphasis on the role that slavery and colonialism played in establishing the current economic order makes me think about the signal which this sends to the Global South in the development of their p...
Read more

Carlos: Response to Henry's Conclusion

By
I've spent way too long trying to argue against Henry's point because it just seems wrong to conclude with "there is no current social framework by which we might call their lasting effects socially unjust–at least under the political conception of justice". Yet, the more I thought about it, the more I felt I had to agree with Henry's argument regardless of how strange it felt to do so. Still, I did have a few ideas as I was thinking of how to refute Henry's conclusion: -------------------------------------------- 1) With the hypothetical situation Henry provides, if we were to fully extend its logic to our current world, I think Prof. Hurley would have also created a division between the A and B group that would have maintained even into Tuesday. I think were that division were to have taken place, even after Prof. Hurley disbanded the government, the division would have remained and the hierarchy of power would continue into the rest of the week. It seems fa...
Read more

Smith, Locke, Harris, and Justice

By
 On page 79, Smith writes, "the violation of justice is injury: it does real and positive hurt to some particular persons," and thus it is a virtue that, unlike beneficence, warrants resentment if we fail to fulfill it. Upon reading this, I immediately thought, well how are you defining justice?  It became very clear in the following pages that Smith's conception of justice is nearly identical to Locke's Law of Nature. On page 80, he writes, "Among equals each individual is naturally, and antecedent to the institution of civil government , regarded as having a right both to defend himself from injuries, and to exact a certain degree of punishment for those which have been done to them." He continues to say that justice is only those transgressions which spectators would have the right to, and would be compelled to, punish whoever commits them. After this, he explains that no one has a right to advance their own happiness at the expense of someone else's...
Read more