The Role of Justice in Society

Through the egalitarian reasoning of John Rawls and the act-utilitarianist perspective of J.J.C. Smart, I will analyze the concept of justice. In accordance with Rawls, I intend to argue that any changes in society that will increase the burden carried by the poorest 5% are unjust, even if these changes increase the average level of happiness for the other 95%. With regard to ethics, justice is defined as fairness, where all situations should be treated alike. For one to exhibit justice, one must portray the quality of being fair and reasonable in all situations. While egalitarians evaluate justice based on equality, utilitarians are only interested in justice as a means to an end. Smart advocates the principle of utility, which defines the morally action as whatever produces the greatest net happiness for everyone affected by that act. To identify an act as Ð''just,' Rawls employs the theory of justice as fairness. This theory stresses the principle of equal rights, and that an act is Ð''just' if equality is realized by everyone affected by the act.

Before delving into John Rawls' views on a Ð''just' society it is essential to understand his perception of the role of justice in society, as described in his book A Theory of Justice. Justice in society enforces individual's rights and to "[deny] that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others". When the notion of justice becomes shared by all citizens, and equality is achieved, civility between members of society will restrict the use of some individuals as means to personal ends. Overall, Rawls argues that the most distinctive role of justice in society is to equally distribute rights and duties to individuals.

The underlying egalitarian viewpoint is that individuals do not possess any characteristics that would "justify inequalities in the distribution of social benefits and burdens". The principles of justice, as depicted in Rawls book, are chosen by individuals an initial position of equality. These principles can be applied to solve structural issues in society such as the distribution of social and economic advantages, the distribution of basic rights and duties to citizens. Rawls argues that in order for the principles of justice to establish an ideal society, where equality between citizens is realized, several hypothetical conditions must be in place. These conditions include the original position, the veil of ignorance, and the two basic principles of justice.

Rawls concept of Ð''justice as fairness' summarizes how equality between individuals in the original position allows the "principles of justice are agreed to in an initial situation that is fair". In this "initial position of equality" citizens lack all knowledge of personal issues, and their social and economic status. The equality achieved by the original position ensures that citizens act behind a Ð''veil of ignorance' when choosing the principles of justice. The Ð''veil of ignorance' and the maxamin rule ensure that the choice of principles is not advantageous to some, and detrimental to others. Once under the veil of ignorance, citizens use the maxamin rule when choosing principles to base their society on. This rule captures the idea that since all citizens are oblivious to their position in the world, they must be prepared to fulfill any role. Therefore, we can conclude that each person will decide on a society where the least fortunate individuals are in the best situation possible. Through the original position, we are able to see the creation of justice.

There are two basic principles of justice that Rawls believes would be agreed to by individuals in the Ð''original position'. The first principle encapsulates the concept liberty, where each individual should be guaranteed as much liberty as the next individual. The second principle maintains that "social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both reasonably expected to be to everyone's advantage, and attached to positions and offices open to all". Rawls emphasizes the logical ordering of the principles, where the first takes precedence over the second, which prevents the justification for violating civil liberties in the attempt to gain social or economic advantages.

The two parts of the second principle are Ð''the difference principle' and Ð''the principle of fair equality of opportunity.' The difference principle makes justifications for inequalities as long the situation of everyone affected is improved. Equality of opportunity refers to "the distribution of income and wealth and to the design of organizations that make use of difference in authority". As with the difference principle, inequalities in wealth, power, and status are permitted, as long as the advantages produced by the inequities benefit everyone. The ordering of the second principle implies that defiance of equality of opportunity cannot be rationalized by the possibility of economic or social advantages.

The ideas set forth by Rawls influential book A Theory of Justice received considerable praise and attention from the scholastic community. As with all publications, Rawls' work has been critiqued by other philosophers. The most prominent objection to Rawls' concept of justice, and the only area I would criticize, is the difference principle.

As a libertarian, Robert Nozick offers one of the most renowned arguments against difference principle. Nozick argued in his book Anarchy, State and Utopia that equality through fair distribution will indefinitely intrude on civilian liberty. If a beneficial asset has been acquired through legitimate means, then according to Nozick, the redistribution of set asset would be in violation of justice.

While I agree with the value Nozick places on civil rights, I feel that the inequalities that may result could cause greater injustice. My interpretation of Nozick is that as long as assets are acquired legitimately, it would be just for a society to be dominated by a powerful few, which would in turn disadvantaged the least well off by restricting their power and economic input. From this interpretation, I find it far more logical and ethical to enforce the difference principle. This would place some restrictions on liberty so that equality could be achieved while also ensuring that inequalities could not occur without simultaneously benefiting the least advantaged.

The difference principle has also been criticized by theorist for not being "ambition-sensitive" or "endowment-sensitive". Critics