Rawlsian Theory of Justice Propounds That Social

¶ … Rawlsian Theory of Justice propounds that social justice should be governed by the principles of guaranteeing fundamental liberties to each person and ensuring that the least advantaged members of society benefit from any social and economic inequalities. The theory further argues that justice can only be brought about by a basic social structure, which is designed with a view to regulate inequalities that arise from social, natural, and historical precedents. In the light of the preceding context, a Rawlsian is likely to take the position that the process of inheritance is unjust since it perpetuates a social and historical inequality in social and economic arrangements. Therefore, inheritance should only be permitted if social institutions regulate inequalities arising from the process in a manner, which ensures that such inequality benefits the least advantaged population segments.

Central to the Rawlsian argument against unregulated inheritance would be the premise that every individual is entitled to an equal opportunity to obtain those positions in society that bring greater economic and social rewards. That being the case, any individual who acquires economic and social gain or position merely by virtue of being an heir descendant would have gained an unfair advantage over other members of society. Of course, the libertarian would defend the existence of inheritance by stating that heirs are entitled to the acquisition of ancestral or bequeathed property, as it does not infringe on anyone else's rights.

In Rawl's view, however, economic and social gains through inheritance would, in fact, constitute an infringement of an individual's inviolable right to justice since there is nothing natural or inevitable about the social emphasis and weight given to transactions between individuals, either current or historical. For one, Rawls or a Rawlsian would contend that though the social arrangements and relationships that historically agreed to certain economic and social arrangements may have been fair and fully honored, there is nothing to gainsay that the conditions for the fair and free agreements still hold. Second, in any case, it would have to be proved that the very social circumstances and context under which the agreement was first arrived at was fair. In other words, a Rawlsian would argue that unless it could be proved that the property and wealth acquired was as per the dictums of an initially just social process, inheritance by entitlement is highly questionable and unfair.

Given the hypothetical basis of the original position and veil of ignorance, which allowed Rawls to develop his Theory of Justice, the Rawlsian would have the advantage in any argument about the justness of inheritance. For humankind's entire history is likely to show evidence that all initial acquisition of property and wealth was, by no means, fair or under a just social context or agreement. Indeed, by and large, the procurement of economic and social power has always been through capitalization of natural differences among human beings and races, be it physical prowess or mental acumen.

This is precisely the point Rawl makes when he points out that the endowment of such natural characteristics is more a function of random genetic selection and the social environment in which an individual is raised. As such, according to a Rawlsian, no moral credit and therefore, no real right to inheritance can be claimed by the notion of either entitlement by ancestral right or entitlement by natural endowment. On the contrary, the Rawlsian concept of justice requires that the social and economic consequences arising from such arbitrarily acquired wealth be minimized.

The Rawlsian position runs contra to the likely utilitarian argument on inheritance as well, since the latter would endorse the legitimacy of inheritance on grounds that the advantages of the beneficiaries would outweigh the disadvantages of all non-beneficiaries. As Rawls points out, even the welfare of society, as a whole, cannot be used as a justification for not granting any individual his fundamental rights to "primary social goods," which includes income and wealth along with liberties, opportunities, status, and self-respect.