John Rawls Is Presented as a Justice Theorist

John Rawls' theory…. In his book A Theory of Justice John Rawls offers readers a "Kantian Interpretation" of his "original position," according to an essay in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SAP). First, a review of Rawls' "original position" will set up the explanation of his Kantian link. Rawls posits (in his "original position") that in understanding his philosophy readers should imagine themselves as "…free and equal" and as willing to agree to "commit themselves to the principles of social and political justice" (SAP, p. 1).

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy asserts that the "main distinguishing feature" of Rawls' "original position" is "the veil of ignorance" (SEP, p. 1). What that means is that in order to be certain there is a total "impartiality of judgment, the parties are deprived of all knowledge of their personal characteristics and social and historical circumstances" (SEP. p. 1).

In the original position (the "veil of ignorance") the parties are aware of generalized data on biology, economics, and psychology, but now they are impartial when given a list of justice conceptions and asked to choose from among several alternatives regarding the "…conception of justice that best advances their interests" (SEP).

As for Rawls he sees this experiment as producing two principles of justice: a) the first principle "guarantees the equal basic rights and liberties needed to secure the fundamental interests of free and equal citizens"; moreover in the first principle Rawls asserts that people will be able to "…pursue a wide range of conceptions of the good"; and b) the second principle offers "fair equality of educational and employment opportunities" that allows everyone to have a fair shot at competing for the "powers and prerogatives of office" and guarantees at the very minimum that people will be able to achieve their goals and be self-respecting as well as free and equal (SEP, p.

1). Looked at another way, Rawls actually argues that a just society can be imagined as one in which souls, prior to being born, would agree to be thrust into at birth.

Their self-interest would be up for grabs because they would not know to what degree they would be successful socially or economically, but that, in Rawls' view, would be based on the "veil of ignorance." Rawls can be described as a person who to some degree embraces a "Kantian" philosophy" -- although he believes Kant's view on justice fails to show how "moral principles express our nature" (SEP, p. 2).

Rawls agrees with Kantian constructivism when Kant argues that judgments based on the actual principles of justice "are true" -- and that includes the "moral rules of justice" that are part of the principles of justice. Rawls can consider himself in agreement with Kant when he argues that the principles of justice can be justified based on "certain conceptions and principles" that have as their origin "practical reasoning" (SEP, p. 2).

The bottom line for Rawls when it comes to Kantian philosophy, is that Rawls believes he (Rawls) has "carried through" Kantian theories by showing how "moral principles of justice are the result of 'reason giving principles to itself, out of its own resources'" (SEP, p. 3). In other words, Rawls believed moral principles show true human nature, and through moral principles humans can demonstrate just and fair ways of living if they are free and seen as equals.

Does Rawls' view link him to utilitarianism? Yes, it does link him to utilitarianism. To wit, professor Richard Piccard with Ohio University interprets Rawls as saying (similar to the philosophies of John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham) people should minimize emotional pain and actions are judged "good or bad depending on the consequences that have for you and for others" (Piccard, 2003). Analyze Rawls' pragmatism in terms of other theoretical categories.

Rawls' pragmatism was related to the social relations of human beings; in order to grasp what principles might be appropriate for a given role in society, Rawls' explained that philosophers must first understand the constraints are to be placed on the outcome of the function placed on such principles in the first place. It is Rawls' pragmatism that comes through when he suggests that to know what principles must.