Rawls Theory of Justice Explained: Justice as Fairness

Rawls Theory of Justice Explained: Justice as Fairness

🧭 Introduction: Why Rawls Theory of Justice Still Matters

If you’ve ever looked at the world and thought, “There’s no way this is the fairest we can do,” then you’re already asking the kind of questions behind Rawls theory of justice. John Rawls wanted to know what a fair society would look like before we start arguing about taxes, welfare, or political parties.

In A Theory of Justice (Revised Edition), he calls his approach justice as fairness. It’s essentially a reboot of the classic social contract tradition (think Locke, Rousseau, Kant) at a higher level of abstraction, meant as a serious alternative to utilitarianism, which had dominated Anglo-American political thought for decades.

Rawls divides the project into three parts:

• Part One – Theory: the core ideas (justice as fairness, original position, principles of justice).

• Part Two – Institutions: how those principles shape the basic structure of society.

• Part Three – Ends: what counts as good, how a sense of justice develops, and whether the theory is stable over time.

This article walks through all of that in plain language, while keeping the full content and concepts of Rawls’s framework intact.

---

📘 A Theory of Justice and the Idea of Justice as Fairness

Rawls starts from a bold claim:

Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, just as truth is the first virtue of systems of thought.

So:

• If laws or institutions are unjust, it doesn’t matter how efficient or productive they are — they must be changed or abolished.

• Each person has an inviolability that even the “greater good” of society cannot override.

This immediately pushes back against crude forms of utilitarianism where sacrificing a minority can be “justified” by a bigger total sum of happiness. Rawls theory of justice says: you can’t trade someone’s basic liberties for other people’s benefits.

His project:

• Treat society as a cooperative venture for mutual advantage,

• Recognize both shared interests (cooperation makes everyone better off) and conflicting interests (everyone wants a larger share), and

• Use principles of social justice to decide fair rules of the game: rights, duties, and the distribution of benefits and burdens.

---

🏛️ Justice as the First Virtue of Social Institutions

The primary subject of justice is the basic structure of society — the deep framework of its main institutions:

• The political constitution.

• The core economic system (markets, property rules).

• Social structures such as the family, legal protections, and education.

These aren’t small details. They:

• Shape who gets which opportunities from birth.

• Lock in advantages or disadvantages.

• Create inequalities that can’t be defended by “merit” or “desert,” because people don’t choose their starting position.

So Rawls theory of justice focuses first on these background institutions, not just on individual acts or one-off policies. If the deep structure is fair, the everyday outcomes that flow from it are much more likely to be fair too.

---

🤝 Society, Cooperation, and the Basic Structure

Rawls imagines a well-ordered society:

• Everyone accepts the same public conception of justice.

• Everyone knows that everyone else accepts it.

• The main institutions broadly satisfy that conception.

In such a society, justice is not a secret ideal; it is public, shared, and built into the rules. Rawls theory of justice is mainly about the principles that would regulate such a well-ordered system — a realistic target for modern democracies, not a utopian fantasy.

---

🧱 The Well-Ordered Society in Rawls Theory of Justice

To understand a well-ordered society, Rawls focuses on three questions:

1. What basic rights and liberties should everyone have?

2. How should offices and positions be open to people?

3. How should social and economic advantages be distributed?

The answer is not to say “whatever the market does is fine,” and it’s not “everyone must be exactly equal.” Instead, Rawls theory of justice aims for a structure where:

• Basic liberties are equal and protected for all.

• Opportunities are fairly open, not blocked by birth or wealth.

• Inequalities are allowed only if they improve things for those who are worst off.

That’s where his famous original position comes in.

---

🎭 The Original Position: Contract Without Bias

Rawls revives the social contract idea but in a very controlled way. Instead of imagining real people bargaining, he designs a hypothetical choice situation called the Original Position.

In the Original Position:

• The parties are free and rational.

• They care about advancing their own interests.

• They must choose principles to govern the basic structure of society.

But — and this is the twist — they must choose these principles from behind the veil of ignorance.

---

🕶️ The Veil of Ignorance and Primary Social Goods

The veil of ignorance is the heart of justice as fairness. Behind it, the parties do not know:

• Their class, race, gender, income, or social status.

• Their natural abilities (intelligence, health, strength).

• Their particular values, religion, or life plans.

• The exact economic or political situation of their society.

They do know:

• General facts about human psychology and sociology.

• Basic economics and political science.

• That resources are limited and people have conflicting interests.

Because they’re rational but ignorant of their own place, they aim to secure as many primary social goods as they can — things almost everyone needs, whatever their life plan:

• Rights and liberties.

• Opportunities and powers.

• Income and wealth.

• The social bases of self-respect.

The veil forces impartiality: you can’t rig the rules in favor of the rich if you might turn out to be poor.

---

📐 Rational Choice, Formal Constraints, and Reflective Equilibrium

Rawls also insists the chosen principles must meet formal constraints of a moral conception of right:

• Generality: No names or “rich people get more”-style rigging.

• Universality: Principles must apply to everyone as moral persons.

• Publicity: They must be public and knowable.

• Ordering: They must help rank and resolve conflicting claims.

• Finality: They must serve as the last court of appeal in practical reasoning.

To justify the principles, Rawls uses reflective equilibrium:

• Start with some considered moral judgments (e.g., slavery is wrong).

• Propose principles (from the Original Position).

• Adjust both until they fit together in a coherent system.

So Rawls theory of justice is not just a one-shot thought experiment; it’s a back-and-forth process between principles and our best moral intuitions.

---

🔁 The Maximin Strategy and Risk in Justice as Fairness

A helpful way to picture the choice in the Original Position is to see it as a maximin strategy:

• Look at the worst possible outcome of each social system.

• Choose the system whose worst outcome is better than the worst in other systems.

Why so cautious?

• Behind the veil, you might end up as the least advantaged person.

• You don’t know the probabilities of each position.

• Basic liberties are non-negotiable and can’t be traded for more income.

So Rawls thinks rational parties will protect themselves by maximizing the prospects of the worst-off position, rather than gambling that they’ll be rich and powerful.

---

⚖️ The Two Principles in Rawls Theory of Justice

From the Original Position, Rawls argues that rational parties would select two principles, ordered lexically (the first has priority over the second). The final statement is:

First Principle (Equal Basic Liberties)

Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all.

These basic liberties include:

• Political liberty (voting, running for office).

• Freedom of speech and assembly.

• Liberty of conscience and religion.

• Freedom of thought.

• Freedom of the person and security from arbitrary arrest.

• The right to hold personal property.

Second Principle (Social and Economic Inequalities)

Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both:
(a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just savings principle; and
(b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.

Short version:

• No trade-offs on equal basic liberties.

• Inequalities are allowed only if:

  • They help the worst off (the Difference Principle).

  • Positions are genuinely open under fair equality of opportunity, not just formal equality.

---

🧮 Four Interpretations of the Second Principle

Rawls unpacks four ways to interpret “everyone’s advantage” and “open to all”:

1. System of Natural Liberty

   • Formal equality of opportunity (“careers open to talents”).

   • Combined with efficiency (no one can be made better off without making someone worse off).

   • Problem: outcomes are still heavily shaped by birth and natural talent, which are morally arbitrary.

2. Liberal Equality

   • Fair equality of opportunity + efficiency.

   • Tries to level out social background so people with the same talents and effort have similar prospects, regardless of class.

   • Still allows natural talent distribution to drive big inequalities — again morally arbitrary.

3. Natural Aristocracy

   • Careers open to talents + Difference Principle.

   • Natural elites can benefit others, but social background remains too powerful.

4. Democratic Equality

   • Fair equality of opportunity + Difference Principle together.

   • Corrects both social contingencies (class, family wealth) and natural luck (talent endowments), ensuring inequalities work for everyone, especially the least advantaged.

For Rawls theory of justice, Democratic Equality is the winner. It best expresses reciprocity and the idea that natural advantages are a common asset to be used for mutual benefit, not private entitlement.

---

🧩 From Principles to Policy: The Four-Stage Constitutional Sequence

How do abstract principles shape real-world institutions? Rawls uses a Four-Stage Sequence:

1. Original Position

   • Choose the two principles of justice (maximal ignorance).

2. Constitutional Convention

   • Design a just constitution using the principles.

   • The First Principle of equal liberty is central here.

3. Legislative Stage

   • Pass laws and policies consistent with the constitution and principles of justice.

   • The Second Principle, especially the Difference Principle, guides taxation, welfare, education, etc.

4. Adjudication/Administration

   • Courts and officials apply laws to specific cases with full knowledge of particulars.

This structure shows how Rawls theory of justice moves from an abstract contract to the nuts and bolts of law, policy, and administration.

---

🗽 The Priority of Liberty and Liberty of Conscience

Rawls insists on a strong Priority of Liberty rule:

• The two principles are in lexical order.

• Basic liberties can be restricted only for the sake of liberty itself, and only if:

  • A slightly narrower liberty strengthens the total system of liberty shared by all, or

  • Those with the lesser liberty could reasonably accept the restriction.

Key application: liberty of conscience.

• Behind the veil, you don’t know your religion or worldview.

• You know you’ll care deeply about your moral or spiritual commitments.

• So you choose robust equal liberty of conscience for all, limited only when necessary to protect public order and security — the shared framework that lets everyone pursue their ends.

---

💰 Distributive Justice, Just Savings, and Moral Desert

The Second Principle governs economic life. Rawls leaves open whether a just basic structure is capitalist or socialist, so long as:

• Background institutions enforce fair equality of opportunity.

• The Difference Principle and just savings are respected.

He imagines four main branches of government doing this work:

1. Allocation Branch – Keeps markets competitive, fights monopolies, corrects externalities.

2. Stabilization Branch – Aims at full employment and stable prices.

3. Transfer Branch – Secures a social minimum (e.g., income support, family benefits).

4. Distribution Branch – Uses tools like inheritance and gift taxes to prevent wealth concentrations that violate justice.

🧓 Justice Between Generations and the Just Savings Principle

The Difference Principle doesn’t automatically solve intergenerational justice. Future generations can’t bargain or compensate us.

So Rawls introduces the Just Savings Principle:

• Each generation must save enough (capital, institutions, environment) so that the next can enjoy a just basic structure.

• Once society reaches a stage where just institutions are secure, net saving can level off.

Behind the veil, you represent a family line, not just a single lifetime. You want earlier generations to have done their part, so you agree to a savings principle you’d have wanted them to follow.

📜 Legitimate Expectations vs Moral Desert

Rawls rejects the idea that distributive shares should depend on moral desert (rewarding virtue with material goods):

• People do not deserve their natural abilities or starting social position.

• Those are morally arbitrary and therefore can’t be the basis of distributive justice.

Instead, justice as fairness uses pure procedural justice:

• Set up a just basic structure.

• Let people pursue their plans within that system.

• Whatever distribution results (within the rules) reflects legitimate expectations, not “who deserves what” in some moralistic sense.

---

👤 Duties, Obligations, and Civil Disobedience

Rawls complements institutional principles with principles for individual conduct:

Natural Duties

These apply regardless of consent or special relationships, just because we live with others in society. They include:

• Duty of justice: support and comply with just institutions.

• Duty of mutual aid: help others in need when you can do so at reasonable cost.

• Duty of respect: treat others with the recognition due to moral persons.

These duties make social life more stable and trustworthy.

Obligations and the Principle of Fairness

Obligations arise from voluntary acts under the Principle of Fairness:

• If you accept the benefits of a fair scheme of cooperation, you’re obliged to do your part as the rules specify.

• This is how promises bind, and how office-holders and beneficiaries of special positions acquire political obligations.

Rawls doesn’t reduce all political duty to this principle; natural duties still matter for ordinary citizens.

Civil Disobedience in a Nearly Just Society

Rawls defines civil disobedience as:

• A public, nonviolent, conscientious, but political breach of law.

• Aimed at changing laws or policies by appealing to the sense of justice of the majority.

It is different from:

• Conscientious refusal – private non-cooperation with a specific injustice (e.g., refusing to fight in an unjust war) without a public campaign.

• Militant resistance – involves force or violence.

Civil disobedience is justified when:

1. The injustice is clear and serious, especially violations of basic liberties or fair equality of opportunity.

2. Normal legal and political channels have failed.

3. The action is part of a responsible strategy that does not threaten the overall constitutional order.

In Rawls theory of justice, civil disobedience is not destabilizing chaos; it’s a stabilizing device in a nearly just democracy, helping bring practice back in line with the public conception of justice.

---

🌱 Goodness, Self-Respect, and Human Flourishing

In Part Three, Rawls turns to the question of the good. He uses two related ideas:

1. Thin theory of the good – enough to define primary goods and rational choice in the Original Position.

2. Full theory of the good – developed after the principles of justice are fixed; used to talk about virtues, moral worth, and the good of a just society.

For Rawls, a person’s good is tied to:

• Having a rational plan of life.

• Choosing that plan under deliberative rationality (careful, informed reflection).

🏅 The Aristotelian Principle and Human Excellence

Rawls borrows from Aristotle:

People generally enjoy exercising their developed capacities, and they enjoy it more as those capacities become more refined and complex.

This Aristotelian Principle helps explain why:

• Rational life plans typically include developing one’s talents.

• A just society should create conditions where people can actually do that.

💪 Why Self-Respect Is a Primary Good

Rawls calls self-respect perhaps the most important primary good. It includes:

• Confidence that your life plan is worth pursuing.

• Confidence in your own ability to carry it out.

A society governed by Rawls theory of justice supports self-respect by:

• Publicly affirming equal citizenship for all.

• Ensuring that social and economic inequalities do not turn into public humiliation or status hierarchy.

He also talks about excellences — traits it is rational to want in ourselves and others (like fairness, reliability, skill). A well-ordered society values the internal life of different associations (families, churches, workplaces) without ranking them all by a single perfection standard.

---

🧩 Congruence, Stability, and the Good of Justice

The final big question:

Is it rational, from the standpoint of a person’s own good, to maintain a strong sense of justice?

In other words, does acting justly conflict with living a good life, or is there congruence between the two?

Rawls argues for congruence using several ideas:

1. Autonomy and Objectivity

   • Citizens in a well-ordered society live under principles they would choose in the Original Position.

   • That affirms their autonomy as free and equal moral persons.

2. Social Union of Social Unions

   • Society isn’t just a marketplace; it’s a network of associations (families, teams, communities) where people find meaning together.

   • Justice defines a common final end — a just social order itself — that everyone can affirm.

3. Mitigation of Envy

   • Institutions designed by the two principles limit excusable envy.

   • Equal basic liberties and fair opportunity prevent wealth from turning into caste-like status.

4. Kantian Interpretation and Unity of the Self

   • Acting justly is how we express our deepest identity as free and equal moral agents.

   • So the desire to act justly and the desire to be true to ourselves are, in practice, the same desire.

In this way, Rawls theory of justice tries to dissolve the tension between “what’s right” and “what’s good for me.” In a well-ordered society, you don’t have to choose; they line up.

---

❓ FAQs About Rawls Theory of Justice

1. What is the main idea of Rawls theory of justice?
Rawls theory of justice says that a fair society is one whose basic rules would be chosen by free, rational people behind a veil of ignorance, not knowing their position in that society. From there, they would select two principles: equal basic liberties for all and a structure of inequalities that benefits the least advantaged and preserves fair equality of opportunity.

2. What is “justice as fairness”?
“Justice as fairness” is Rawls’s name for his overall conception. It means justice is what would be agreed to in a fair choice situation (the Original Position) where no one can stack the deck in their favor.

3. How is Rawls different from utilitarians?
Utilitarians aim to maximize total or average happiness, even if that means sacrificing some individuals. Rawls theory of justice forbids sacrificing someone’s basic liberties or status as an equal citizen for others’ benefit. His Difference Principle also focuses on improving the position of the worst off, not just raising the overall sum.

4. What exactly is the veil of ignorance?
The veil of ignorance strips away knowledge of your class, race, gender, talents, and personal values when you choose principles of justice. Because you don’t know where you’ll land, you’re pushed to choose fair rules for everyone, especially in case you end up among the least advantaged.

5. What are primary social goods?
Primary social goods are things everyone needs to pursue their life plans, whatever those plans are. Rawls lists rights, liberties, opportunities, income, wealth, and the social bases of self-respect. The parties behind the veil want more, not less, of these goods because they are useful under almost any conception of the good life.

6. What is the Difference Principle?
The Difference Principle says social and economic inequalities are justified only if they maximize the expectations of the least advantaged group in society. It does not demand strict equality, but any inequality must work for those at the bottom, not just for the top.

7. What is fair equality of opportunity?
Fair equality of opportunity means more than “everyone can apply.” It means society must actively reduce the effects of social background so that people with similar talents and motivation have similar prospects, regardless of the families they’re born into.

8. What is the Just Savings Principle?
The Just Savings Principle spells out what each generation owes to the next. Each generation must save enough to create and maintain just institutions so that future citizens can also live in a society that satisfies the two principles of justice.

9. How does Rawls define civil disobedience?
For Rawls, civil disobedience is a public, nonviolent, conscientious breach of law aimed at changing unjust laws or policies by appealing to the majority’s sense of justice. It is appropriate only in a nearly just society and only after normal political channels have been tried.

10. Why does Rawls care about stability and congruence?
A theory of justice is useless if people can’t live with it. Rawls wants to show that, in a well-ordered society, people will naturally develop a sense of justice and that living justly is compatible with — and even part of — living a good life. That’s the problem of congruence.

11. Is Rawls only talking about Western liberal democracies?
Rawls explicitly aims his theory at constitutional democracies with reasonable pluralism of values. Critics argue this makes his view too “Western,” but he later expanded his project to the international level in The Law of Peoples.

12. Why is Rawls still important today?
You’ll see Rawls theory of justice everywhere in debates about:

• Inequality and redistribution.

• Affirmative action and fair opportunity.

• Human rights and constitutional design.

• Climate and intergenerational justice.

Whenever people say, “would you accept this system if you didn’t know who you’d be?”, that’s Rawls talking in the background.

This comprehensive FAQ draws on the structure and content found within John Rawls’s A Theory of Justice (Revised Edition) sources, covering the fundamental concepts, institutional applications, and theoretical justification of justice as fairness.

---

📘 FAQs – Part One: Theory (Justice as Fairness, The Original Position, and Principles)

🧭 A. The Fundamentals of Justice as Fairness

Q1. What is the central aim of A Theory of Justice?
The central aim is to work out a conception of justice, called “justice as fairness,” that provides a reasonably systematic alternative to utilitarianism, which has long dominated the Anglo-Saxon tradition of political thought. This theory generalizes and carries the traditional theory of the social contract (associated with Locke, Rousseau, and Kant) to a higher level of abstraction.

Q2. What is the primary role of justice in society?
Justice is the first virtue of social institutions. Regardless of how efficient they are, laws and institutions must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust. Justice establishes an inviolability for each person that cannot be overridden, even for the welfare of society as a whole.

Q3. What is the primary subject of justice?
The primary subject is the basic structure of society. This is defined as the way major social institutions distribute fundamental rights and duties and determine the division of advantages resulting from social cooperation. Major institutions include the political constitution, competitive markets, private property, and the family.

Q4. Why is the basic structure the primary subject?
Its effects are so profound and present from the start. The structure favors certain starting positions over others, creating deep and pervasive inequalities that cannot possibly be justified by notions of merit or desert.

Q5. What is the definition of a “well-ordered society”?
A well-ordered society is one designed to advance the good of its members and is effectively regulated by a public conception of justice. In such a society, everyone accepts and knows that others accept the same principles, and the basic social institutions satisfy and are known to satisfy these principles.

🎭 B. The Original Position and Justification

Q6. What is the main idea underlying “justice as fairness”?
The main idea is that the principles of justice for the basic structure of society are the object of an original agreement. These principles are those which free and rational persons, concerned to further their own interests, would accept in an initial position of equality.

Q7. What is the Original Position (OP)?
The OP is a purely hypothetical situation and the appropriate initial status quo which ensures that the fundamental agreements reached are fair. It connects the theory of justice with the theory of rational choice, as justification is settled by determining which principles it would be rational to adopt given the contractual situation.

Q8. What are the key restrictions imposed by the Veil of Ignorance?
The Veil of Ignorance excludes specific contingent knowledge to nullify the effects of circumstances that put men at odds. Parties in the OP do not know:

• Their place in society, class position, or social status.
• Their fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities (intelligence, strength, etc.).
• Their conception of the good, particular rational plan of life, or special psychological features (like aversion to risk).
• The particular circumstances of their society (economic/political situation or level of civilization) or which generation they belong to.

Q9. What do the parties know behind the Veil of Ignorance?
The parties know the general facts about human society, political affairs, economic theory, social organization, and the laws of human psychology. There are no limitations on general information, as conceptions of justice must be adjusted to the characteristics of the systems they regulate.

Q10. What are Primary Social Goods, and why are they necessary?
Primary goods are defined as things that every rational man is presumed to want. They are necessary whatever a person’s rational plan of life may be. They include rights, liberties, opportunities, income, wealth, and the social bases of self-respect.

Q11. How are the parties motivated in the Original Position?
The parties are assumed to be mutually disinterested and rational. They are deprived of knowledge of their own conception of the good, but they know they want more primary social goods rather than less, making their deliberations rational and non-arbitrary. This assumption, combined with the Veil of Ignorance, achieves the effect of benevolence without its complications, avoiding the illusion that justice as fairness is egoistic.

Q12. What is Reflective Equilibrium?
It is the process of seeking the most favored description of the initial situation by working from both ends. We adjust the conditions of the initial situation or revise our considered judgments (provisional fixed points) until principles and judgments coincide.

Q13. What are the Formal Constraints of the Concept of Right that principles must satisfy?
Principles chosen must be:

1. General: Formulable without proper names or rigged descriptions.
2. Universal: Must hold for everyone in virtue of their being moral persons.
3. Publicity: Must be recognized as a public conception of justice, known to all.
4. Ordering: Must impose an ordering on conflicting claims.
5. Finality: They must constitute the final court of appeal in practical reasoning.

⚖️ C. The Two Principles of Justice

Q14. What is the final statement of the Two Principles of Justice (the Special Conception)?
The principles are ranked in lexical order:

First Principle (Equal Basic Liberties): Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all.

Second Principle (Social and Economic Inequalities): Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both:
(a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just savings principle, and
(b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.

Q15. What is the meaning of the lexical (serial) order of the principles?
Lexical order means the first principle must be fully satisfied before the second can be considered. The basic liberties hold with an absolute weight relative to economic and social advantages.

Q16. What is the Difference Principle, and how does it relate to equality?
The Difference Principle (2a) states that inequalities are justified only if they maximize the expectations of the least advantaged. It expresses a fundamental tendency to equality. It views the distribution of natural talents as a common asset and holds that those who benefit from better fortune must do so only in ways that improve the situation of those who fared worse.

Q17. How does Justice as Fairness incorporate the Maximin Rule?
The maximin rule (ranking alternatives by their worst possible outcomes) is not a general rule for choice under uncertainty, but it applies specifically to the Original Position. The OP exhibits special features (like the exclusion of likelihood knowledge) that favor the conservative attitude expressed by this rule, supporting the choice of the two principles.

Q18. What is the principle of Fair Equality of Opportunity?
This liberal principle states that offices and positions must be open to all, ensuring that individuals with the same talents and motivation have the same life prospects, irrespective of their initial social class.

Q19. How does Justice as Fairness ensure fair distribution?
The theory relies heavily on the concept of pure procedural justice. If the system of rules (the basic structure) is just, then the resulting distribution of shares is also just, regardless of what that distribution looks like. This removes the need to define the just distribution based on the specific preferences or claims of particular individuals.

📜 D. Duties, Obligations, and Rival Conceptions

Q20. What is the fundamental difference between Natural Duties and Obligations?
Natural Duties (e.g., duty of justice, mutual aid, mutual respect) apply unconditionally to all persons regardless of their voluntary acts. Obligations arise only from the Principle of Fairness.

Q21. What is the Principle of Fairness?
It requires a person to fulfill their part as specified by the rules of an institution if they have voluntarily accepted the benefits or taken advantage of the opportunities it offers, provided that the institution is itself just or fair. This principle accounts for all obligations, including that of keeping promises.

Q22. How does Justice as Fairness compare to Classical Utilitarianism?
Classical Utilitarianism (exemplified by Sidgwick) aims to maximize the greatest net balance of satisfaction summed over all individuals. The contract doctrine rejects this because it allows the sacrifice of some individuals’ liberties or interests for the greater aggregate good, violating the inviolability of the person established by justice. The OP parties would reject classical utilitarianism in favor of the average utility principle (or the two principles) because they are concerned with advancing their own individual interests, not maximizing the total sum of satisfaction.

Q23. Why is Average Utilitarianism also rejected in the OP?
Although maximizing average utility is more plausible than classical utilitarianism, it is still risky. The parties in the OP, given the extreme uncertainty caused by the Veil of Ignorance, would favor the two principles because they guarantee a satisfactory minimum (basic liberties and the social minimum) that they would not jeopardize for potentially greater gains promised by utility.

Q24. What is Intuitionism, and how does Justice as Fairness address it?
Intuitionism is the doctrine that there is an irreducible family of first principles that must be weighed against one another by intuition, lacking higher-order constructive criteria for assigning weights. Justice as fairness addresses the intuitionist’s “priority problem” by proposing a constructive solution, specifically the lexical ordering of the two principles, thereby reducing the reliance on unguided intuition.

---

🏛️ Part Two: Institutions (Constitutional Applications, Economy, and Duty)

🗳️ E. Applying Principles and the Priority of Liberty

Q25. What is the purpose of the Four-Stage Sequence?
The Four-Stage Sequence (Original Position, Constitutional Convention, Legislative Stage, and Adjudication/Administration) is a device to clarify how the principles of justice are to be applied to the basic structure. At each stage, the Veil of Ignorance is relaxed only to allow knowledge necessary to apply principles intelligently, while ruling out facts that might cause bias.

Q26. How is the priority of liberty defined?
The First Priority Rule dictates that liberty can be restricted only for the sake of liberty itself. There are two cases:

1. A less extensive liberty must strengthen the total system of liberties shared by all;
2. A less than equal liberty must be acceptable to those citizens with the lesser liberty.

Q27. How does the theory justify equal liberty of conscience?
The parties in the OP would choose equal liberty of conscience because they recognize they have fundamental moral, religious, or philosophical interests they cannot jeopardize. The only restriction on this liberty is when the state can establish by publicly recognized criteria that it clearly interferes with the common interest in public order and security.

Q28. Under what conditions should the intolerant be tolerated?
An intolerant sect has no just title to complain if it is not tolerated, since its complaint would violate the principles it accepts. Tolerant sects have the right not to tolerate intolerant ones only when the intolerant threaten the basic liberties and the existence of the constitution. The use of force is only justified when intolerance endangers the basic liberties of others, and should be the minimum necessary to secure equal liberty.

Q29. What is the Principle of Participation?
This principle, applied during the constitutional stage, requires establishing equal rights to engage in public affairs. This includes political liberties like the right to vote, hold office, freedom of speech and assembly. It also mandates that measures be taken to maintain the fair value of these liberties, ensuring citizens regardless of class position have an equal chance to influence policy.

💰 F. Distributive Justice, Economic Systems, and Generations

Q30. What four branches of government are necessary to maintain distributive justice?
To achieve background fairness, the government uses four branches, regulated by the principles of justice:

1. Allocation Branch: Keeps the economy competitive and prevents unreasonable market power.
2. Stabilization Branch: Strives to secure full employment and stable prices.
3. Transfer Branch: Guarantees a social minimum (e.g., through family allowances or negative income tax), taking needs into account.
4. Distribution Branch: Preserves the approximate justice of distributive shares over time, mainly through taxation on inheritance and gifts.

Q31. Does Justice as Fairness dictate a private property or a socialist regime?
The theory of justice leaves open the question of whether its principles are best realized by a property-owning democracy (wide ownership of assets and human capital) or a liberal socialist regime (public ownership of production means). The decision rests on the historical conditions, traditions, and institutions of each country.

Q32. How is the problem of justice between generations addressed?
Since the Difference Principle cannot apply across generations (later ones cannot compensate earlier ones), the parties in the OP must adopt a Just Savings Principle. They are assumed to represent family lines who care for their immediate descendants. This principle requires them to agree to a saving rate that they wish all earlier generations to have followed, ensuring accumulation continues until a material base for effective just institutions is established.

Q33. What is the relationship between distributive shares and moral desert?
Justice as fairness holds that income and wealth are distributed based on legitimate expectations derived from a just basic structure, not on moral desert (happiness according to virtue). The concept of moral worth is secondary; it can only be defined after the principles of right and justice are established (e.g., having a sense of justice), so it cannot be a first principle of distribution.

✊ G. Compliance and Political Action

Q34. What are the natural duties relating to political institutions?
The most fundamental is the natural duty of justice, which requires us to support and comply with just institutions when they exist. This duty binds citizens generally and requires no voluntary acts to apply.

Q35. What is the definition of Civil Disobedience?
Civil disobedience is defined as a public, nonviolent, conscientious yet political act contrary to law, usually done with the aim of bringing about a change in the law or government policy. It is an address to the sense of justice of the majority.

Q36. What distinguishes Civil Disobedience from Conscientious Refusal?
Civil Disobedience is a political act intended to address the majority’s sense of justice and change public policy. Conscientious refusal is noncompliance with a legal injunction or administrative order (e.g., refusing military service in an unjust war) which is not necessarily public or aimed at swaying the majority’s views, but rather a personal choice to avoid performing a wrong action.

Q37. What conditions justify Civil Disobedience in a nearly just society?
It is generally justified when: 1. The injustice protested involves clear, substantial violations of justice (e.g., of the equal basic liberties or fair equality of opportunity). 2. Normal political appeals have been unsuccessfully attempted. 3. The action is coordinated to maintain order and avoid jeopardizing the constitution.

Q38. How is the Law of Nations derived in the theory?
The Original Position is extended by thinking of the parties as representatives of different nations. Deprived of knowledge of their relative power or particular circumstances, they must choose fundamental principles to adjudicate conflicting claims among states, leading to principles of just relations, including constraints on the means of war.

---

🌱 Part Three: Ends (Goodness, Sense of Justice, and Stability)

🎯 H. Goodness as Rationality

Q39. What are the two theories of the good used in Justice as Fairness?

1. Thin Theory of the Good: Used to define the primary goods and explicate the rationality of the parties before the principles of justice are chosen.
2. Full Theory of the Good: Used after the principles of justice are secured to define concepts like moral worth, virtues, and the good of a well-ordered society.

Q40. How is a person’s “good” or “happiness” defined?
A person’s good is defined by what is for him the most rational long-term plan of life chosen with deliberative rationality given reasonably favorable circumstances. A person is happy when they are more or less successfully carrying out this rational plan.

Q41. What is the Aristotelian Principle?
This basic principle of motivation states that human beings enjoy the exercise of their realized capacities (innate or trained abilities), and this enjoyment increases the more the capacity is realized, or the greater its complexity. This principle helps explain why rational plans normally include the development and exercise of one’s powers.

Q42. Why is self-respect the most important primary good?
Self-respect (or self-esteem) includes a person’s secure conviction that their plan of life is worth carrying out and confidence in their ability to fulfill intentions. Without it, nothing may seem worth doing, leading to apathy and cynicism. The parties in the OP would avoid social conditions that undermine self-respect at almost any cost.

Q43. How do the principles of justice support self-respect?
The principles of justice achieve this by publicly affirming the status of equal citizenship for all and by rejecting the principle of perfection. This democracy in judging each other’s aims, rather than ranking them by achievement or status, is the foundation of self-respect in a well-ordered society.

🧠 I. The Sense of Justice and Stability

Q44. What are the three stages through which the sense of justice is acquired?
Based on principles of moral psychology founded on reciprocity, the sense of justice develops in three stages in a well-ordered society:

1. The Morality of Authority: Centered in the family, resulting in the acquisition of love for parents and “authority guilt”.
2. The Morality of Association: Developed through participation in social organizations (associations), leading to mutual trust and “association guilt”.
3. The Morality of Principles: Acquisition of the sense of justice as the individual recognizes the benefits and fairness of institutions, leading to “principle guilt”.

Q45. Why is Justice as Fairness inherently stable?
It is inherently stable because the psychological laws governing the acquisition of moral sentiments are based on reciprocity. The more effective operation of one moral psychological law strengthens the others, reinforcing the desire to act justly and support the institutions of a well-ordered society.

Q46. What is the basis of equality in Justice as Fairness?
The basis of equality rests on the moral personality. This is the capacity for a sense of justice (the capacity to understand, apply, and act from the principles of justice) and the capacity for a conception of the good (the capacity to form, revise, and rationally pursue a rational plan of life).

Q47. Does equality rely on the realized capacities of persons?
No. The minimum capacity defining moral personality is sufficient, meaning a being that has this capacity, whether or not it is yet developed (e.g., children), is to receive the full protection of the principles of justice.

🤝 J. The Good of Justice and Congruence

Q48. What is the concept of a Social Union?
A well-ordered society is conceived as a social union of social unions. This ideal holds that individuals rely on the distinct excellences and realized powers of others in complementary ways. Only in active cooperation within a social union can the individual’s powers reach fruition, and the collective activity expresses the sum of the potentialities of the membership as a whole.

Q49. What is Congruence and why is it important?
Congruence is the determination that the sense of justice coheres with a person’s good. This is crucial for stability: it means that in a well-ordered society, it is rational for a person to affirm and maintain their effective sense of justice because doing so is part of their own rational plan of life.

Q50. How does the Kantian interpretation explain congruence?
The Kantian interpretation suggests that the desire to act justly is practically the same as the desire to express one’s nature as a free and equal rational being. By following the principles they would choose in the OP, individuals exhibit their freedom and independence, demonstrating that the right and the good fit together in a well-ordered society.

---

The entire conception—the initial choice of principles, their implications for institutions, and their coherence with human psychology and goodness—provides a unified structure for justice as fairness. From the viewpoint of the OP, the perspective of eternity (“sub specie aeternitatis“) allows rational persons to adopt regulative principles that can be affirmed by everyone, regardless of their generation or individual standpoint.

---

🏁 Practical Takeaways

If we had to compress A Theory of Justice into one sentence, it might be this:

Design the basic rules of society as if you didn’t know who you’ll be in it.

Rawls theory of justice:

• Uses the Original Position and veil of ignorance to filter out bias.

• Produces two principles — Equal Basic Liberties and the Difference Principle with Fair Equality of Opportunity — that protect dignity and self-respect for everyone, especially the least advantaged.

• Shows how those principles shape constitutions, laws, economic branches, duties, and even justified civil disobedience.

• Argues that living under such a scheme is not only fair, but also psychologically stable and personally rational in the long run.

As an alternative to utilitarianism, Rawls doesn’t let us sacrifice some people’s basic liberties or life chances just because it makes the numbers look good. Instead, he locks in equal freedom, demands real opportunity, and only allows inequalities that can be justified to those at the bottom.

For anyone thinking seriously about democracy, rights, inequality, and the design of institutions, the Rawls theory of justice is still one of the sharpest tools on the shelf.

🏁🚀 Conclusion: Justice as Fairness in an Age of AI

Rawls gave us a way to think about justice that forces us to imagine society from behind the veil of ignorance. You don’t know your wealth, race, health, abilities, or social position – so you pick rules that protect you even if you land at the bottom. That’s the core power of justice as fairness: it locks in equal basic liberties, insists on real (not fake) equality of opportunity, and only accepts inequalities that genuinely improve life for the least advantaged.

Now we’re in a world Rawls never saw: algorithmic credit scoring, automated hiring filters, predictive policing, AI-driven welfare risk models, and recommender systems that quietly shape our opportunities. Whether we like it or not, AI systems are becoming part of the basic structure that distributes chances, information, and even attention. If we ignore that, we’ve basically abandoned Rawls at the exact moment we need him most.

The good news is that AI and modern tech don’t have to be the villains here. Used properly, they can reinforce justice as fairness instead of undermining it:

• Simulating the veil of ignorance: We can use modelling and simulation to test policies and algorithms on virtual populations where we don’t “privilege” any one group. Instead of asking, “Does this system maximize profit?” we can ask, “What happens to the least advantaged in thousands of simulated scenarios?” That’s a computational version of the Difference Principle.

• Auditing algorithms for equal liberty and fair opportunity: Tools for fairness testing, bias detection, and explainability can check whether an AI model effectively violates equal basic liberties or fair equality of opportunity. For example, if a hiring algorithm silently buries applications from people who grew up in certain postal codes, a fairness audit can surface that and force a redesign of the model or the data pipeline.

• Making the basic structure more transparent: Rawls insists on publicity – principles must be knowable and understandable. Explainable AI, open documentation, and transparent data governance frameworks move us closer to that ideal. When citizens can see how an automated decision system works, they can meaningfully challenge it, demand justification, or push for reform.

• Designing policy with the least advantaged in mind: AI can help policymakers explore the impact of tax changes, welfare reforms, zoning laws, or education funding on different segments of the population. Instead of vague hand-waving about “growth,” we can directly evaluate: Do these changes actually improve the position of those at the bottom, or are we just making the already comfortable even more comfortable?

• Supporting civil disobedience and accountability: In a nearly just society, Rawls sees civil disobedience as a stabilizing force. Today, technology can help document abuses, coordinate peaceful action, and keep a public record when institutions drift away from their professed principles. AI-powered analysis of court decisions, policing data, or social outcomes can reveal patterns of injustice that would otherwise stay buried in spreadsheets.

Of course, AI itself is not morally neutral. Who builds it, who owns it, whose data it feeds on, and which metrics it optimizes all matter. Left to pure market logic, AI tends to drift toward efficiency and profit, not Rawlsian reciprocity. That’s why the Rawlsian questions have to sit right at the design table:

• Would I accept this system if I didn’t know whether I’d be rich or poor, healthy or disabled, part of a majority or a minority?

• Are basic liberties and real opportunities protected first, before we start chasing efficiency gains?

• Do the benefits of this technology genuinely reach the least advantaged, or just the same people who always win?

If we take those questions seriously, AI becomes more than a shiny optimization toy. It becomes a tool for institutional self-critique – a way to stress-test our laws, markets, and platforms against the standard of justice as fairness.

In that sense, Rawls gives us a philosophical operating system, and AI is just a very powerful app running on top of it. The danger is letting the app rewrite the OS. The opportunity is using that computational power to move closer to the kind of well-ordered society Rawls imagined: one where basic liberties are secure, opportunities are genuinely open, and inequalities are only tolerated when they can be justified to those with the least.

If we’re willing to design our technologies as if we didn’t know who we’ll be in the system they create, we’re already thinking like Rawls. The next step is to actually build our algorithms, institutions, and policies that way – and to keep using AI not just to predict human behavior, but to check whether we’re still living up to justice as fairness.

---

📚 Sources & References

These are good starting points if you want to go deeper into Rawls theory of justice:

• John Rawls – A Theory of Justice (1971, revised edition). Belknap Press.

• “John Rawls” – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
  – https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rawls/ (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

• “Original Position” – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
  – https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/original-position/ (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

• “A Theory of Justice” – Wikipedia
  – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Theory_of_Justice (Wikipedia)

• Brian Davies, “John Rawls: A Theory of Justice” – 1000-Word Philosophy
  – https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2018/07/27/john-rawls-a-theory-of-justice/ (1000-Word Philosophy)

• On Just Savings and Intergenerational Justice
  – https://rdoody.com/RawlsJustSavingPrinciple.pdf (Rdoody)