Philosophers have been grappling with the definition of Justice since the beginning of western thought. And while many political philosophers have expounded various theories, and the popular theory at the time Professor John Rawls (1921-2002) began his work, utilitarianism was the accepted approach believing that what worked best was the greatest good for most of the people. It is important to understand that this concept underpinned legislation, treaties, and alliances. Rawls’s seminal work in A Theory of Justice, first published in 1971 and later revised, galvanized contemporary political philosophers adding a new dynamic to the field of study. “Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought. Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override” (Rawls, 1999, p. 3). His work became even more important as the Cold War era ended, and self-determination movements emerged worldwide, searching for new forms of government less cumbersome than older colonial and communist systems. His new political liberalism defines the basic structure of society, including the political constitution, legal system, economy, the family, and other aspects (Wenar, 2025, Stanford Encyclopaedia). He presented in three principles bringing with them questions, debate, and even more study.
Central to the research was to determine if such an evolution in political thought was sustainable? Rawls constructed his theory based on two principles:
- Every person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties.
- And social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are (a) reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage, and (b) attached to positions and office open to all (Rawls, 1999, p. 53).
Essentially, Rawls argues that the correct principles of justice for a society are those that citizens would accept if they did not know their own talents or circumstances. However, it goes to a much deeper degree that utilitarianism does not reach. And it defines the most important aspects of justice in a tiered framework beginning with the Liberty Principle. It places the individual first in importance and it remains because of the carefully crafted ‘lexical priority’. The other principles fall in order after Liberty, the Difference Principle and the Fair Opportunity Principle. It is an argument never attempted before.
His first principle, known as the Liberty Principle, confirms the importance of equal basic rights and liberties – which bolsters the advance of western political liberalism (Wenar, 2025, Stanford Encyclopaedia). He requires citizens to be formally equal, but also substantively. The basic liberties Rawls suggests includes the right to vote and be eligible for public office, freedom of speech and assembly, liberty of conscience and freedom of thought, freedom of the person with the right to hold personal property, and freedom from arbitrary arrest and seizure. Equality under the law is the lynchpin of the Liberty Principle. “A Theory of Justice is a powerful, deep, subtle, wide-ranging, systematic work in political and moral philosophy which has not seen its like since the writings of John Stuart Mill, if then” (Nozick, 1974, p. 183). However, Nozick then said he would concentrate on points he may disagree.
Rawls makes quite clear that the basic liberties be given unassailable protection that cannot be “justified, or compensated for, by greater social and economic advantages” (Rawls, 1999, p. 54). This sets the most essential terms for justice with specificity not previously recognized. Yes, he seeks the greater good, but begins by defining where the greater good begins, and then what comes after. There is no vagueness in this prescription for justice, saying “truth and justice are uncompromising” (Rawls, 1999, p. 4).
For Rawls treatise to work requires the will by all the citizens to pursue justice. Political will, ever illusive in history, is central for any effective decisions to become reality. A tree ordinance in a village along a main thoroughfare can be as difficult to achieve as a peace treaty among nations following a war if the will to achieve these goals is absent. In Rawls there is little room for compromise or amendment, unless it is within each person’s best interests. He also notes that the Liberty Principle addresses basic rights and liberties, but the Difference Principle and Fair Opportunity Principle are directed at institutional demands. “The first principle simply requires that certain sorts of rules, those defining basic liberties, apply to everyone equally and that they allow the most extensive liberty compatible with a like liberty for all” (Rawls, 1999, p. 56). He also believes that ideally citizens, in this framework, are rational and reasonable (Wenar, 2025, Stanford Encyclopaedia).
The second principle of justice comprises two components. The first is the Difference Principle, and the second component is the Fair Opportunity Principle. Rawls also established a tiered approach to delineate what applies directly to individuals and what applies to institutional liberties. He argued that the Liberty Principle has ‘lexical priority’ over the Difference Principle, and the Fair Opportunity Principle. The Difference Principle provides for political liberties that are a subset to basic liberties concerning the right to vote and to enjoy further impact by holding public office and thereby influence outcomes.
Rawls sees this configuration of assigning rights and duties gives “a scheme which allocates wealth and income, authority and responsibility, in a fair way” (Rawls, 1999, p. 57). Wenar (2025, Stanford Encyclopaedia) argues that Rawls Difference Principle expresses a positive ideal that creates a broad ideal of social unity. Citizens know that their society works for everyone. These are, of course, idealistic rationales. Western economies embrace capitalistic ideologies that often are not so unifying nor so equal. Does the Difference Principle offset these discrepancies? Rawls’s social contract aligns with the efforts of Locke, Rousseau, and Kant, according to Wenar’s analysis. Concepts considered abstract, and even with the complex nature of the three principles.
Nozick argues that while a society can be cooperative for mutual advantage, it is often marked by conflict as well as an identity of interests (Nozick, 1974, pp. 183-184). The conflict stems from a need to define identity of interests and those citizens are aware of the social advantages of collaboration and how shares are determined, according to Nozick. A contrast between Rawls’s proposal is contrasted with Nozick’s libertarianism and the meritocratic idea of economic justice, Wenar suggests (2025, Stanford Encyclopaedia).
Rawls’s Fair Opportunity Principle embraces the concept for citizens of the same talents and desire to use them have equal educational and economic opportunities regardless of social status. Social and economic origins do not in Rawls’s theory block opportunity for one over the others. “One is not allowed to justify differences in income or in positions of authority and responsibility on the ground that the disadvantages of those in one position are outweighed by the greater advantages of those in another. Much less can infringements of liberty be counterbalanced in this way,” (Rawls, 1999, p. 56).
Rawls interpreted justice as fairness society as “a cooperative venture for mutual advantage” (1999, p. 74). It presumes all citizens accept the principles and rules for a cooperative venture equally. It imbues the government with setting one set of standards for all, even equally, but it tends to ignore, or subdue, individual initiative. What of innovation, research and development, and discoveries? Motivation does not necessarily have to translate into economic rewards, as is a significant force in capitalism, but professional motivation in a field of study may be more valuable. Work by any definition must reward the worker with a sense of accomplishment. For Nozick, he holds a libertarian defence of the free market economy. Even still, these could be acceptable, but only in a perfect world with the same, shared political will. Social justice, to work, must be fairness, Rawls argues. It is the modern social contract, which demands considerable attention and political will.
This notion of political will rages on every continent, every nation-state, and every town constantly. Rawls wanted to construct a dynamic social contract that included the political will necessary to ensure his end goal of justice. He was not writing a constitution, laws, or rules of any given society, instead he sought to create the basic structure that would guide a liberal society. “Rawls constructs justice as fairness around specific interpretations of the ideas that citizens are free and equal, and that society should be fair (Wenar, 20025, Stanford Encyclopaedia). It is a framework for the legitimate use of political power, according to Wenar.
References Cited
Nozick, R., (1974) Anarchy, State, and Utopia, New York: Basic Books.
Rawls, J. (1999) A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wenar, Leif (2005), “John Rawls”, The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (Fall 2025 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2025/entries/rawls/>.
Essays: A Range of Perspecties 
Leave a comment