JOHN RAWLS : THE CASE FOR EQUALITY

               

   Most of us Americans never signed a social contract. In fact, the only people in the United States who have actually agreed to abide by the Constitution(public officials aside) are naturalized citizens --- immigrants who have taken an oath of allegiance as a condition of their citizenship. The rest of us are never required, or even asked, to give our consent. So why are we obligated to obey the law ? And how can we say that our government rests on the consent of the governed ?
   John Locke says we've given tacit consent. Anyone who enjoys the benefits of a government, even by traveling on the highway, implicitly consents to the law, and is bound by it. But tacit consent is a pale form of the real thing. It is hard to see how just passing through town is morally akin to ratifying the Constitution.
   Immanuel Kant appeals to hypothetical consent. A law is just if it could have been agreed to by the public as a whole. But this, too, is a puzzling alternative to an actual social contract. How can a hypothetical agreement do the moral work of a real one ? 

   John Rawls (1921--2002), an American political philosopher, offers an illuminating answer to this question. In A Theory of Justice(1971), he argues that the way to think about justice is to ask what principles we would agree to in an initial situation of equality. Rawls reasons as follows : Suppose we gathered, just as we are, to choose the principles to govern our collective life---to write a social contract. What principles would we choose ? We would probably find it difficult to agree. Different people would favor different principles, reflecting their various interests, moral and religious beliefs, and social positions. Some people are rich and some are poor ; some are powerful and well connected ; others, less so. Some are members of racial, ethnic, or religious minorities ; others, not. We might settle on a compromise. But even the compromise would likely reflect the superior bargaining power of some over others. There is no reason to assume that a social contract arrived at in this way would be a just arrangement.

   Now consider a thought experiment : Suppose that when we gather to choose the principles, we don't know where we will wind up in society. Imagine that we choose behind a "veil of ignorance" that temporarily prevents us from knowing anything about who in particular we are. We don't know our class or gender, our race or ethnicity, our political opinions or religious convictions. Nor do we know our advantages and disadvantages ---whether we are healthy of frail. highly educated or a high school dropout, born to a supportive family or a broken one. In no one knew any of these things, we would choose, in effect, from an original position of equality. Since no one would have a superior bargaining position, the principles we would agree to would be just. 
   This is Rawls' idea of a social contract --- a hypothetical agreement in an original position of equality. Rawls invites us to ask what principles we --- as rational, self-interested persons---would choose if we found ourselves in that position. He doesn't assume that we are all motivated by self-interest in real life ; only that we set aside our moral and religious convictions for purposes of the thought experiment. What principles would we choose ? 
   First of all, we would not choose utilitarianism. Behind the veil of ignorance, each of us would think, "For all I know, I might wind up being a member of an oppressed minority." And no one would want to risk being the Christian thrown to the lions for the pleasure of the crowd. Nor would we choose a purely laissez-faire, libertarian principle that would give people a right to keep all the money they made in the market economy. "I might wind up being Bill Gates," each person would reason, "but then again, I might turn out to be a homeless person. So I'd better avoid a system that could leave me destitute and without help. 

          RAWLS' TWO PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE

   Rawls believes that two principles of justice would emerge from the hypothetical contract. The first provides equal basic liberties for all citizens, such as freedom of speech and religion. This principle takes priority over considerations of social utility and the general welfare. The second principle concerns social and economic equality. Although it does not require an equal distribution of income and wealth, it permits only those social and economic inequalities that work to the advantage of the least well off members of society.
   Philosophers argue about whether or not the parties to Rawls's hypothetical social contract would choose the principles he says they would. In a moment, we'll see why Rawls thinks these two principles would be chosen. But before turning to the principles, we need to take up a prior question : Is Rawls's thought experiment the right way to think about justice ? How can principles of justice possibly be derived from an agreement that never actually took place ?