John Rawls' Theory of Justice as Fairness: Principles of Original Position, Veil of Ignorance and Two Principles of Justice.

John Rawls a American moral and political philosopher and thinker, known for his work on theories of justice. Theory of Justice as Fairness developed by him in his influential book A Theory of Justice (1971) offers a philosophical conception/belief or perception of achieving a fairer form of socio-political structures through notions of fairness and equality.  John Rawls argues that just institutions are those selected behind a veil of ignorance where rational agents, unaware or don’t know of their individual social positions, consent to principles to govern society. The principles includes equal basic liberties for everyone and the second principle and after that followed by difference principle that allows for social and economic inequality so long as it serves to allow the most disadvantaged to advance. 

JOHN RAWLS’ THEORY OF JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS

Rawls’ A Theory of Justice published on 1971 and later updated or we can say refined in many subsequent works including "Political Liberalism" (1993) and "Justice as Fairness: A Restatement" (2001). In the concept of justice his defends is quite compelling and is referred to as "justice as fairness." Rawls' theory of justice gives a theoretical structure for a well ordered and just society, and is grounded in his own ideas of a social contract.  “Rawls seeks to determine the principles that free and rational persons, concerned to further their own interests, would freely and reasonably agree to in an original position of equality, as defining the basic terms of their association.” In this understanding of justice, Rawls even identifies another key aspects to his reasoning, which he believed offers another way to think about issues of justice as opposed to utilitarianism(or an alternative to utilitarianism); because utilitarianism does not adequately protect rights and liberties of individuals”. The focus of "justice as fairness" is identified by two things. First is the distinctive way to derive justice principles or the original position. The second aspect is determined by the principles that Rawls identifies and argues that would emerge from this hypothetical scenario.

1. The Original Position

The original position is strictly a hypothetical, thought experiment, or a thought experiment process in order to lead to a certain conception of justice. Specifically, Rawls asks us to imagine that individuals (the role of individuals will also represent a certain type of situation) come together in order to choose the principles that govern the basic structure of their society. The basic structure means the collective main political, social, and economic institutions of society, and how each of those institutions fit together into one overarching unified system of social cooperation.

The most important thing about original position is it conceived as fair situation. Parties imagined as free, equal moral persons (created equal moral persons), that have capacity of sense of just and of a idea of the good. They are rational in the sense that they will want to choose the best means to whatever ends they may have with their primary ends in the "primary goods" which are those things that all and every and all rational person is assumed to want, to include rights, liberties, opportunities, income, and wealth, and social bases of self-respect.

2. The Veil of Ignorance

So to guarantee fairness of choice scenario, Rawls imposes an important limitation on parties in original position by means of the "veil of ignorance". Veil places parties under a limitation of and are deprived of specific types of particular information about themselves and society. Specifically parties do not know: Their place in society (class position or social status), Their natural assets and abilities (intelligence, strength, talents), Their conception of the good (their particular life plans moral or religious views), The particular circumstances of their own society (economic or political situation, level of civilization and culture),The generation to which they belong.

However, parties do know some general information about human-Society, they aware something about politics and principles of economic theory; they know something about bases of social organization and laws of human psychology. Essentially they know every general fact that matters to the choice the principles of justice. The veil of ignorance is essential because it eliminates the effect of particular contingencies that set men against each other and lead them to use social and natural circumstances for their own private advantage. Since no one knows the particulars of their situation, no one can select principles that are fashioned for a specific condition or interest. The parties must choose principles from an impartial perspective, assured that the agreement is fair for all. Since they don't aware or know whether they will be rich or poor, arise from a majority or a minority, they will be similarly motivated to choose principles that are agreeable to all people regardless of their condition. This leads them to evaluate principles based on how they would fare if they were in the position of least advantaged members or groupsof society.

3. The Two Principles of Justice

He contends that situated in the Original Position and behind the Veil of Ignorance, the actors/(citizens or societies) would unanimously agrees to two principles of justice, arranged in lexical order:

(A) The Principle of Equal Basic Liberties

Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties that is compatible with a similar system of liberty for all. This first principle claims that certain basic liberties are so fundamental they are not to be traded off against social, or economic benefits. Those basic liberties includes Political liberty (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 and the right to hold (personal) property, Freedom from arbitrary arrest and seizure consistent with the rule of law.

He stresses the fact that liberties are to be equal, one person's liberties cannot be more expansive than another's, and the system of liberties must be the most extensive possible as long as all can enjoy similar scheme of liberties. This mentioned principle is to have priority over the second principle, meaning that basic liberties can only be restricted for the sake of other basic liberties and not for greater social or economic benefit.

(B) The Second Principle 

Social and economic disparities or what we say inequalities can be given allowed so they are both: 

• to the greatest benefit of least advantaged members of society (the Difference Principle); 
•  attached to offices/positions open to all under some conditions of fair equality of opportunity (Fair Equality of Opportunity Principle).

The second principle governs goods distribution both social and economic e.g. income, wealth,opportunity. It does not require equal distributions, but allows for inequalities under the following two conditions:

(a) Fair Equality of Opportunity: This condition states that individuals with the same abilities and aspirations should have the same chance of obtaining desirable jobs and positions, regardless of social class of origin, family background or other contingent factors. It encompasses more than simply formal equality of opportunity (which states that there can be no legal barriers to access), because it requires the social system to take steps to lessen the effects on life prospects of social contingencies. This may include ensuring that individuals have the same access to education and necessities for developing their abilities. “Fair equality of opportunity” has lexical order over the difference principle. 

(b) The Difference Principle: This is probably the most distinctive part of Rawls's theory. It says that “social and economic inequalities are justified only if they are to the greatest benefit of the ‘least-advantaged’ members of society”. The "least advantaged" are can understood as those who have the least share of primary goods (like income and wealth). The guiding idea is that because the distribution of natural talents is morally arbitrary (no one deserves natural ability), our society should be organized to maximize the benefits of arbitrary differences for everyone but especially for those who have done least well on the natural lottery. Inequalities are justified if they are incentives which in turn encourage overall productivity, so for example, even the poorest members and groups of society are better off than they would be under either strict equality or somehow a worse distributive arrangement. Equality is the baseline, and any deviation must enhance everyone's situation, but mainly the worst-off.

Conclusion 

In Conclusion, John Rawls' theory of justice as fairness is one of the most influential philosophical frameworks in modern political theory. Developed in his seminal work A Theory of Justice (1971), Rawls sought to establish principles of justice that could guide the structure of a fair society. If you're searching for John Rawls theory of justice as fairness pdf, the original book is widely available online, but this article provides a distilled explanation to help students and researchers alike. For those preparing for exams, such as John Rawls' theory of justice UPSC or John Rawls theory of justice IGNOU, understanding this theory is crucial for topics in political philosophy and ethics.

John Rawls, an American philosopher (1921–2002), revolutionized liberal thought by challenging utilitarian approaches that prioritized the greatest good for the greatest number, often at the expense of minorities. Instead, Rawls proposed "justice as fairness," emphasizing impartiality and equality. Write a note on John Rawls' Theory of justice? Start here: Rawls imagined a hypothetical "original position" where individuals design society's rules behind a "veil of ignorance." In this state, people don't know their own social status, wealth, talents, or even gender and race, ensuring decisions are unbiased and fair.

This concept is particularly relevant for educational contexts. For instance, in John Rawls' theory of justice Class 11 syllabi, students often explore how Rawls' ideas apply to real-world inequalities, such as in India or global settings. If you need john rawls' theory of justice notes pdf, many online resources compile summaries, but Rawls' core argument is that rational individuals in the original position would agree on principles that protect the least advantaged.

Applications and Criticisms

Rawls' theory has wide applications, from policy-making to international relations. In John Rawls' theory of justice UPSC preparations, it's often linked to debates on affirmative action or economic reforms. Similarly, John Rawls theory of justice IGNOU courses delve into its implications for distributive justice in developing nations.

However, critics argue the veil of ignorance is too abstract. Communitarians like Michael Sandel claim it ignores cultural contexts, while libertarians like Robert Nozick see it as infringing on property rights. Feminists, such as Susan Moller Okin, question its gender neutrality. Despite these, Rawls refined his ideas in later works like Political Liberalism (1993)