Hello there, do you want to know everything about John Rawls'. I have discussed John Rawls' Theory of Justice as Fairness: Principles of Original Position, Veil of Ignorance and Two Principles of Justice in previous posts make sure you read them first and then come back here.
John Rawls’ main seminal work, A Theory of Justice (in 1971), introduces the principles and concept of justice as fairness, which has become one of the most influential theories in modern political philosophy. In this theory we know three key components: the original position, the veil of ignorance, and two principles of justice. “The original position is a hypothetical social contract scenario where rational individuals is placed behind a veil of ignorance is deprived of any knowledge about their social status, class, talents, or personal biases are select the principles that will govern the basic structure of society, that ensures impartiality and fairness in the decision-making process”. From this original position he argue that individuals should unanimously agree on “two fundamental principles: first the principle is equal basic liberties principle for all; and second, a principle that permits social and economic inequalities only if they benefit the least advantaged (the difference principle), and are attached to positions opens to all under fair equality of opportunity.” While Theory of Justice gives a strong, logical and rational model justice within a single society or nation-state, it is notably limited in its treatment of international or global justice. Rawls' focus remains primarily on the internal structure of a well ordered society, leaving questions of global/international inequality, transnational obligations, and international justice largely unaddressed within this original framework or structure.
In The Law of Peoples (1999), he extends his Theory of justice beyond the domestic space to the international dominion or realm by shifting the unit of moral considerations from individuals to "peoples" which defined as organized societies with common moral and political values.While Rawls doing this he given eight principles intended to govern just and peaceful interactions among liberal and decent peoples. His these principles emphasize mutual respect, non-intervention, the observance of treaties, and the safeguarding of basic human rights that aiming to establish a stable framework for international cooperation. However, Rawls deliberately exclude or keeps out “global distributive justice” principles such as the “difference principle” from this framework. He argues that the reason or factor of a societies wealth and poverty lie primarily in its political culture, institutions, and historical choices, rather than in the global distribution of resources. As a result, while he advocates for a "duty of assistance" to helps burdened societies achieve decent or just institutions, he stops short of endorsing a robust redistributive mechanism at the international level, thus drawing a clear line between justice within a society and justice among societies.
GLOBAL JUSTICE AND JOHN RAWLS
The question of whether and how John Rawls' theory justice as fairness can applied to international stage, thus to questions of global justice, is significant. Rawls himself addressed international ethics in his after work, "The Law of Peoples(1999)", which diverged from his domestic theory in ways that are fundamentally important to the wider theoretical debate regarding whether it is possible to extend "justice as fairness" more synergistically into the global realm.This chapter will examine Rawls' own theory of international justice, the subsequent academic debate concerning extending "justice as fairness", and finally frame climate change as an issue demanding such global justice considerations.
Rawls' Conception of "International Justice: The Law of Peoples"
At "The Law of Peoples," he alters his perspective from justice for individuals in a particular liberal society towards the principles governing relations between "peoples." He uses "peoples" and not "states" in order to clarify that he is referring to societies that are moral along with a reasonably just (or at least "decent") government, and not just states pursuing power and self-interest.
Rawls make a “second original position with representatives of ‘peoples’ (specifically, liberal and “decent” peoples) to choose principles to govern their relations with one another. Behind a veil of ignorance appropriate to this context (they do not know the size of their territory, or population, or the relative strength of the people they represent their fundamental interests), these representatives would agree, in Rawls' view, eventually to a set of familiar principles for international conduct.These include:
- Peoples are free and independent, and their freedom and independence are to be respected by other peoples.
- Peoples are to observe treaties and undertakings.
- Peoples are equal and are parties to the agreements that bind them.
- Peoples are to observe a duty of non-intervention (except to address grave violations of human rights).
- Peoples have the right of self-defense but no right to instigate war for reasons other than self-defense.
- Peoples are to honor human rights (a more minimal list than the rights guaranteed in a liberal society, focusing on basic rights like freedom from slavery, serfdom, and genocide, and a measure of liberty of conscience).
- Peoples are to observe certain specified restrictions in the conduct of war.
- Peoples have a duty to assist other peoples living under unfavorable conditions that prevent their having a just or decent political and social regime”.
Importantly, it does not contain a global principle of distributive justice similar to the difference principle that applies within a nation. Rawls provides multiple reasons to reject the global difference principle: First, people need to respect the self-determination of peoples. Second, the causes of a society's wealth are to be found primarily in its political culture, traditions, and institutions, and not how resources are distributed globally. The duty of assistance can serve as an important way of assisting burdened societies to form just or decent institutions, and if these conditions are met in developing states then there is no further obligation to redistribute.
Extending "Justice as Fairness" to the Global Sphere: Debates and Critiques
Rawls' The Law of Peoples has faced serious criticism. Some of its harshest critics are cosmopolitan theorists who claim that Rawls' principles are constructed in such a way that they are not driven by appropriately egalitarian concerns, and they, therefore, do not sufficiently address the plight of millions of individuals and communities living with the inequalities and injustices present in our current global order. These critics typically believe that Rawls' original version of domestic "justice as fairness" is a more promising framework for global justice than "The Law of Peoples."
Cosmopolitan Arguments: “Philosophers like Charles Beitz and Thomas Pogge have argued that, when applying Rawls' original position method to the global stage, if individuals (not peoples) are designated as the relevant parties behind a global veil of ignorance, we would select principles of global distributive justice, including a possibly global difference principle resource dividend”.They argue that national borders are morally arbitrary, just as social class or natural talents are morally arbitrary, and thus should not fundamentally determine individuals' life prospects. Under this view, it is obvious that the global basic structure (including international economic institutions) has a substantial effect on individuals' lives, and thus ought to be governed by justice principles selected by representatives of all individuals.
Challenges to Globalizing "Justice as Fairness": In defending Rawls' stance in "The Law of Peoples," or independently objecting to globalizing "justice as fairness," other scholars emphasize national self-determination, the significance of domestic institutions in establishing and maintaining justice, and the pragmatic problems in enforcing strong global distributive principles. They might also argue that without a global state or coercive authority, and given the variety of cultures and different conceptions of the good throughout the world, a global difference principle may be unworkable or perhaps even undesirable.
Thus, the debate becomes a normative one about the reach of justice: is distributive justice's principles relevant only in self-contained political communities, or does it apply to all persons in the world? Is justice primarily concerned with domestic institutions, or with the global basic structure?
Climate Change as a Pressing Issue of Global Justice
The need for strong principles of global justice has been especially clears in relations to climate change. Climate change is a paradigmatic global problem: Every country produces greenhouse gas emissions, every country is experiencing climate change impacts (although often disproportionately to their contributions to the problem), and climate change occurs without respect to borders, affects both present and future generations, and raises basic issues of rights, responsibilities, and fair distribution. Climate change, with its universal implications, inter-generational consequences, and changes to human welfare and rights, presents a unique, compelling case for considering Rawls' "Law of Peoples" or a more cosmopolitan version of "justice as fairness" that provides adequate foundations for moral and political action. The following chapters will explore what the specific justice dimensions of climate change are and, therefore, how Rawlsian-type justifications may be applied to them.