John Rawls’ Theory of Justice

‘Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. For this reason justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others. It does not allow that the sacrifices imposed on a few are outweighed by the larger sum of advantages enjoyed by many. Therefore in a just society the liberties of equal citizenship are taken as settled; the rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interests’ (John Rawls). Critically assess Rawls’s defence of this view.

John Rawls’ Theory of Justice is a landmark in contemporary philosophy. It has challenged what was the “the predominant systematic theory” , namely utilitarianism. Rawls suggests an alternative theory to the utilitarian tradition, under the format of a contract that allows him to provide a moral foundation to his principles of justice. He targets the moral shortcoming of utilitarianism, insofar as it confuses justice and utility. His arguments against the systematic maximisation of the overall good in society are founded in an intuitive sense of justice. The calculus of social welfare is intolerable in the light of his principles. In order to assess Rawls’ defence of this view, an evaluation of his peculiar account of justice and how it differs essentially from the utilitarian account is needed. Given the above passage, it seems appropriate to focus on the moral justification of his principles. The reliance on natural rights as the foundation of his theory needs to be put under scrutiny, in order to determine if his criticism of utilitarianism can survive without such contentious grounds. Rawls provides various arguments against utilitarianism, operating at different levels. However, the core of his theory of justice is based on moral grounds. His rejection of utilitarianism rests on a fundamental idea of justice, which