4.2: Social Contract Theory without the Contract: John Rawls
John Rawls is famous for devising a contemporary version of social contract theory that does not rely on the existence of any actual social contract or historical state of nature. He is similar to Kant in that he thinks we can derive a theory of justice from reason itself by imagining that we need to define the principles of a fair society without knowing in advance what position we will occupy in that society. Rawls' thought experiment is known as the veil of ignorance.
Watch this lecture from 22:30 to the end. In this lecture, Sandel discusses the concept of social contracts, social compacts, and mutual agreements in civil society. These are compared to the kinds of agreements that are the hallmark of justice for Rawls and the foundation of civil society for Locke and Hobbes. Just laws, which are laws that are in accord with justice, come from these kinds of agreements. For Kant, contracts that generate justice are "ideas of reason." This allows Kant to provide an objective basis for contracts and laws, a way to describe laws as over and above subjective preferences.
4.2.1: Overview of Rawls' Theory of Justice
The following remarks were delivered by Bill Soderberg at the Peace and Justice Studies Association Annual Conference on October 16, 2015. Professor Soderberg describes John Rawls' overall approach to justice and his views on just war in particular. There are two principles to notice from Rawls' Theory of Justice: the veil of ignorance and the difference principle. What do each of these mean? What does ius ad bellum mean? What is ius in bello? Notice Rawls' eight principles on whether to go to war and his six principles on conduct within war. List three of each and comment on whether or not you think these principles concerning war are right.
4.2.2: Rawls' Idea of the Original Position
Read pages 1-7 of these excerpts from John Rawls' 1971 text. Stop when you reach the subheading on page 7, "Two Principles of Justice." Rawls aims to provide a theory of justice that is even more general than that of Locke or Kant, since it is based on purely hypothetical original position. How would we choose to organize society, if we had no idea what position we would have in it? Rawls' idea is that we should try to make it as fair as possible so that no matter what position we ended up in, we would have the same resources and chances as everyone else.
4.2.3: Rawls' Difference Principle: Leveling the Playing Field
Watch this lecture until 24:35. As you watch, consider what a genuinely fair society would look like. One plausible answer is that it would be a society in which everyone had an equal opportunity to succeed. Societies in which success is a function of each individual's abilities, or meritocracies, gives an unfair advantage to those who are born into positions of privilege or greater natural ability. According to Rawls, the technique of reasoning from the original position demonstrates that social benefits will always need to be redistributed in order to benefit the least well-off.
4.2.4: Rawls' Two Principles of Justice
Read pages 7-14 of these excerpts, beginning with the subheading on page 7, "Two Principles of Justice." In these selections, Rawls presents his two principles of justice: first, everyone should have an equal right to basic freedoms, and second, resources and institutions should be arranged to benefit the least well-off in order to create equality of opportunity. These principles are a far cry from the minimal government intervention advocated by libertarians.