Reason-based Justice

During yesterday’s class on Rawls, Doctor J mentioned that Rawls’ theory of justice is based on the rationality of the people creating that society. The presence of reason at the foundation of this system reminded me of Kant’s rationality-heavy theory of justice. I just found it interesting how both specifically identified reason as the one thing all men have in common, and therefore what just societies must be based upon.

As we discussed with Kant, he states that a person with reason, thinking rationally, will have to support and adhere to the Categorical Imperative (to act only in such a way that you can will the maxim of your action as a universal law) and his three conditions for justice to apply. Therefore, just actions can be viewed as rational, while unjust actions are seen as irrational. Kant even states that justice can only be defined using pure reason, as opposed to empirical principles.

For Rawls, the Original Position establishes the rules that rational people would all agree to under the veil of ignorance. Rawls argues that those people would choose the Maximin Rule to maximize the minimums. According to Rawls, it is most just and rational to arrange societal rules to maximize the advantage of those in the worst positions in society, which provides a type of safety net for everyone since the veil of ignorance keeps people from knowing their place in the new society.

Because the people forming the future society are rational, they will adopt and develop the two principles through which society will successfully function. The Liberty Principle, in which all have equal right to the same kinds of liberties that are compatible with everyone having those liberties, can’t be justified if violated. Then, Rawls introduces the Difference Principle, under which social and economic inequalities must be arranged so that they a) are to the greatest benefit t the least advantaged, and b) are attached to offices/positions that are open to all (equality of opportunity). Rawls assumes that there will always be inequality in society, but that it is rational to implement the Maximin Rule to minimize the effect of differences on the liberties of citizens. Rational people, according to Rawls, will say that this system is the most just organization of society.

I find it interesting that both Rawls and Kant, while providing two very different versions of justice and just societies, base their theories on man’s most primary commonality: reason. After reading Hume’s essay, which focused on sympathy and fellow-feeling to validate justice in society, I really think that Rawls and Kant make more sense, and seem to be argued more solidly, because of this basis upon rationality.