What Is Justice as Fairness?

Question

What is justice as fairness, and why is it the most influential theory of justice in the twentieth century? The question arises because Rawls's theory fundamentally changed the way philosophers think about justice, equality, and the social contract.

Quick Answer

Justice as fairness is Rawls's alternative to the utilitarian tradition that dominated Anglo-American philosophy. The theory is built on a thought experiment: the original position. In this hypothetical situation, parties are placed behind a veil of ignorance — they know nothing about their own personal characteristics, social position, or conception of the good. They are rational, mutually disinterested, and concerned with advancing their own interests. From this position, Rawls argues, they would unanimously choose two principles of justice. The first guarantees equal basic liberties. The second has two parts: fair equality of opportunity and the difference principle. The theory is called 'justice as fairness' because it captures the idea that the principles of justice are those that would be agreed to under fair conditions.

Historical Wisdom

Justice as fairness is a revival of the social contract tradition of Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Kant. Rawls's originality lies in transforming the contract from a historical event into a hypothetical thought experiment — the original position — and in using it to generate specific principles of justice. The theory is deeply Kantian: it treats persons as free and equal, and it holds that the principles of justice are those that free and equal persons would agree to.

Rawls developed the theory over several decades. A Theory of Justice (1971) presented the full theory. Political Liberalism (1993) revised the theory to address the fact of reasonable pluralism — the fact that citizens in a free society hold irreconcilable religious, moral, and philosophical doctrines. Rawls argues that justice as fairness can be the focus of an 'overlapping consensus' among reasonable comprehensive doctrines.

Philosophical Perspectives

Justice as fairness has been criticized from multiple directions. Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974) argues that the theory violates the rights of the talented. Michael Sandel's Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (1982) argues that the theory assumes an 'unencumbered self' that is detached from its commitments and relationships. Feminist philosophers like Susan Moller Okin argue that the theory fails to address justice within the family. Communitarians like Charles Taylor argue that the theory neglects the importance of community and tradition.

Defenders of justice as fairness argue that these criticisms are largely mistaken. The theory has been defended, refined, and extended by philosophers including Thomas Scanlon, Martha Nussbaum, and many others. It remains the starting point for nearly all contemporary work in political philosophy.

Lessons From Thinkers

From Rawls: the principles of justice are those that would be chosen under fair conditions. From Rawls: the distribution of natural talents is morally arbitrary, and the benefits of those talents should be shared. From Nozick: any theory of justice must take individual rights seriously. From Sandel: justice cannot be detached from the community and its traditions. From feminist critics: justice must extend to the domestic sphere. From all of them: justice as fairness is the theory that all subsequent theorists must engage with, whether they agree or disagree.

Practical Application

Justice as fairness provides a framework for evaluating the basic structure of society. It supports equal basic liberties — freedom of speech, religion, assembly, and political participation. It supports fair equality of opportunity — access to education, employment, and public office. And it supports policies that benefit the least advantaged — progressive taxation, social welfare, universal healthcare, and public education. The theory provides a principled basis for the social democratic welfare state.