Rawls' Theory of Justice and Morality
Rawls agrees in his book A Theory of Justice that morality and justice are distinct concepts; he also disagrees with utilitarian varieties of justice. Utilitarian justice is founded on a notion that promotes any conduct that seeks to increase an individual's pleasure. According to the idea, a just act is one that reduces a person's pain while increasing their joy. According to utilitarian reasoning, any action that violates this norm is unjust. Rawls proposes using the original position as a new approach for humans to understand justice concepts. The position requires them to imagine that the principles of justice should be decided by a group, not a single individual (Wenar, Para 16).
The Importance of Ignorance in Rawls' Theory
Based on the new approach, the group of people deciding the principles should be self-interested. They should be ignorant about the situation, implying that they should not know who they are. The importance of the ignorance of the group in Rawls' theory of justice is that they will try to be fair because they are not aware of the categories that they belong to. Without the knowledge that they are making a judgment, they are unlikely to be affiliated to any category based on their gender, race or any other social categories. Rawls argument suggests two principles of justice. The first one is that "Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all" (Wenar, Para 20). The second principle is that "Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: first, they are to be attached to positions and offices open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; and second, they are to be the greatest expected benefit of the least advantaged members of society" (Wenar, Para 21).
Rawls' Stance on Economic and Social Inequalities
Rawls' theory of justice does not champion for economic and social inequalities. He maintains that they are not in order despite the fact that a normal human being has negative rights and does not have positive rights. He prefers that no individual should live in poverty and that people from humble backgrounds should be given equal opportunities like the other members of the society. This makes it evident that he does not side with utilitarian people who would contend that individuals living in poverty reduce the happiness of the productive members in a society.
Gender and Rawls' Theory of Justice
Rawls' theory of justice is blind to matters concerning gender. Looking at the gender issues faced currently, Rawls would probably make some reforms. Family would be included in the basic structure. It would then be checked against the principles of justice. Some legal reforms following after this process would aim at achieving gender equality. Gender is an issue of justice, even though it has been overlooked by some philosophers of justice including Rawls. Their principles are mainly generalized and do not bring out the gender roles clearly. Rawls presents the family as a united group rather than individuals. He does not give specifications about who should head the family. Rawls hints that gender is among the non-significant possibilities that are covered up by ignorance. This applies in his requirement that the group determining the principles of justice should be ignorant. He does not give more details concerning the issue. If the theorist would not choose the approach of making some reforms to suit the gender issues in the current world, he would deal with all issues generally. His principles would apply to all individuals regardless of their gender. It would not be taken into consideration.
Bibliography
Wenar, Leif, "John Rawls", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).
