Rawls believes that each member of society has an equal claim to their society’s goods. Therefore this was a basic right of any individual before further considerations are taken into account; each individual must have an equal share of material wealth. This idea sounds more like a socialist or even communist view as opposed to a liberal idea. Liberals often believe in more laissez-faire ideas, such as those from Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman. However, Rawls argues that inequality is simply unacceptable unless in a circumstance where it may be to the advantage of the least well off. This idea could be linked to the ideology behind welfare liberalism – part of the reason that it emerged was due to the widening class divides and the moral duty to help the less well off in society.
The first principle of justice is undoubtedly liberal as it emphasises the importance of maximum freedom and liberty for the individual – “each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties compatible for others”. It is also liberal in its “reasoned” approach, for example where it may be necessary to trade freedoms off each other for the sake of obtaining the largest possible system of rights.
The second principle of justice involves social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are of the greatest benefit to the least advantaged members of society (as mentioned previously, liberal to the same extent of welfare liberalism) and that offices and positions must be open to everyone under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. This again seems to be more egalitarian and socialist rather than liberal. Liberals are committed to equality – but on the grounds that all individuals are of equal moral worth and are therefore entitled to equal rights and responsibilities, yet are born with very different talents and entitled to rewards accordingly. Rawls theory seems in some ways to be more similar to social equality or achieving equality of outcome.
Rawls theory of justice demonstrates that he holds a social liberal position, which is that he values equality but also emphasises common freedoms. The debate surrounding Rawls is yet another example of the underlying disagreement within liberalism about the conditions to best achieve a just society. Obviously this debate leads to many criticisms of Rawls theory, which are outlined below.
Nozick held a different view of the state from Rawls and believed that it had no real role in redistribution (which Rawls justifies under the difference principle). Nozick also believes in a theory of justice that is procedural rather than distributive. He does however agree that redistribution is acceptable where there has been a gross injustice, for example where property may have been ceased without any kind of compensation. He especially holds a defence over libertarian justice.
Michael Walzer however, wrote a defence of communitarian political philosophy in his book “Spheres of Justice”. He criticises Rawls by saying he is too American focused and overly concerned with western contractual values (free market). He maintains that instead we should value the different “spheres of justice” within different cultures. This is because what is morally acceptable in one culture may be completely unacceptable in an alternative one, for example in Britain polygamy is totally acceptable but in many eastern cultures this is an everyday occurrence. The book differentiates between simple equality (equal distribution of the state which has been rejected due to failed models such as the Soviet one) and complex equality (values this as an alternative). Walzer recognises that communities are mobile and diverse and increasing becoming more so and no longer rely on the state. Therefore they should be more community based and a universal system of justice would simply not be compatible with this.
Michael Sandel wrote “Liberalism and Limits of Justice” and within it criticises how Rawls asks us to think about justice whilst divorcing us from the very values and aspirations that define u as well as that the original position is abstract and implausible. He primarily seeks to use liberal moral ideals to build a new “public philosophy” in America. Walzer believes that Rawls’s Theory of Justice fails to incorporate any morals or values, and instead focuses too much of the bargaining of goods.
From the left wing, Robert Paul Wolff argues that Rawls theory constructs justice from existing practice and does not take into account that there may already be existing problems of injustice embedded into the ideas of capitalism, private property and the market economy.
A final criticism is put forward by Susna Moller Okinb who maintained that Rawls theory could justify injustices and hierarchies embedded within the family network. She also criticises Rawls for not taking patriarchal social relations and gendered division of labour into account.
