Within the revised work from John Rawls, Justice as Fairness explains two principles of justice. In this, Rawls’ attempts to combat the question of, “Which principles are most appropriate for a democratic society that not only professes but wants to take seriously the idea that citizens are free and equal?” Considering Rawls’ death in 2002, the philosopher was implementing these premises and notions within contemporary society, weighing the philosophical detriments of our democratic society.
It is pertinent to note that Rawls is speaking of these principles of justice within the realm of political liberalism, holding that political power is defined as the collective body of free and equal citizens. Given, political power is citizen power. Furthermore, we must regard the fact that Rawls’ mentions within section 12.3, “political power is always coercive power applied by the state and apparatus of enforcement.” This power is legitimate once exercised correspondingly with a constitution where citizens can choose to endorse based on their common human reason or set moral values that are developed. This thought pattern is not difficult to follow, given that we have had decades upon decades of this democratic society.
Rawls provides the two principles of justice: given the difference principle within the second, holding priority over the first principle. Each of these regards liberal equality under Rawls view and grants the notion that “those who have the same level of talent and ability, and the willingness to use their gifts should have the same prospects of success, regardless of their social regime and class they’re born into.” Rawls additionally argues that since citizens are equal in their moral features, they must have an equal claim to the benefits. On top of that, Rawls deems people to not deserve to possess their talents or the character that allows them to develop it.
In short, the difference principle supports the self-respect of the worst off with the highest regard due to the maximization of resources and commitment to share fate. In Rawls argument, he attempts to appraise the fact that the self-respect we are speaking of, depends on the resources to pursue good and the recognition of worth. In this contemporary democratic society, these inequalities of citizens continue to spur the appraised economic production. The difference principle says that such can be permissible; but, only if the least well-off in society are being benefited in their positions as well as the other better-off citizens who simply contain better luck.
One thought that crossed my mind while reading Rawls interpretation of the two principles that deem justice as fairness, is how it is a widely known assumption to judge all billionaires as terrible people with little regard for others self-respect, or even their own morality. I believe that this can play a part in Rawls’ notion of the difference principle. The difference principle heavily includes the factors of social and economic inequalities. How many terrible people are in positions of power simply due to their family lineage? Maybe consider how many Oklahomans contain so much economic power, due to their family cheating in the land run however many years ago; gaining a lifetime of respect off the basis of poor morality with no self-respect for the others who contain better morality with worse conditions.
It becomes more apparent to me the more I am impacted by current economic conditions or the more that I place myself out into society, such as college. I do not even want to begin considering how many students are here on an awful basis with a full ride, yet I may know kids my age from my hometown that have the IQ testing of a genius. Since they are within the second poorest county in Oklahoma, they will never even know the possibility of inclining out of their fate due to others in better positions who will never think once, much less twice, about them.
-Azlee