John Rawls is recognized as among the philosophers whose thoughts provide mankind with insights for creating equal and just societies. Through his theory of justice, Rawls set out to address some of the problems that arise as societies attempt to ensure social justice in the distribution of opportunities and resources. Rawls held that societies should endeavor to extend liberty to all their members. However, he added that liberties may be limited when they infringe on the rights of others. Essentially, Rawls theory establishes a social contract that pursues perfect justice and fairness. While this theory is grounded in solid arguments, it is simply impractical. A society that is totally egalitarian and just would find Rawls’ theory of justice and other similar theories to be impractical and insufficient for ensuring perfect justice and equality.
To understand why Rawls’ theory of justice would be impractical in a perfectly egalitarian and just society, it is necessary to examine the primary premises of this theory. As noted above, Rawls identified exceptional circumstances where liberties and justice may be suspended. He noted that a society may limit the freedoms of some of its members if this measure is necessary to protect the liberties of others (Rawls, 2009). In defending the need to violate the freedoms of some members of a society, Rawls asserted that “an injustice is tolerable only when it is necessary to avoid an even greater injustice” (p. 4). Here, Rawls essentially admitted that his theory would not work in a perfectly egalitarian society that pursues justice for all in all situations. This society would not violate the freedoms of one individual with the goal of protecting the rights of the larger society. Therefore, since it anticipates the suspension of freedoms, Rawls’ theory of justice would be impractical for a perfectly egalitarian and just society.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
One of the essential elements of Rawls theory of justice is the existence of a social contract. This contract exists because “everyone accepts and knows that the others accept the same principles of justice” (Rawls, 2009, p. 4). The social contract that Rawls developed imagines a utopia where all individuals accept and strictly adhere to established principles. Basically, his social contract does not entertain any deviation or dissent. Among the fundamental principles of justice in egalitarian societies is the right to disagree. Rawls’ social contract strips individuals of this right. Under this contract, all individuals are to follow the established rules without question. Instead of promoting justice, Rawls’ social contract actually lays the ground for authoritarian government because it discourages dissent and free thought. Therefore, a perfectly egalitarian and just society would find Rawls’ theory to be inconsistent with its values and thus, impractical.
Cooperation and sharing are some of the values that define egalitarian and just societies. To ensure that all individuals have equal access to resources and opportunities, these societies discourage greed and demand total compliance with established guidelines (Rogers, 2012). Given these features, it is clear that Rawls’ theory of justice would be incompatible with an egalitarian society. This theory posits that there are some situations where inequalities are justified and acceptable. Rawls contended that inequalities are permitted if they enhance the situation of the least advantaged members compared to a situation where perfect equality is enforced (Rawls, 2009). Basically, Rawls argued that provided that the most disadvantaged are better off than they would be under total egalitarianism, social and economic inequalities are acceptable. There are various problems with this assertion as regards the application of Rawls’ theory to a perfectly just society. One, by entertaining inequality, Rawls violates the principles of equality and justice which are foundational pillars of egalitarian society. Two, Rawls’ theory prioritizes social and economic empowerment at the expense of justice and fairness. Therefore, because it excuses inequalities while downplaying the importance of fairness and justice, Rawls’ theory of justice is impractical for an egalitarian society.
It is true that egalitarian societies endeavor to promote equality and justice. However, these societies acknowledge that the differences between individuals cannot be ignored or suppressed. For example, in egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies, roles were assigned based on one’s gender (Rogers, 2012). Recognizing gender differences did not rob these societies of their egalitarian status. Despite their gender-based social structure, these societies still managed to ensure economic and social equality and justice. On the other hand, the societies that Rawls envisioned through his theory fail to recognize individual differences. Susan Okin is among the scholars who have identified the inconsistencies between Rawls’ theory and the reality of society. She found that Rawls’ theory does not account for gender-structured societies in which roles are assigned on the basis of one’s gender (Doody, 2015). An egalitarian and just society which structures roles based on gender would be unable to adopt Rawls’ theory of justice because it is impractical.
The primary objective that egalitarian societies strive to achieve is ensuring fairness and justice. However, it is worth noting that these societies acknowledge that there are individuals who possess certain natural advantages. As part of their efforts to promote fairness and justice, these societies encourage and accept these advantages. Rawls’s theory of social justice appears to punish those who are naturally advantaged. The social contract that he develops calls for the distribution of resources, advantages and opportunities. To achieve an equal society, Rawls basically asserted that the advantaged should be stripped of their advantages (Kanatli, 2015). These advantages are then redistributed so that all members of the society are equal. By stripping the advantaged of their natural endowments, Rawls’ theory endorses injustice. It punishes those who are naturally gifted for a situation that they did not create. Therefore, since Rawls’ theory of justice violates the rights of the privileged, a totally egalitarian and just society should reject the theory because it is simply impractical.
As already mentioned, the promotion of justice is the main objective of egalitarian societies. To achieve this objective, these societies avail equal opportunities to all its members. However, one should understand that egalitarian societies do not necessarily discourage their members from leveraging their gifts and natural endowments for success. Essentially, while they recognize the need for equality and justice, these societies also acknowledge and reward merit. Basically, provided one commits the effort needed to acquire certain resources and privileges, egalitarian and just societies encourage them. On the other hand, Rawls condemned the pursuit of the best life possible. In his theory, he envisions a society whose members are content with the little and equal that the society allows them to have (John, 2014). Rawls’ theory of justice basically discourages hardwork and the desire for a better life while placing individuals at the mercy of their society. The society that Rawls created defeats the essence of his theory. Instead of enhancing justice and fairness, this society simply discourages progress and individual accomplishment. Any society that considers itself fair or egalitarian would reject Rawls theory will all prejudice because this theory is impractical and its adoption would hamper progress.
The discussion above has identified flaws in Rawls’ theory that render this theory incompatible and impractical for an egalitarian and just society. However, there is a reason why this theory is among the most popular and widely cited. Some of the theory’s premises make it ideal for an egalitarian and equal society. For example, while the theory accommodates injustices, it institutes safeguards intended to protect the disadvantaged and promote equality. Rawls noted that the benefits that result from inequalities should not provide individuals with advantages that allow them to occupy offices easily than others (Rawls, 2009). This provision is contained in the equal opportunity principle. Another premise of Rawls’ theory is that societies should establish guidelines and standards that all their members find acceptable (Rawls, 2009). Essentially, Rawls’ theory discourages the imposition of standards and expectations that some members find acceptable. These provisions would make Rawls’ theory appealing to an egalitarian society. This is because the provisions entrench equality and justice. While some of the premises of Rawls’ theory are consistent with the values of egalitarian societies, in general, this theory would not work in these societies. As the discussion above has revealed, the theory possesses numerous flaws which can be exploited to disadvantage, oppress and violate the rights of individuals. Therefore, Rawls’ theory is impractical for egalitarian and just societies.
In conclusion, Rawls’ theory of social justice highlights the ingredients of an equal and just society. He outlined how social institutions can promote equality of opportunity. Rawls also noted that the delivery of justice may require that the rights of certain members of society be violated. While this theory allows one to understand how to create just societies, it is inconsistent with the principles of egalitarian societies. The inconsistency arises from the theory’s accommodation of suspension of liberties and failure to reward individual effort. Furthermore, the theory does not account for gender-based societies. Given the numerous flaws that it possesses, it would be unwise for an egalitarian society to base its institutions and governance on this theory. Rawls’ theory is not entirely useless or flawed. There are various premises that qualify it for adoption in an egalitarian society. By refining the flawed assumptions and premises, Rawls would make his theory perfect for an egalitarian society. There is need for scholars to continue to scrutinize the theory and make it more suitable for an egalitarian and just society.
References
Doody, R. Criticisms of Rawls’ principles of justice. MIT. Retrieved May 29, 2018 from http://www.mit.edu/~rdoody/Gov%2010%20Political%20Theory/RawlsCriticismsGov10.pdf
Kanatli, M. (2015). Rawlsian theory of justice as fairness: a Marxist critique. Hitit University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 8 (1), 301-318.
John, E. O. (2014). A critique of John Rawls’ social justice theory and the fate of Nigeria’s Politics in the 21st-century and beyond . Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization, 28, 12-20.
Rawls, J. (2009). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rogers, D. (2012). Inequality: why egalitarian societies died out. New Scientist. Retrieved May 29, 2018 from https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22071-inequality-why-egalitarian-societies-died-out/
