John Rawls's _A Theory of Justice_ sets out to present a conception of justice that offers a viable alternative to long-dominant philosophical views like utilitarianism and intuitionism. Think of it as an attempt to build a systematic understanding of justice, starting from some foundational ideas. **The Core Idea: Justice as Fairness** At the heart of this theory is the concept of "justice as fairness". This isn't just a casual phrase; it signifies a specific approach to thinking about how society's basic institutions should be arranged. Rawls generalizes the traditional idea of the social contract, found in thinkers like Locke, Rousseau, and Kant, but takes it to a higher level of abstraction. Instead of imagining people literally agreeing to enter a society or set up a government, the theory replaces this notion with a hypothetical _initial situation_. **The Original Position: A Thought Experiment** This initial situation is interpreted in a specific way that Rawls calls the _original position_. Its purpose is to ensure that the fundamental principles chosen for society's basic structure are fair. How does it do this? By incorporating certain procedural constraints and restrictions on arguments. In the original position, individuals are conceived as rational and concerned with advancing their own interests, but they are also _mutually disinterested_. This doesn't mean they are selfish egoists focused only on wealth or power, but rather that they don't take an interest in each other's interests. They are also placed behind a "veil of ignorance," which prevents them from knowing specific facts about themselves, their place in society, their particular talents, or even their own conception of the good life. They only have access to general knowledge about society and human psychology. The idea is that rational persons in this position of equality, behind the veil of ignorance, would agree on principles of justice to define the fundamental terms of their association. Because of the veil of ignorance, they are forced to choose principles impartially, as if they didn't know who they would be in the society they are designing. This connects the theory of justice to the theory of rational choice – the task is to figure out which principles it would be rational to adopt given the setup of this hypothetical contractual situation. _Further idea to explore:_ How does the specific setup of the veil of ignorance, and what information is allowed or excluded, shape the principles that are chosen? What happens if you change the assumptions about the parties' rationality or their motivations? **The Subject of Justice: The Basic Structure** The theory focuses specifically on the _basic structure of society_ as the primary subject of justice. This refers to the main political constitution and the essential elements of the economic and social system. It's about how fundamental rights and duties are assigned and how economic opportunities and social conditions are regulated. It's important to note that Rawls is limiting his inquiry. He's not discussing justice for institutions or social practices generally, nor the justice of international law or relations between states, except perhaps in passing. The principles derived for the basic structure might not apply to private associations, informal customs, or voluntary agreements. The hope is that a sound theory for this specific case will provide a key for tackling other problems of justice later. _Further idea to explore:_ What are the differences between the principles appropriate for the basic structure and those that might govern smaller associations or personal interactions? Could the principles for the basic structure influence how we think about justice in other areas? **Justice as a Virtue** Rawls posits that justice is the "first virtue of social institutions," much like truth is the first virtue of systems of thought. This means that laws and institutions, no matter how efficient or well-organized, must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust. A key implication is that each person has an "inviolability founded on justice" that societal welfare cannot override. Justice does not permit the loss of freedom for some to be justified by a greater good enjoyed by others, nor does it allow the sacrifices of a few to be outweighed by the advantages of many. Because of this, liberties of equal citizenship are considered settled and are not subject to political bargaining or calculations of social interests. An injustice is only tolerable if it's necessary to avoid an even greater injustice. _Further idea to explore:_ How does this strong assertion of the priority of justice and individual rights compare to other ethical systems, particularly those that might prioritize collective well-being or other values? **Ideal vs. Nonideal Theory** The theory primarily examines the principles of justice that would regulate a _well-ordered society_, where everyone is presumed to act justly and uphold just institutions. This is known as _strict compliance theory_ or _ideal theory_. The goal is to understand what a perfectly just society would be like. In contrast, _partial compliance theory_ deals with how to handle injustice in the real world. This includes topics like punishment, just war, civil disobedience, conscientious objection, militant resistance, compensatory justice, and weighing different institutional injustices. While these are the urgent problems we face daily, Rawls argues that beginning with ideal theory provides the "only basis" for a systematic understanding of these more pressing issues. _Further idea to explore:_ How exactly does understanding a perfectly just society help us address real-world injustices? What are the challenges in applying principles from ideal theory to nonideal situations? **The Priority of Right over Good** A central feature of justice as fairness is the _priority of right over good_. This contrasts with teleological theories, like utilitarianism, which define the right as maximizing the good. In justice as fairness, the principles of justice (the "right") are settled _before_ individuals define their specific conceptions of a good life. The principles of right and justice place limits on which desires, inclinations, and conceptions of the good have value or are considered reasonable. This means that the theory doesn't take people's desires as they are and then figure out the best way to satisfy them. Instead, desires and aspirations are constrained from the beginning by the principles of justice. A just social system provides the framework of rights and opportunities within which individuals can develop and pursue their aims equitably. For instance, a person who enjoys seeing others less free has no legitimate claim to that enjoyment, as it requires violating a principle agreed to in the original position. _Further idea to explore:_ How does prioritizing the right shape the kinds of lives and aspirations that are considered permissible or encouraged in a just society? What are the implications of this priority for individual freedom to pursue one's own values? **The Role of Refined Judgments: Reflective Equilibrium** How do we justify or evaluate a conception of justice like justice as fairness? Rawls doesn't claim its principles are self-evident truths or derivable purely from logic or definitions. Instead, justification involves working towards _reflective equilibrium_. This is a state reached after a person has considered various proposed conceptions of justice (like justice as fairness, utilitarianism, etc.) and has either revised their initial considered judgments about justice to align with a theory or held fast to their convictions (and potentially the corresponding theory). It's a process of testing principles chosen in the original position against our intuitions and considered judgments about specific cases and general principles, adjusting both the theory and our judgments until they fit together into a coherent view. The "best account" of our sense of justice is the one that matches our judgments _in_ this state of reflective equilibrium. _Further idea to explore:_ What are the challenges in reaching reflective equilibrium? How reliable are our considered judgments, and what makes some judgments "considered" while others might be set aside? **The Two Principles and Their Application** Rawls presents two main principles of justice that he believes would be agreed to in the original position. The first principle concerns _equal basic liberties_: "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". These basic liberties include things like liberty of conscience, political liberty, and the rights protected by the rule of law. The principles are ranked in "lexical order". This means the first principle regarding equal basic liberties has _priority_ over the second principle (which concerns social and economic inequalities). Liberty can only be restricted for the sake of liberty itself, under specific conditions. The theory goes on to describe how these principles would apply to the basic structure, including topics like constitutional arrangements, political justice, the rule of law, and distributive shares. The aim is to show that the principles define a workable political conception that aligns with and extends our considered judgments. _Further idea to explore:_ What specific liberties are considered "basic"? How is the "most extensive total system" of equal liberties determined? What are the specific conditions under which basic liberties can be limited, even for the sake of liberty itself? **The Role of the Good and the Sense of Justice** While the right is prior to the good, the theory still needs a concept of goodness. Rawls distinguishes between a _thin theory of the good_, which is used in the original position to explain why parties would want certain primary goods (like liberties, opportunities, wealth, and the social bases of self-respect) regardless of their specific life plans. These primary goods are essential for pursuing any rational plan of life. Once the principles of justice are established, a _full theory of the good_ can be developed, constrained by these principles. This includes ideas like moral worth and rational life plans. Finally, the theory examines the _sense of justice_, which is the desire to act from and apply the principles of justice. The stability of a just society depends on its members developing and maintaining this sense of justice. A key question is whether the sense of justice _coheres_ with individual good – that is, whether it is rational for individuals in a well-ordered society to affirm their sense of justice as guiding their life plans. This congruence is linked to the idea that acting justly expresses our nature as free and equal rational beings, as suggested by the Kantian interpretation of justice as fairness. _Further idea to explore:_ How does the development of a sense of justice relate to moral psychology? How does the "full theory of the good" influence our understanding of what constitutes a good life within a just framework? **Method and Limitations** The justification offered for the theory of justice is not based on finding self-evident truths or reducing moral concepts to non-moral ones (like some forms of naturalism). Instead, it's a complex process where different parts of the theory—the description of the original position and the choice of principles, the description of institutions and duties, and the examination of stability and congruence—support one another and are tested against our considered judgments in reflective equilibrium. The theory is intentionally limited in scope. It focuses on justice among persons in a closed society and doesn't claim to provide a complete moral theory covering all virtues or our relations with animals or nature. _Further idea to explore:_ Does the reliance on reflective equilibrium make the theory dependent on potentially shifting cultural norms or individual intuitions? How might the theory need to be revised or extended to address issues like international justice or environmental ethics?