John Rawls’s A Theory of Justice (1971) is the most influential work of political philosophy of the twentieth century. It revived social contract theory and established a framework for thinking about justice that continues to shape philosophical, legal, and political debates.
The Task of Justice
Rawls seeks principles of justice for the “basic structure” of society—the fundamental social institutions that distribute rights, opportunities, and resources.
Justice as Fairness
Justice is not about maximizing utility or following natural law but about fairness. A just society is one whose basic structure would be chosen by people reasoning fairly—without knowing their particular advantages or circumstances.
The Social Contract Tradition
Rawls revives the social contract tradition of Locke, Rousseau, and Kant. But his contract is hypothetical, not historical. We don’t ask what agreement actually occurred but what agreement rational people would make under fair conditions.
The Original Position
The key thought experiment is the “original position”—a hypothetical situation in which people choose principles of justice.
Behind the Veil of Ignorance
Parties in the original position are behind a “veil of ignorance.” They don’t know their place in society, their natural talents, their conception of the good, or even which generation they belong to.
This ignorance ensures fairness. If I don’t know whether I’ll be rich or poor, talented or ordinary, I’ll choose principles that work for everyone, not just for people like me.
Rational Choice
The parties are rational and mutually disinterested—they seek their own good but don’t envy or care about others’ shares. They choose principles based on their rational self-interest, knowing they must live with the consequences.
Primary Goods
Since parties don’t know their particular goals, they choose based on “primary goods”—things any rational person wants regardless of their specific aims: rights, liberties, opportunities, income, wealth, and the social bases of self-respect.
The Two Principles
From the original position, Rawls argues, rational parties would choose two principles of justice:
The First Principle: Equal Liberty
“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.”
Basic liberties include political liberty (the right to vote and hold office), freedom of speech and assembly, liberty of conscience, freedom from arbitrary arrest, and the right to hold personal property.
These liberties are lexically prior to other considerations. No increase in wealth or efficiency can justify reducing basic liberties.
The Second Principle: Equality
The second principle governs social and economic inequalities:
“Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both: (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged… and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.”
This includes:
The Difference Principle (a): Inequalities are permitted only if they benefit the worst-off members of society. A CEO’s high salary is just only if it makes the poorest better off than they would be under a more equal arrangement.
Fair Equality of Opportunity (b): Positions must be open to all based on talents and efforts, not social background. This requires more than formal non-discrimination—it requires that people with similar abilities have similar chances regardless of their class origin.
The Priority Rules
The principles are ranked in lexical order:
- The first principle (liberty) takes priority over the second
- Within the second principle, fair equality of opportunity takes priority over the difference principle
- Liberty can only be restricted for the sake of liberty
This means we cannot sacrifice basic liberties for economic gains, however large.
Arguments for the Principles
Why would rational parties choose these principles?
The Maximin Rule
Behind the veil of ignorance, parties don’t know their probability of ending up in any particular position. Rawls argues they would adopt a “maximin” strategy—choosing principles that maximize the minimum position.
Since you might be the worst-off person, you want principles that make the worst-off position as good as possible.
Stability
Just institutions must be stable—people must actually want to follow them. The principles of justice as fairness generate their own support: those who grow up under just institutions develop a sense of justice that sustains those institutions.
Kantian Interpretation
The original position models Kant’s categorical imperative. By choosing principles we would accept regardless of our particular position, we treat ourselves and others as ends, not merely means.
The Well-Ordered Society
A society governed by the two principles is “well-ordered”—everyone accepts and knows others accept the same principles of justice, and the basic institutions satisfy these principles.
Reflective Equilibrium
Rawls reaches his principles through “reflective equilibrium”—adjusting our considered judgments and theoretical principles until they cohere. We don’t simply deduce principles from abstract premises or generalize from intuitions but work back and forth between them.
Public Reason
In a well-ordered society, citizens justify laws and policies through “public reason”—reasons that all can accept regardless of their particular comprehensive doctrines (religious or philosophical views of life).
Critiques and Responses
A Theory of Justice generated extensive debate:
Libertarian Critique
Robert Nozick argued that the difference principle violates individual rights. If I legitimately acquire property through voluntary exchanges, the state cannot redistribute it without treating me as a mere means.
Rawls responds that property rights are institutional, not natural. The rules of just acquisition are themselves subject to the principles of justice.
Communitarian Critique
Communitarians like Michael Sandel argue that the veil of ignorance strips away everything that makes us who we are. The resulting principles reflect an impoverished “unencumbered self” rather than the embedded, culturally situated beings we actually are.
Rawls later clarified that the original position is a device of representation, not a claim about personal identity.
Feminist Critique
Feminists like Susan Moller Okin argued that Rawls ignores the family as part of the basic structure. By treating the family as “private,” he overlooks gendered injustice within it.
Global Justice
Critics asked why justice stops at national borders. If we don’t deserve our country of birth any more than our class, shouldn’t the difference principle apply globally?
Rawls addressed this in The Law of Peoples, arguing for different principles at the international level—a move some find inconsistent with his original theory.
Influence and Legacy
A Theory of Justice transformed political philosophy:
Academic Philosophy
The book made political philosophy central to the discipline again after decades of marginalization. Contemporary debates about equality, liberty, and fairness all engage with Rawls.
Law and Policy
The difference principle and the original position inform debates about taxation, healthcare, education, and affirmative action. “What would you choose behind the veil of ignorance?” has become a common thought experiment.
Later Work
Rawls developed his theory in subsequent works. Political Liberalism (1993) addressed how justice can be stable in pluralistic societies. Justice as Fairness: A Restatement (2001) clarified and revised the theory.
Reading A Theory of Justice
The work is systematic and demanding:
- Part One presents the basic theory and the original position
- Part Two applies the principles to institutions
- Part Three discusses the psychology of justice and stability
- The Introduction and first three chapters provide the essentials
- Justice as Fairness: A Restatement offers a more accessible presentation
Conclusion
A Theory of Justice asks a fundamental question: What principles would we choose for our society if we reasoned fairly, setting aside our particular interests and circumstances?
The answer—equal basic liberties, fair equality of opportunity, and inequalities only when they benefit the least advantaged—provides a powerful vision of a just society.
Whether or not we accept every detail, Rawls changed how we think about justice. His framework of fairness, his thought experiment of the original position, and his two principles set the terms for contemporary political philosophy. Any serious engagement with questions of social justice must pass through Rawls.