Rawls in Traditional LD

Who is Rawls and What is Justice as Fairness?

John Rawls was an American political philosopher who was extremely influential in the 20th century and whose ideas continue to influence political conceptions of justice. Rawls’ work was specifically concerned with achieving an equitable system of distribution throughout society. 

Specifically, John Rawls believed in Justice as Fairness, which equates a just society with a fair one. Under a Rawlsian theory of justice, society should strive to remove inequitable participation, expose undue influence, and distribute goods according to some relevant criterion of equity or need. 

To achieve a fairer society, Rawls believed in several principles. The original position is a hypothetical situation where decision makers design rules of justice from a neutral standpoint. With a veil of ignorance, the decision maker does not know anything particular about themselves or their position in society. This is based on the idea that if a person at random was selected to make the rules, they would likely make rules that benefit them. Imagine you could design the rules of society without knowing whether you’ll be wealthy, low income, unskilled, marginalized, a parent, a student, or a senior citizen. Rawls says that you would pick rules that protect everyone’s individual freedoms and make sure that any advantages help the worst off.

Rawls’ Principle of Justice

1. All citizens are entitled to the same basic rights and liberties.

2. The second principle deals with inequality and has two parts:

                 a) They are to be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. Better paying and more powerful jobs can exist, but everyone with the same talents and effort should have an equal chance to get them. Background factors like social class cannot block some groups from competing.

                 b) They are to be to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society. When inequalities are allowed, they should help the worst-off group in society better than any other policy arrangement would have. *This is known as the Difference Principle* 

Applying Rawls in Traditional LD

Rawls prioritizes these principles in order: 

1. Equal basic liberties

2. Fair equality of opportunity

3. Difference Principle

These principles can be directly translated into frameworks for traditional LD. 

Rawlsian Values: Justice as fairness, legitimacy, equality of opportunity, etc.  

Rawlsian Value Criterions: Upholding the difference principle / ensuring equality of opportunity / abiding by the veil of ignorance, etc. 

Rawls prioritizes basic liberty and natural rights over collective social and economic advantages. Under a Rawlsian framework, you can argue that we shouldn’t sacrifice basic rights just because it maximizes total welfare. Under the veil of ignorance, decision makers choose rules that maximize the position of the worst off group.

Individuals are seen as free and equal persons morally, not as numbers or statistics. This doesn’t mean you can never weigh on magnitude, but you can argue that utilitarian policies (sacrificing a few people for the majority) are unjust.

Arguments For and Against Rawls

For Rawls: 

• Shows the intuition that basic rights shouldn’t be violated even for big benefits.

• It’s a good model of fairness as it gets rid of bias through the veil of ignorance.

• It protects marginalized groups by focusing on the least advantaged.

Against Rawls:

• The difference principle discourages risk and innovation, things that could be beneficial in the long term.

• The veil of ignorance is unrealistic and can’t apply to a functioning society

• Maximizing overall wellbeing is more important (utilitarianism)

Rawls vs Other Frameworks

Compatible Topics for Applying Rawls

• Welfare and economic redistribution

• Criminal justice

• Health care access

• Education funding and access

• Voting rights, political representation

Tips for Running Rawls in Round

• Don’t stop at defining Rawls, remember to weigh it against your opponent’s framework!

• Compare worlds with examples and scenarios

• Preempt utilitarianism by saying that higher total welfare is insufficient as long as basic liberties and rights are violated

• Many trad/lay judges might not be familiar with Rawls, so prioritize clarity over depth wherever you run it