SEEU Review vol. 5 Nr. 2 (pdf) - South East European University

Dr. Ercan Gündoğan
Treanor points to the procedural aspect of liberal conception of justice as
fairness. “The ability of citizens to present a complaint to an independent
tribunal, is a typical example of a procedure, which is valued by liberals”.
Actually, this is completely the case of Rawlsian theory that "process
legitimises outcome", which is “probably the shortest summary of liberal
philosophy”. What is said to the poor is “that poverty is not unjust, and that
inequality is not tyranny”. Treanor suggest that “The alternative is simple:
ethics should not concern itself with 'justice', but with injustice - and how to
end it” (Treanor, 2003).
As for the social unity and consensus on which society is based, Treanor
observes that “Rawls also has a clear picture of what he wants to avoid: civil
strife. Again he gives no justification for making the avoidance of civil strife
a primary social goal. He simply assumes it to be self-evidently necessary
that societies are like this” (Treanor, 2003). As we have seen above, Rawls
often refers to religious tolerance which was developed after the wars of
religion in Europe. Treanor states that “Not just Rawls, but the liberal
tradition in general, wishes to structure society, so as to avoid civil strife.
But that is a political preference of liberals, not a self-evident truth”. For
him, “civil strife is the greatest evil for a society. Are there no greater evils?
Is inequality not a greater evil than civil strife?”. It is a striking question, I
think. If we consider the social and economic background of all ci vil wars,
we can see that people do not make war simply for religious purposes.
Rawls’ theory of justice follows dualist tradition and does not recognize
the dialectic thinking. He sees the conflict but does not try to see the
dialectical roots of the conflict. He sees the problem but does not see the
mechanisms, which leads to the problem. Freedom and equality are not only
values but also problems. Rawls resolves traditional conflict between these
two values by giving the priority to the freedom over the equality. The only
valid justification seems to be accepting the idea of man as end in itself. Man
can not be an instrument for any higher value. This sort of liberal humanism
illustrates the conceit of bourgeoisie. But, do not the mechanism and the
dynamics of the liberal society make an instrument all men? Rawls’
contribution to liberalism is his breaking the ties with market liberalism. But,
without market liberalism, is the political liberalism possible? He seems to
argue that socialist economic system can be compatible with political
liberalism as defined by the political conception of justice as fairness. The
question can be asked in reverse: can socialist politics be possible with
market liberalism? If this is possible, why will we call it socialist politics?
Rawls has no such conception like “driving forces of society”. Driving
forces, to him, are only the general acceptance of some principles. For
30