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

SEEU Review Volume 5, No. 2, 2009
example, principle of utility rules, or his principles can rule, or whatever. He
does not explain whey some principles seem to rule.
With the hierarchical organisation of the principles of justice, Rawls takes
us back to the famous dichotomy of freedom and equality, which has created
controversies among different liberal lines and between liberals and
collectivist thoughts as well. He puts the priority over liberty. Novelty is that
the traditional dichotomy between freedom and equality is translated into a
tension between freedom and justice. Justice does not exclude inequality as
long as it is just. Rawls, as a liberal, talks about the equalities only in the
context of rights and liberties while he deals with inequalities rather than
equalities in the context of social and economic relations. In addition, it is
surprising to assume that inequality is to be accepted by the least advantaged
parties of society. Furthermore, in general conception, we argue that there
are inequalities that are to the benefit of all. Moreover, it is assumed that
unequal distribution of social values may be to the benefit of all and some
inequalities are permissible.
The main drawback of Rawlsian theory is that it tries to resolve the
conflict without having a conflict theory. Historical background of the
divisions of the conceptions of good is observed but it is not explained why
rival groups have incommensurable conceptions of good. This lack of
understanding does not and cannot lead to the analysis of structure-agency
relation.
In Rawls, we do not see any collective notion of will and identity. But
any social and political discussion must take for granted the collectivity, be it
liberal or whatever. Clash of the atoms cannot lead to any social relation that
Rawls’ social and political justice absolutely need. His triple relation of
family, association and the state seems to be Hegelian sequential relation of
family-civil society and state. The last stage is suggested as a sphere in
which the contradictions are resolved in the form of just constitutional form
of democratic state. But, nonetheless, although Rawls observes the conflict,
he does not have any conception of contradiction or any dialectical
understanding of the contradiction.
Conception of fairness reduces the problem of inequality to justice since,
when the rules of the game is fair, results are out of considerations of justice.
However, as he accepts, social justice is not the question of social game to
which our participation is not voluntary. If the rules of the game are fair, the
results are always just
31