Revista (PDF) - Universidade do Minho

JOHN RAWLS (1921-2002). GIANT ON THE SHOULDERS OF GIANTS 287
in such an Original Position. Even if the parties do not know the details
of their own life plans and talents, they would all prefer various fundamental
rights and other social instruments that are valued regardless
of life plans. Rawls therefore claimed that behind such a Veil of Ignorance,
the parties would not risk living in a utilitarian society which
would permit – and indeed require – the oppression of a small, permanent
minority if this maximised the total utility. Nor would the
parties agree to arbitrarily favor certain talents or world views, since
they would not know whether they would be thus favored.
Principles of Justice
Rawls claimed in brief that the decisive criterion for selecting
principles of justice is the position of the worst off. Parties would
prefer certain principles over several alternatives. First, all must be
secured equal political and civil rights. All must also be ensured fair
equality of opportunity, so that individuals with the same talents and
who are prepared to use those talents should enjoy equal access to
society’s offices and positions.
Regarding economic distribution, Rawls rejected both complete
freedom in the form of pure market liberalism and complete equality
in the form of equal pay. Instead the social institutions should secure
equal life earnings regardless of social position – unless the situation
of the worst off can be improved by rewarding others to increase the
total pie. Inequalities are acceptable if they are required to increase
the smallest share of that economic pie. This principle is called the
Difference Principle.
These principles of distribution express with greater clarity much
of what is common among many religious and philosophical world
views. In Europe we find them in many party platforms, among both
Social democrats and Christian democrats. Much disagreement
among political parties may indeed be understood as differences
concerning who are the worst off, and what social arrangements and
inequalities are necessary to improve their situation. Rawls’ contribution
is largely the increased precision of such principles, and his way
of justifying them while seeking to avoid contested philosophical and
religious premises.