DIVERSE PERSPECTIVE ON JUSTICE
In moderns times, a significant part of political theory is directly and indirectly related to the problem of justice. This has given rise to diverse perspectives on justice. Of these, the following are particularly important: Liberal perspective; Liberitarian perspective; Marxist perspective; Feminist perspective; Subaltern perspective; and Communitarian perspective.
LIBERAL PERSPECTIVE : Liberal perspective on justice treats liberty as the central problem of justice. it is important to note that only the idea of substantive liberty will auger well for the realization of justice. This perspective is chiefly represented by Rawls's Theory of Justice.
RAWLS'S THEORY OF JUSTICE : John Rawls (1921-2002), a contemporary American philosopher, in his celebrated work a Theory of Justice (1971), has pointed out that a good society is characterized by a number of virtues. Justice is the good first virtue of a good society. In other words, justice is a necessary but not a sufficient condition of a good society. Those who argue that justice should not be allowed to come in the way of social advancement and progress.
PROBLEM OF DISTRIBUTION : According to Rawls, the problem of justice consists in ensuring a just distribution of 'primary goods' which include rights and liberties, power and opportunities, income and wealth, means of self-respect and so on. Rawls has described his theory as the theory of pure procedural justice. It means that once certain principles of justice are unanimously accepted, the distribution resulting from their application will be necessarily just. Rawls has severely criticized those theories of which ignore moral worth of the individual for the attainment of any predetermined goals. He has attacked utilitarianism because in calculating the 'greatest happiness of greatest number', it does not care if it leads to extream hardship to any particular individual.
Rawls has evolved a unique methodology for arriving at unanimous procedure of justice. Following tradition of the 'social contract', Rawls has envisaged an 'original position' by abstracting the individuals from their particular social and economic circumstances. These individuals are symbolically placed behind a 'veil of ignorance' where they are supposed to be deliberating as rational agents. They are totally unaware of their wants, interest, skills, and abilities as well as of the conditions which lead to discrimination and conflict in society. But they have an elementary knowledge of economics and psychology, and are also endowed with a 'sense of justice'. According to Rawls, in such a state of uncertainty the negotiators will choose the least dangerous path. In other words, each individual will hypothetically place himself or herself in 'the least advantaged position' while recommending the criteria of allocation of the primary goods. So, each of them will demand gretest benefit for the least advantaged.
PRINCIPLES OF DISTRIBUTION : As a result of the hypothetical negotiation under such condition, three principles of justice will be accepted by all, according to Rawls, in the following order: (1) Principle of equal liberty ( i.e. equal right to most extensive liberty compatible with similar liberty of others) which postulates that nobody's liberty will be compromised for any other benefit ( liberty in this sense implies equal right to political perticipation, freedom of expression, religious liberty, equality before the law, etc.) ; (2) Principle of fair equality of opportunity, particularly for acquiring offers and positions; and finaly, Difference principle which implies that any departure from equal distribution of the primary goods can be justified only when it could be proved to bring greatest benefit to the least advantaged.
Here Rawls introduces the idea of the chain connection which implies that in order to strengthen a chain, we should start with strengthening its weakest link, and then repeat the process by identifying the weakest link on each occasion.
CRITICAL APPRAISAL : Rawls's theory of justice has been criticised by various schools of thought. COLLECTIVISTS, argue that he has discoverd the ground for the justification of the existing capitalist system. He has shown that if the rich have the freedom to accumulate wealth, the poor would be automatically benefited.
Some critics argue that the identification of the most disadvantaged sections is very difficult. If income and wealth are treated the sole criteria for identifying such sections, how shall we compensate those who lack ability or who suffer from emotional insecurity ?
Marxists contend the Rawls has tried to determine the principles of justice in a hypothetical condition where people deliberate behind a 'veil of ignorance'.
Libertarians argue that Rawls has sacrificed liberty for the sake of equality. Why should we force the meritorious and industrious to work for the benefit of the most disadvantaged sections? Moreover, enterprising persons must take risks for their advancement in life. Rawls's negotiators are not prepared to take risks. How would they help in social progress ?
Communitarians point out that Rawls's political philosophy does not grade any conception of good life as superior or inferior to others. This ethical neutrality avades the opportunity of the persuit of the common good.
*The next topic will be discussed tomorrow
Comments
Post a Comment