While both John Rawls's theory of justice and the broader philosophical concept of egalitarianism aim to foster a just and equitable society, their fundamental approaches, precise goals, and the site or focus of their theories exhibit significant differences. Rawls's theory primarily focuses on the basic structure of society and its institutions, whereas egalitarianism, in its various forms, often emphasizes equality of outcomes or distributions.
Understanding John Rawls's Theory of Justice
John Rawls, in his seminal work A Theory of Justice, proposes a sophisticated framework for determining principles of justice that should govern a society's fundamental institutions. His approach is contractualist, imagining individuals in an "original position" behind a "veil of ignorance." In this hypothetical state, individuals are unaware of their social status, natural talents, or personal conceptions of the good, ensuring impartiality.
From this position, Rawls argues that rational individuals would choose two principles of justice:
- First Principle (Liberty Principle): Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others. These basic liberties include political liberty (the right to vote and be eligible for public office), freedom of speech and assembly, liberty of conscience and thought, freedom of the person (including the right to hold personal property), and freedom from arbitrary arrest and seizure as defined by the rule of law.
- Second Principle (Difference Principle & Fair Equality of Opportunity): Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both:
- To the greatest benefit of the least advantaged (the Difference Principle). This means that any inequalities must improve the situation of the worst-off members of society.
- Attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. This principle ensures that all individuals, regardless of their social background, have a fair chance to achieve desirable positions.
Key Aspect of Rawls's Theory:
- Site of Justice: Basic Social Institutions: Rawls's theory is specifically designed to apply to the "basic structure of society"—the major political, social, and economic institutions. This includes the constitution, legal system, economic arrangements (e.g., market structure, property rights), and the family. His concern is how these fundamental institutions distribute rights, duties, and the benefits of social cooperation. For instance, Rawls's theory would analyze whether the tax system or educational system is structured justly, not necessarily whether two individual hermits living independently have equal resources.
Understanding Egalitarianism
Egalitarianism is a broad and diverse philosophical doctrine that generally advocates for equality among people, typically in terms of social, political, or economic status. However, the specific kind of equality it champions can vary significantly, leading to different forms:
- Strict Egalitarianism: Advocates for an equal distribution of wealth, income, or other goods among all members of society.
- Equality of Opportunity: Emphasizes that all individuals should have an equal chance to succeed, regardless of their background, often focusing on removing barriers like discrimination or lack of access to education.
- Equality of Welfare/Well-being: Focuses on ensuring everyone achieves an equal level of welfare or well-being.
- Equality of Resources: Proposes that individuals should have an equal share of resources, allowing them to pursue their chosen ends.
- Luck Egalitarianism: This is a particularly relevant form when contrasting with Rawls. Luck egalitarians contend that inequalities stemming from "brute luck" (factors beyond an individual's control, like natural talents or socio-economic background) are unjust and should be rectified, while inequalities resulting from "option luck" (consequences of deliberate choices or gambles) might be permissible.
Key Aspect of Egalitarianism:
- Site of Justice: Distributions: Many forms of egalitarianism, especially luck egalitarianism, focus directly on the distribution of goods, resources, or welfare among individuals. They are concerned with who gets what and why, and whether the resulting patterns are fair or unfair. This focus can extend beyond institutional structures to individual circumstances, even outside of formal social arrangements. For example, a luck egalitarian might argue that a disparity in resources between two hermits is unjust if it stems from unchosen circumstances, a situation Rawls's theory, focused on social institutions, would not directly address.
Core Differences Between Rawls and Egalitarianism
The distinction between Rawls's theory and various forms of egalitarianism can be summarized by examining their primary concerns and approaches:
| Feature | John Rawls's Theory of Justice | Egalitarianism (especially Luck Egalitarianism) |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Site of Justice | Basic social institutions and their structure. | Distributions of goods, resources, or welfare among individuals. |
| Core Concern | Establishing fair procedures and institutions that ensure basic liberties and benefit the least advantaged. | Achieving specific patterns of equality, often aiming to eliminate unchosen inequalities. |
| Tolerance for Inequality | Permits social and economic inequalities if they benefit the least advantaged (Difference Principle) and result from fair equality of opportunity. | Views most inequalities as problematic, especially those arising from unchosen circumstances ("brute luck"). Aims to level differences. |
| Role of Responsibility | While acknowledging the "arbitrariness of natural lottery," Rawls's system doesn't directly distinguish between luck and choice to justify redistribution in the way luck egalitarians do. The difference principle addresses the overall position of the worst-off, regardless of the precise origin of their disadvantage (within fair institutions). | Central to distinguishing between just and unjust inequalities: inequalities due to brute luck are unjust, while those from choice (option luck) may be permissible. |
| Focus Scope | Macro-level; how the entire societal framework justly distributes primary goods. | Can be micro-level; concerned with individual circumstances and specific distributive outcomes. |
| Nature of "Equality" | Equality of basic liberties and fair equality of opportunity are strict; economic equality is not an end in itself but constrained by the difference principle. | Varies widely, but often aims for substantive equality in resources, welfare, or outcome. |
For instance, Rawls would argue that a society with significant income disparities is just if those disparities arise from a system that offers fair equality of opportunity and ultimately works to the maximal benefit of the poorest. In contrast, a strict egalitarian might find any significant income disparity inherently unjust, while a luck egalitarian would examine why those disparities exist—if they are due to unchosen misfortunes, they are unjust and require rectification.
In essence, Rawls provides a framework for designing a fair game (just institutions), accepting that some inequalities will naturally arise from this fair process, provided they meet specific criteria. Many egalitarians, particularly luck egalitarians, are more concerned with the score (the distribution of goods) and whether any disparities in it are traceable to morally arbitrary factors.
