The Second Principle of Justice - Essay Example

The Second principle of justice Rawls is fully justified in rejecting Pareto efficiency and careers open to talents as being insufficient to establish justice. The main grounds for his rejection are (a) an efficient distribution may not necessarily be just in terms of expectations and (b) eliminating the influence of social contingencies is still done on the basis of a free market lottery which is repugnant from a moral perspective. The first principle enables recognition of the matter of priorities which is the “acknowledgment of the absolute weight of liberty with respect to social and economic advantages.” (Rawls 63). This suggests at the outset that one of the most important aspects of establishing justice may be liberty, specifically in terms of maximizing access to social and economic advantages. All social values, such as liberty and opportunity, income and wealth are bases of self respect and they must be distributed equally, unless an unequal distribution of these values would work out to everyone’s advantage. (Rawls 62). This first principle gives rise to the second principle, on the arrangement of social and economic inequalities in a manner that is just. Applying the Pareto principle of efficiency means that “a configuration is efficient whenever it is impossible to change it so as to make some persons (at least one) better off without at the same time making other persons (at least one) worse off.” (Rawls 67). As a result, any state of affairs will be assumed to be efficient, and as a result just, when this criterion is achieved. The principle of efficiency is therefore to be assessed in reference to the expectations of representative man and if an efficient distribution is successfully achieved, it will also be assumed to be just. But Rawls points out that an efficient distribution may not necessarily be just. For example, he argues that the practice of serfdom or slavery would also be considered just by applying Pareto standards, because under certain conditions, it cannot be subjected to any significant degree of reform without at the same time, lowering the expectations of some other representative men, such as for example, the landowners, hence the system is efficient as it is.(Rawls 71). But while such a system of serfdom may be considered efficient, it is not just because it is being achieved through exploitation of some human beings by others. The “principle of efficiency cannot thus, serve alone as a conception of justice.” (Rawls 71). On this basis, Rawls rejects the principle of Pareto efficiency, because the achievement of an efficient distribution in society does not necessarily equate to a just distribution of those resources. The difference principle, on the other hand, holds that subject to basic liberties being preserved, existing social and economic inequalities in society must be arranged in such a manner that they are beneficial to the least advantaged members of society. As a result, inequalities may be permissible “only if the difference in expectation is to the advantage of the representative man who is worse off…” (Rawls, 78). Rawls supports the difference principle because some of the inequalities existing between individuals, which are caused by factors out of individual control, are to be addressed under this principle, to ensure that parity between individuals exists. The second principle of justice through an application of the difference principle will thus hold that the social and economic inequalities which exist in society must be rearranged so that they (a) work for the greatest benefit of the least advantaged and (b) provide for equality of opportunity so that all offices and positions are open to all. Rawls points out that the second principle in effect, “insists that each person benefit from permissible inequalities in the basic structure.” (Rawls 64). The phrases ‘everyone’s advantage’ and ‘equally open to all’ are ambiguous. Everyone’s advantage on the basis of the principle of efficiency works out to a system of natural liberty, where efficiency is adjusted so that careers are open to talents.(Rawls 66). Carers open to talents assumes a system of natural liberty, where there is an open social system and keeping positions open to those “able and willing to strive for them will lead to a just distribution.”(Rawls 66). The justification offered under this approach is that such an assignment of rights and duties will result in a fair allocation of wealth and income, whatever this allocation turns out to be. The economy is a free market system, although the means of production may or may not be privately owned. (Rawls 66). Rawls prefers the equal opportunity system, which is not based to such an extent on the principle of efficiency, in arriving at a distribution. The argument in support of this position advocates that “assuming there is a distribution of natural assets, those who are at the same level of talent and ability, and have the same willingness to use them, should have the same prospects of success regardless of their initial place in the social system.” (Rawls 73). Opportunities must be open to everyone equally. While a system may be efficient and the distribution achieved within it may be efficient in that the people who are the worst off in society have the best possible prospects, this does not necessarily mean that justice is being served. How well anyone is able to do ultimately depends upon a variety of factors including their class, individual talents and abilities, element of luck, healthy, the vagaries of health and a variety of other factors. Applying a perspective of Pareto efficiency and equal opportunity for all, opening the doors to everyone will not necessarily produce a just result, because not everyone will have equal levels of access to those opportunities and the expectations of some others may be foiled or their positions worsened. Existing systems will be held to be just so long as they don’t worsen the condition of the representative man more than it already was. But the question that arises is, was justice being done in the first place? This is especially relevant in issues such as slavery or gender oppression or other kinds of subtle discrimination which have gained acceptance because of their long period of existence. Free market arrangements are set up within a framework of political and economic institutions which seeks to exert some control over economic and social conditions to ensure justice. As Rawls points out, while it may work towards “eliminating the influence of social contingencies”, and it is true that equality of all individuals cannot be achieved in practice and only an approximation in distribution can be achieved, such free market arrangements still allow for distribution of abilities and talents on the basis of a natural lottery. Such an outcome is however, “arbitrary from a moral perspective.” (Rawls, 74). Rawls prefers the equal opportunity approach over the careers open to talents approach, because the latter is achieved on the basis of principles of efficiency which may not always produce a just outcome. Equality of opportunity on the other hand, seeks to eliminate some of the social disparities existing between individuals to place them on a more equal footing; hence it is more acceptable, especially from a moral perspective that seeks to uphold and enhance individual rights. It may be argued that morality is a subjective standard and therefore cannot be used as a basis upon which to establish the framework of a nation’s economic and social conditions, where balances in abilities, talents and wealth must find their own natural, optimum level depending upon external factors, such as the free market, which condition it. But an abrogation of moral principles with a reliance on efficiency, and a failure to apply moral principles to their fullest capacity is automatically repugnant to the concept of justice, especially for social and economic institutions which must be geared towards achieving the collective good of society. It may also be argued that aligning social and economic policy in such a manner that Pareto efficiency of distribution is achieved and equal opportunities are provided is adequate to ensure that the rights of individuals are met. It is quite likely that in some instances, the rights of individuals to not be discriminated against may be aided by the passage of laws; the ability of some talented individuals to profit from the market may be enhanced through the application of free market principles. But the application of Pareto efficiency only ensure that the expectations people have are satisfied in terms of primary goods and thereby fosters precisely the kind of materialism that may be harmful from the viewpoint of justice. The Pareto principle in effect, merely makes primary goods available should people be prepared to work for them. But is it therefore correct to evaluate peoples’ expectations on the basis of primary goods, rather than happiness or inner satisfaction? It is only when social and economic principles are founded on moral principles that they can serve to instill good values, beliefs and ideas in human beings and thereby encourage individuals to behave fairly, kindly and equitably with one another. Primary goods are only a means of working in pursuit of our individual goals, but it may not necessarily constitute happiness unless such principles of Pareto efficiency are centered on moral principles. Bibliography * Rawls, John. “A Theory of Justice” Harvard University Press, 2005. Read More