THEORY OF JUSTICE: MYTH OR REALITY
Dr. Tanvir Orakzai
July 19, 2006
Equality of opportunity provides individuals to compete against each other on equivalent terms to achieve their place in a social setup. Compared to caste system where the assumption is that society contains hierarchy, and superior and inferior status is determined by birth; equality of opportunity is a unique theory which promises competition on equal terms. Rawls's in his book A Theory of Justice has constructed a hypothetical theory which is system based on equality that he calls “Justice as Fairness”. Rawls’s social theory discusses the role of institutions in a society, which aggravate bitterness creating isolation. He questions, is there any system to arrange society, which can keep these issues within tolerable limits? And can a social system be organized on just and fair a standard which is acceptable to majority.
According to Rawls, we all agree to have a just social contract with our free will without knowing (ignorance) the ultimate consequences. According to the original position, "no-one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength and the like". Behind this “veil of ignorance” different groups will hound their own benefits. Rawls explains that all the factions in this hypothetical society will adopt two basic principals: the principal of rights and duties, and the fair distribution of social and economic compensation in a society. Critics have hurled many arguments against Theory of Justice. For example Rawls idealism is meant to fulfill only ethical ideals rather than real social dilemmas. Many question the belief of equal opportunity as the individual with higher IQ and skills grab prized positions, and less intelligent Individuals will have no place in such society. The individual with lower skills are always unable to compete with intelligent people. Applying the concept of equal opportunity on such individuals is a discrimination against the people with lower abilities and goes against the Theory of Justice.
According to the liberalism theory, state should not interfere in individual’s life and a person should be free to choose the final good for his/her life as long as these aspirations do not conflict with the state law. In plain words, the liberalism theory asks state to remain neutral and should treat citizens equal regardless of their national, tribal and economic backgrounds. The contemporary liberal vision is that state should be unprejudiced and life should be experienced in as many forms as many sub-cultures exist in a given society. Kymlicka endorses a multicultural recognition of group rights to sustain the group difference as allowed by the liberal principles of freedom. He disagrees about the confinement of individualistic liberty within a narrow framework, as this will not give any respect to the different cultures within a society. He argues that “liberal principles will preclude any attempts at ethnic cleansing, or stripping people of their citizenship, or the violation of human rights” in a majority culture, allowing all groups to respect right of minority nations within a larger nation setup.
On the other hand Walzer encourages the idea that people should have different possessions for creating disparity. This disparity in goods is essential to keep a society intact and its members reliant on each other. As all members of a society create their own social goods that decide atypical standard of just allocation within a social setup. For example in a capitalist society money is circulated through free market; education and jobs related issues are decided on the basis of merit,; while law decides equality. Walzer argues that just means are shared by all members of society. As all members of the society are dependent on each other for their mutual needs, this dependence of being complete on one side and being dependent on each other creates complex equality. He explains that good is fabrication of people; and not based on some external truth. Truth can change if people wish to change it. If we accept this view then the majority can enslave or abolish the rights of the minorities or implement draconian laws on the basis of gender, sex, race or religion on the reasons of being majority. Any theory which is based on exploitation is tyranny not justice.
Justice is the chief asset in any society to settle advantages and responsibilities between individuals. The distribution of justice needs an executing body to make and enforce laws and contracts, re-distribute wealth and tax, punish the evil and award the innocent. If this system is broken; and all individuals are allowed to do what they feel good, there will no common definition of good and society would cease to function. Such extreme individualization will lead society to chaos tearing the state apart. The concept of ideal society has been alive in history since Plato’s time. It is tempting to dream of a society where people do not suffer; nor are they discriminated on the basis of race, sex, religion or ethnic backgrounds. However being human it is natural to have greed, bias, temptation and siding with our kith and kin, which is equally practiced in all small and large societies. In real world it is not possible to create such ideal form of equality for the reason, that inequalities are often passed from one generation to another in the shape of wealth and property, and continued to next generation is successive cycles.
According to Rawls, we all agree to have a just social contract with our free will without knowing (ignorance) the ultimate consequences. According to the original position, "no-one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength and the like". Behind this “veil of ignorance” different groups will hound their own benefits. Rawls explains that all the factions in this hypothetical society will adopt two basic principals: the principal of rights and duties, and the fair distribution of social and economic compensation in a society. Critics have hurled many arguments against Theory of Justice. For example Rawls idealism is meant to fulfill only ethical ideals rather than real social dilemmas. Many question the belief of equal opportunity as the individual with higher IQ and skills grab prized positions, and less intelligent Individuals will have no place in such society. The individual with lower skills are always unable to compete with intelligent people. Applying the concept of equal opportunity on such individuals is a discrimination against the people with lower abilities and goes against the Theory of Justice.
According to the liberalism theory, state should not interfere in individual’s life and a person should be free to choose the final good for his/her life as long as these aspirations do not conflict with the state law. In plain words, the liberalism theory asks state to remain neutral and should treat citizens equal regardless of their national, tribal and economic backgrounds. The contemporary liberal vision is that state should be unprejudiced and life should be experienced in as many forms as many sub-cultures exist in a given society. Kymlicka endorses a multicultural recognition of group rights to sustain the group difference as allowed by the liberal principles of freedom. He disagrees about the confinement of individualistic liberty within a narrow framework, as this will not give any respect to the different cultures within a society. He argues that “liberal principles will preclude any attempts at ethnic cleansing, or stripping people of their citizenship, or the violation of human rights” in a majority culture, allowing all groups to respect right of minority nations within a larger nation setup.
On the other hand Walzer encourages the idea that people should have different possessions for creating disparity. This disparity in goods is essential to keep a society intact and its members reliant on each other. As all members of a society create their own social goods that decide atypical standard of just allocation within a social setup. For example in a capitalist society money is circulated through free market; education and jobs related issues are decided on the basis of merit,; while law decides equality. Walzer argues that just means are shared by all members of society. As all members of the society are dependent on each other for their mutual needs, this dependence of being complete on one side and being dependent on each other creates complex equality. He explains that good is fabrication of people; and not based on some external truth. Truth can change if people wish to change it. If we accept this view then the majority can enslave or abolish the rights of the minorities or implement draconian laws on the basis of gender, sex, race or religion on the reasons of being majority. Any theory which is based on exploitation is tyranny not justice.
Justice is the chief asset in any society to settle advantages and responsibilities between individuals. The distribution of justice needs an executing body to make and enforce laws and contracts, re-distribute wealth and tax, punish the evil and award the innocent. If this system is broken; and all individuals are allowed to do what they feel good, there will no common definition of good and society would cease to function. Such extreme individualization will lead society to chaos tearing the state apart. The concept of ideal society has been alive in history since Plato’s time. It is tempting to dream of a society where people do not suffer; nor are they discriminated on the basis of race, sex, religion or ethnic backgrounds. However being human it is natural to have greed, bias, temptation and siding with our kith and kin, which is equally practiced in all small and large societies. In real world it is not possible to create such ideal form of equality for the reason, that inequalities are often passed from one generation to another in the shape of wealth and property, and continued to next generation is successive cycles.