Philosophy serves as a valuable tool for those seeking a deeper, more meaningful life. However, the sheer volume of philosophical concepts and theories can often feel overwhelming. To address this, it is crucial to return to the core ideas that have shaped modern philosophy. Among these is John Rawls’ concept of moral arbitrariness, a principle that holds profound implications for understanding fairness and justice. By exploring Rawls’ philosophy and the significance of moral arbitrariness, this article aims to illuminate how these ideas can guide us in our pursuit of a more meaningful and purposeful life.
Key features of John Rawls’ philosophy
John Rawls was a highly influential philosopher known for his work on justice and fairness. His key contribution is the idea of “justice as fairness,” which he presented in his famous book A Theory of Justice. Rawls proposed two main principles of justice. The first focuses on equal rights, stating that every individual should enjoy the same basic liberties, such as freedom of speech and equal protection under the law. The second addresses social and economic inequalities, emphasizing that any differences should benefit the least advantaged members of society and ensure fair opportunities for everyone.
A core part of Rawls’ philosophy is the “original position” and “veil of ignorance.” These concepts suggest imagining a scenario where people make decisions about society’s rules without knowing their own status, abilities, or background. This ensures decisions are fair and not biased towards personal gain. By stepping into this hypothetical position, individuals would create a system that protects everyone’s interests, as they wouldn’t know where they might end up in society.
Rawls’ ideas promote the idea of equity, fairness, and ensuring that no one is unfairly disadvantaged by their circumstances. His approach to justice remains a foundational concept in political philosophy and continues to inspire discussions around equality and human rights today.
What is moral arbitrariness?
John Rawls’s view on moral arbitrariness is rooted in his broader theory of justice. He believed that many of the circumstances we are born into, such as our family background, social status, or natural talents, are morally arbitrary. This means that these factors are not something we can control or deserve. According to Rawls, it is unfair to allow these factors to determine an individual’s opportunities or their share of society’s resources. For Rawls, justice requires that we minimize the influence of such arbitrary factors so that everyone has a fair chance in life.
Rawls developed the concept of the “original position” and the “veil of ignorance” to address moral arbitrariness. He argued that in determining principles of justice, people should imagine themselves in a position where they do not know their personal traits, like their intelligence, wealth, or social status. By removing this knowledge, individuals would make decisions without being influenced by their own accidental advantages or disadvantages. This approach ensures that the rules governing society are fair for everyone, regardless of the circumstances they happen to be born into.
Ultimately, Rawls believed that justice is about creating a system where moral arbitrariness does not dictate an individual’s life prospects. Instead, society should be structured in a way that respects equality and fairness, neutralizing the unfair advantages that arise from morally arbitrary factors.
This example helps to demonstrate this philosophical perspective. Imagine a society where two children are born into vastly different circumstances—one into a wealthy family with access to the best schools, healthcare, and opportunities, and another into a poor household with limited resources, substandard education, and barely enough to survive. According to John Rawls’s ideas, these differences are not something the children can control—they are born into these situations purely by chance. Despite their vastly different starting points, a fair society would aim to organize its rules and structures in a way that ensures these arbitrary differences do not determine a person’s entire life prospects. For instance, the society might create policies that provide equal access to education or healthcare for all children, regardless of their background, so that everyone has a fair shot at success. This example emphasizes fairness despite the randomness of birth circumstances.
Challenges to John Rawls’s view about moral arbitrariness
One reason some philosophers object to or reject John Rawls’s view about moral arbitrariness lies in their disagreement with the implications of his ideas for justice and fairness. Critics argue that attempting to counteract moral arbitrariness—such as differences in natural talents or social circumstances—can lead to an overly interventionist or coercive approach by the state. For example, redistributing resources or opportunities to correct for these inequalities might infringe on individual freedoms and property rights. Some philosophers contend that this focus on redistribution undermines personal responsibility and merit, which they view as crucial components of justice.
Another objection stems from concerns about the practicality of implementing Rawls’s approach. Philosophers in this camp believe that creating a system to offset moral arbitrariness would require identifying and measuring factors that individuals do not control, which is an immensely complex task. They argue that no social institution or government can fairly determine what counts as “arbitrary” and what doesn’t without falling into subjective judgments, potentially leading to unfair or inconsistent outcomes.
Additionally, some critics reject the premise that moral arbitrariness is necessarily unjust or that it should be corrected for in the first place. These philosophers may argue that differences resulting from luck or circumstance are simply part of the human condition and do not inherently demand rectification. For them, the role of justice is not about ensuring equality by erasing such disparities but rather about setting up rules that are fair and allow individuals to pursue their goals within a stable framework, regardless of the starting point.
Finally, certain philosophers challenge the focus on distributive justice itself, emphasizing instead other values like community, individuality, or procedural fairness. They may argue that prioritizing the correction of moral arbitrariness distracts from building institutions that foster cooperation or respect diverse values. These critiques highlight the potential trade-offs between addressing inequalities and preserving autonomy, cultural cohesion, or other principles they consider equally or more important.
Why moral arbitrariness is important to John Rawls’ philosophy
These are some of the main reasons why grasping the concept of moral arbitrariness is crucial to understanding John Rawls’ philosophy.
- Moral Arbitrariness Challenges the Idea of Merit
Moral arbitrariness highlights the fact that many traits individuals are born with, such as intelligence, social status, or physical abilities, are not chosen or earned. Recognizing this challenges the notion that personal success or failure is wholly based on merit. If specific advantages and disadvantages are distributed arbitrarily, it suggests that individuals do not solely deserve the outcomes of their efforts or circumstances. This idea forces people to question societal structures that reward or penalize individuals based on these traits and encourages a shift toward creating systems that are fairer and less dependent on factors outside individuals’ control.
- It Provides a Basis for Fairness
The concept of moral arbitrariness emphasizes the randomness of certain life conditions, such as birthplace or family wealth, which profoundly affect a person’s opportunities. Understanding this randomness can lead to a more profound sense of fairness in policy-making and social arrangements. By acknowledging that these conditions are beyond any individual’s control, societies can strive to design systems that compensate for these differences, promoting equal access to opportunities. This awareness provides a foundation for creating institutions that aim to reduce inequality and support the well-being of everyone, regardless of their starting point in life.
- It Encourages Empathy and Solidarity
Recognizing the role of moral arbitrariness fosters empathy by showing that no one truly “earns” their natural talents or circumstances. This understanding can help people relate to those who may be less fortunate and encourage solidarity within communities. Instead of attributing success completely to individual effort, it shifts the focus toward the shared human experience of being born into uncontrollable circumstances. This perspective can inspire collective efforts to reduce inequality and support social programs that aim to uplift disadvantaged groups, nurturing a stronger, more cohesive society.
Contrasting John Rawls’ philosophy with John Locke’s philosophy
John Rawls and John Locke are both renowned for their contributions to political philosophy, but they hold distinct views when it comes to concepts like fairness and justice, particularly regarding moral arbitrariness. For John Rawls, the idea of moral arbitrariness plays a central role in his critique of traditional social and political structures. He argues that factors like the family or social class someone is born into, their talents, or natural abilities are arbitrary and not something individuals earn or deserve. Because of this, Rawls suggests that justice should mitigate the unequal effects of these arbitrary factors.
John Locke, on the other hand, does not focus on moral arbitrariness in the same way. Locke’s philosophy emphasizes natural rights and the idea that individuals inherently possess life, liberty, and property rights. For Locke, justice arises from respecting these natural rights, as well as from mutual agreements or contracts made in society. He places more significance on the individual’s autonomy and their right to the fruits of their labour, rather than questioning the fairness of the circumstances into which they are born.
The key difference lies in their foundational concerns. Locke’s approach accepts the existence of inequalities as long as natural rights are upheld, while Rawls seeks to address inequalities born out of moral arbitrariness to create a more just society. This distinction highlights how their philosophies approach justice from entirely different starting points.
Moral Arbitrariness, John Rawls’ philosophy and the philosophy of life
Reflecting on John Rawls’s perspective about moral arbitrariness, whether one agrees with it or not, is a valuable exercise when developing a personal philosophy of life. This reflection allows us to critically examine the underlying principles that shape our views on fairness, justice, and equality. By engaging with such ideas, we are encouraged to question how we perceive and address inequalities in the world, and this process can deepen our understanding of our own values and beliefs.
Considering Rawls’s viewpoint serves as a reminder of the complexities surrounding the sources of privilege and disadvantage in society. It challenges us to confront uncomfortable truths about how circumstances beyond an individual’s control can dramatically impact their opportunities and quality of life. This awareness can foster empathy and a greater commitment to considering the well-being of others as we form our ethical and philosophical frameworks.
Furthermore, reflecting on such a view equips us to think more critically about the systems and structures influencing our lives. It may inspire a sense of responsibility to work toward a more equitable society, especially when we acknowledge and grapple with the idea of unearned advantages or disadvantages. Whether this means advocating for fairer policies or simply adopting a more compassionate approach in our personal interactions, the moral implications of such reflections carry real-world significance.
Ultimately, the practice of engaging with challenging philosophical ideas like this also sharpens our ability to analyze and process complex moral questions. This intellectual exercise is important not because we might find definitive answers, but because it trains us to think more carefully about the kind of lives we want to lead and the kind of impact we want to have. Reflecting on Rawls’s views pushes us to define our values not just by default or habit, but through deliberate and thoughtful consideration.
Further reading
Barry, B. (1995). Justice as impartiality. Oxford University Press.
Cohen, G. A. (2008). Rescuing justice and equality. Harvard University Press.
Daniels, N. (1975). Equal liberty and unequal worth of liberty. Philosophical Studies, 34(3), 225-232.
Freeman, S. R. (2007). Rawls. Routledge.
Nagel, T. (1973). Rawls on justice. Philosophical Review, 82(2), 220-234.
Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, state, and utopia. Basic Books.
Pogge, T. W. M. (1989). Realizing Rawls. Cornell University Press.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Belknap Press.
Rawls, J. (1993). Political liberalism. Columbia University Press.
Sandel, M. J. (1998). Liberalism and the limits of justice (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Scanlon, T. M. (1973). Rawls’ theory of justice. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 121(5), 1020-1069.
Wenar, L. (2008). Why Rawls is not a cosmopolitan egalitarian. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 11(3), 281-297.