Rawls

18 Pages 4394 Words

plit up, or they will not decide each time separately by voting, but adopt some rule about taking turns.
This is the sort of situation Rawls had in mind in developing his theory. Imagine a group of people on equal terms, who don't decide each case separately, but decide on general rules which will then determine cases that arise. The rules can't be changed all the time - then they would be deciding the next case in the disguise of deciding on a rule. The rules are supposed to be permanent, and the same rules apply to all members of the group alike (no rule says that people whose name begins with K never have to do the washing up). And if the members are on equal terms, and there is no permanent coalition, no dominant faction, then no member of the group can slant or tailor the rules in their own favour. In a situation like that, Rawls says, the rules that would get accepted would be fair. On a particular occasion the rules would require some to give way to others (e.g. if it is someone's turn), but there would be no overall subordination of the interests of some to the interests of others. This is justice as fairness - the rules of justice are the rules which will get accepted in a group of people living together on equal terms, if they understand (a) that the rules are to apply for the indefinite future, (b) to every member of the group alike, and (c) if none of the members of the group can see any way of tailoring the rules to their own advantage (there is no dominant faction, etc).
Rawls doesn't suppose that the members of this group are in any degree concerned for the happiness of mankind, or for one another's happiness. In fact, in the earliest version he postulates that the members are self-interested. In proposing rules each of them is trying to secure his or her own interests; but given the circumstances we have supposed, there is no way any of them can on the whole subordinate others' interests to their own, so they have to...