Abstract:
John Rawls must undoubtedly be considered the most important political philosopher of the late twentieth century. He spent his entire philosophical life thinking and studying the foundations of philosophy and ethics and addressing questions of justice. John Rawls is primarily famous for his unparalleled book "A Theory of Justice" (1972); for this reason, the title of philosopher of justice is truly deserved by him. This book has been translated into 27 languages. Twenty years later, Rawls wrote another book titled "Political Liberalism" and slightly modified his main theory (justice). He was a professor of philosophy at Harvard University and passed away in November 2002 due to a heart attack. In the modern era, discussions about justice have moved away from the individual and moral spheres toward social justice, such that today the discussion of distributive justice holds special importance. The axis of Rawls's discussion is also social or distributive justice. He seeks to delineate a just society, which is realized when the structure of that society is organized based on fair principles and criteria. What follows is the translation of the first chapter of his book A Theory of Justice. In this section, Rawls seeks to present a comprehensive moral theory that will serve as the basis for the social system and bring about the social virtue of justice. Rawls states, "In this book, I want to formulate a new moral foundation for contemporary liberal democratic societies."
Machine summary:
Those who have different perceptions of justice agree on this point: that institutions are only just when there is no contractual distinction between individuals in determining primary rights and responsibilities, and when laws create an appropriate balance between demands and the benefits of social life.
For these specific situations, the first condition is the coordination and balance of relations between individuals—this initial state among individuals as moral persons and as rational beings in their goals and abilities is fair, and I believe it constitutes the essence of justice.
Furthermore, assuming that the original position determines a set of principles (from which the concept of justice can be selected), it would then be correct that whenever a social institution is responsive to these principles, those within these institutions tell each other that they are cooperating based on the agreed-upon conditions.
Instead, individuals in the original position choose two completely different principles: the first principle requires equality in the assignment of fundamental rights and responsibilities; while the second principle holds that social and economic inequalities (for example, inequality of wealth and power) are only just if they result in compensation of benefits for each and every individual, especially to the benefit of those who derive the most important benefits from society.
For if we assume that persons in the original position choose the principle of equal liberty and limit social and economic inequalities, there is no reason for this thought that just institutions would pursue a great good (1)- Bentham (2)- Edgeworth will have (here it is assumed that the primacy of utility is interpreted as the satisfaction of rational needs).
(
, 
, 
)
