In “A Theory of Justice” (Rawls, 1971), John Rawls tries to develop a conception of justice that is based on a social contract. His approach, doubtlessly, led to a revival of the contract theory in modern political theory. However, his peculiar conception of a hypothetical contract has also evoked a wave of severe criticism. Some of his critics settle for condemning special features of Rawls’s contractual concept, while others maintain that Rawls’s theory is, in effect, no real contract theory. In this paper, I will therefore focus on two research questions: Is Rawls’s theory a genuine contract theory at all? If yes, does the contract play a crucial role in this theory or is there a preferable alternative available to Rawls?
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. The Rawlsian Social Contract
3. Rawls’s theory - Not a genuinely contract theory at all?
4. The role of Rawls’s contract – crucial or dispensable?
5. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Topics
This paper examines the validity and necessity of the social contract within John Rawls’s "A Theory of Justice," specifically addressing whether Rawls’s approach constitutes a genuine contract theory or merely a heuristic device, and evaluating the criticality of the contract in justifying his principles of justice.
- Analysis of the hypothetical nature of Rawls’s original position.
- Examination of fundamental criticisms regarding the lack of actual bargaining or exchange.
- Evaluation of the "final choice" procedure as a potential alternative to the contractual model.
- Assessment of the heuristic value of the contract in modern political theory.
Excerpt from the Book
The Rawlsian Social Contract
I first want to briefly sketch the most important features of Rawls’s social contract. Far from giving a complete explanation of this highly complex conception, I will only focus on those features that are relevant for this paper.
Rawls’s main idea is that the principles of justice are the object of an original agreement: “Thus, we are to imagine that those who engage in social co-operation choose together, in one joint act, the principles which are to assign basic rights and duties and to determine the division of social benefits” (Rawls, 1971, p. 11). However, this original agreement is not an actual historical contract, but only a hypothetical one (p. 12). The justification of the principles arising from the contract therefore depends on the notion that they would have been agreed to under the given theoretical and hypothetical conditions. In other words, the contract can be called “as-iffed” (Hall, 1957, p. 663). Rawls is convinced that true principles of justice can only be developed under fair conditions.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: The introduction outlines the central research questions regarding whether Rawls’s theory is a genuine contract theory and if the contract plays a crucial role in his framework.
2. The Rawlsian Social Contract: This chapter defines the key components of Rawls's theory, specifically the "original position" and the "veil of ignorance," explaining how they function as hypothetical tools.
3. Rawls’s theory - Not a genuinely contract theory at all?: This section discusses major criticisms from scholars like Dworkin, Hampton, and Sandel, who argue that Rawls’s lack of actual exchange and bargaining disqualifies his work as a real contract theory.
4. The role of Rawls’s contract – crucial or dispensable?: This chapter evaluates whether the contractual element is necessary or if the same outcomes could be achieved via a "final choice" procedure, ultimately defending the contract's heuristic value.
5. Conclusion: The conclusion synthesizes the arguments, suggesting that while alternatives exist, the contract remains a useful and powerful tool for operationalizing constraints within the theory of justice.
Keywords
John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, Social Contract, Original Position, Veil of Ignorance, Political Philosophy, Hypothetical Contract, Justice as Fairness, Ronald Dworkin, Contractarianism, Moral Philosophy, Rational Choice, Finality, Political Theory.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research paper?
The paper evaluates the legitimacy and importance of the social contract concept within John Rawls’s "A Theory of Justice," investigating whether it qualifies as a true contract theory or is merely a heuristic device.
What are the primary thematic areas explored?
The themes include the nature of hypothetical agreements, the critique of Rawls by scholars like Dworkin and Hampton, the concept of the "veil of ignorance," and the role of bargaining in contractual theories.
What is the central research question?
The paper asks whether Rawls’s theory is a genuine contract theory at all and, if so, whether the contract is crucial to his arguments or if there are better alternatives.
What methodology does the author use?
The author employs a critical analysis and literature review, contrasting Rawls’s concepts with interpretations from contemporary political philosophers to assess the robustness of his model.
What does the main body of the work address?
It addresses the criticisms surrounding the hypothetical nature of Rawls's contract, the lack of traditional state-of-nature bargaining, and the potential for a "final choice" alternative to the contract.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
The work is characterized by terms such as Social Contract, Original Position, Veil of Ignorance, Rawlsian Theory, and Contractarianism.
How does Dworkin’s poker game analogy contribute to the critique of Rawls?
Dworkin uses the analogy to illustrate that hypothetical agreements are not binding contracts; if players did not agree to a rule before the game, they are unlikely to accept it retrospectively, mirroring the criticism that Rawls's contractors have no reason to accept rules retrospectively.
What is the "final choice" procedure proposed by the author?
Inspired by Hampton, the "final choice" procedure is an alternative to the contract that seeks to reach the same principles of justice without relying on the formal, often criticized, contractual mechanism.
- Quote paper
- Jan Kercher (Author), 2004, The Social Contract and its contentious role for Rawls's 'Theory of Justice', Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/23155
