Fifty Years of A Theory of Justice

A Theory of Justice was published in 1971, this year is 2021, the epic completes 50 years. I am sure that if not for a covid year, this fact would have received due attention.

Students of political science in India come across the name of this book and its author, when they learn about death and decline in political theory and its revival. On other occasions they come across this book when they encounter the deadlock between utilitarianism and moral intuitionism. A Theory of Justice or justice is usually a core part of most syllabuses and curricula in India and elsewhere. This wasn’t the case earlier. I was unaware about this book when graduation (B.A.) was over and it was listed as reading for an 'optional' course in M.A., and read the significant part of A Theory of Justice while pursuing M.Phil! All this is as recent as late nineties. The impact of first and subsequent reading has stayed with the author since.

Natural sciences dominate the knowledge world and so ordinary folks know what an equation is. The word equation is part of common vocabulary. People refer to equations even when they don’t know what equations are for and what problems they solve and how. Many would not know how equations look like. Philosophers and theorist offer formulations not equations or formulas and they are known by them. Formulations indicate and identify what they are about. Typically formulations contain qualifiers which are like exceptions and conditions that would surround equations. Philosophers and theorist are usually equally committed to problem solving as natural scientists are, but they may as well delve into issues other than problem solving.

Formulations of philosophers and theorists are usually long and they could be complex, abstract even vague. The formulation that A Theory of Justice offers is an exception. The formulation of John Rawls, the author of theory of justice is simple and concise--justice is fairness. What is unjust or constitutes an injustice is stark and explicit, but what would justice look like? It involves allocating a fair share of socially available goods. A Theory of Justice argues that Justice is the first, foremost and fundamental value/virtue of institutions.

Good theorist do more than rehearsing and preaching from pulpit that is already known and recognised as the right thing. They defend their formulations with reason; think about possible objections to their own conceptions and how to meet them. They offer systematic thinking not contradictions. A theory of justice is considered a classic, an epic for the defense it puts forth for conceiving Justice as fairness. Formulations could be crisp and condensed, what makes a good theory and book is elaboration and on this count A theory of justice is not good, it is great.

A fad and fetish for the new and novel grips young learners and is a bane to the old. A theory of justice is genuine, original and innovative and yet the book is unafraid to admit and relay that its basic formulation justice is fairness is already well entrenched, familiar and known to many traditions, conscience and persuasions. 

A theory of justice rebuts utilitarianism; it reformulates it while offering a worthy alternative to it. A theory of justice has an array of conceptions to elaborate and defend its conception. Original position, veil of ignorance, primary goods, basic structure, maximin and difference principle, overlapping consensus is just a few of them.

A theory of justice is engaging, it engages its readers. It is engaging in other sense, as it delves into the heart of debates that touch and affect justice and while doing so cuts across disciplinary debates. The first and earlier versions of A Theory of Justice is so steeped into jurisprudence that it does not have paragraphs but sections. If you happen to read it, it would engage with Arrow’s impossibility theorem that preoccupies economists. The book while elucidating concept of a person and circumstances of justice draws and enriches sociology and psychology leaving aside the philosophers and political theorists it deals with for the time being.

The publication of this book was preceded by a decline in debate, now most people know the debates and positions that has sprung, after its publication and largely were a response to it. Libertarians and communitarians are good examples of the later.

While A theory of Justice takes recourse to a hypothetical reasoning process to show that its two principles of justice and their order would be acceptable to persons, irrespective of when they think about it and it entails redistribution. Robert Nozick insists in his response that Justice must be historical and redistribution does not necessarily follow justice. Privileged and dominant disposition opposes redistribution and they echo Nozick, not Rawls. Though, Robert Nozick expressed an unease with the end result of reasoning he deployed to explore issues related to justice. One wonders whether individual personal autonomy sits uneasily with redistribution? People own their selves and one deserves extra and additional rewards for merits and talents one possess runs like common sense. If you are keen on these issues and want to find out whether what feeds common sense is fair or not, A theory of Justice is the book you must go to.

Reading Ronald Dworkin with Robert Nozick about owning and exploiting the resources one is born would be interesting but these scenarios would not be imaginable without a theory of justice. Maybe it would lead us on one hand to connect privilege with historical conception of justice and on the other place merit, talent, desert and elements of luck that goes into it better. It is possible that the reader finds these concerns familiar but the forms of debates and positions in which they discover them have solidified, if not fossilised, A theory of justice renewed and deepened these modern debates. If you are keen to revisit dogmas and misconceptions about these issues, and think clearly about need, preference, merit or desert A theory of justice is the book.

Modern western individuals are thin conceptions of persons and community is the shore/anchor to which individuals belong, they venture out from the shore but persons must return to it. True justice is communitarian justice and Michael Sandels elaboration of unencumbered shelves who are not equipped to pursue justice is also largely a response to a theory of justice. Feminist conceptions of Justice have flowered in various directions but an important moment was Okin’s interrogation of the place the family in basic structures of Rawlsian society and how to factor women's contribution, when Rawlsian Justice requires that 'benefits and burdens of social cooperation must be fairly shared'. Walzer and Amartya Sen are not pushovers, they have their own response to A Theory of Justice. A theory of Justice is a book you must contend with.

A Theory of Justice explodes the academic citation indexes and yet many do not know about it. There is wide ranging consensus in academics that utilitarianism and efficiency and coarse forms of equality is not the best argument to either defend or found institutions. The consensus about best argument in academics is not the one that informs institutions or public conversation about them. Institutions that affect people's life choices continue to operate and function with standards and criteria that are at odds with what is considered as the best available argument in academics. A theory of justice despite all its success has not been able to breach it.

P.S: Belonging to oral tradition it was a conscious decision not to 'own' a copy of this book and was convinced the book has already made an impact. Now when i think about it, it is also true that could not have imagined that one day I would lose access to a copy.