Rawls, Nozick, and the Search for Social Justice

Abstract

In 1961, Sir Isaiah Berlin, the eminent British historian of ideas and philosopher, in an article entitled "Does Political Theory Still Exist?" noted that "no commanding work of political philosophy has appeared in the twentieth century." 1 In the last six years, however, two works have been published that bid fair to occupy a dominant place in the development of political thought in our time, at least in the Anglo-American philosophical world: John Rawls's A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1971) and Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia (New York: Basic Books, 1974). Both books have been widely discussed, far more so than is usual for contemporary philosophical treatises. A substantial body of critical literature has already grown up around Rawls's book, 2 and Nozick's book received the 1975 National Book Award in the category of science, philosophy, and religion. My purpose is to provide an introduction to these important works and to indicate their significance for those who work for social justice from a Christian perspective. RAWLSJustice, for Rawls, is the first and indispensable virtue of social institutions (p. 3); and the primary function of a theory of justice is not to determine a particular form of political or economic organization, but to arrive at principles "that free and rational persons concerned to further their own interests would accept in an initial position of equality as defining the fundamental terms of their association" (11). Rawls later distinguishes a four-stage sequence of the judgments that citizens make in applying principles of justice to the structure and institutions of their society. These stages are (a) the adoption of the principles of justice in the original position, (6) the constitutional convention, which aims at designing a just procedure for government and requires guarantees of the liberties of equal citizenship, (c) just legislation enacted by the government thus established, and (d) the application of rules to particular cases by judges and administrators (195)(196)(197)(198)(199)(200)(201)). Rawls does not claim that the working of this sequence yields a uniquely just outcome for all cases; for instance, he does not believe that the theory of justice yields a 1 In Philosophy, Politics, and Society, Second Series, ed. Peter Laslett and W. G. Runciman (Oxford: Blackwell, 1962) 1. 2 The most useful collection of philosophical appraisals of Rawls's work is Reading Rawls, ed. Norman Daniels (New York: Basic Books, 1974). A comprehensive philosophical critique is Brian Barry, The Liberal Theory of the State (Oxford: Clarendon, 1973). The most recent study is Robert Paul Wolff, Understanding Rawls (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1977). 346 at Kungl Tekniska Hogskolan / Royal Institute of Technology on July 14, 2015 tsj.sagepub.com Downloaded from SEARCH FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE347 definite universal answer for the question whether the means of production should be publicly or privately owned (273-74).The general conception of justice with which R...

Sosyal Poli̇ti̇ka: Sosyal Adalet Açisindan Kuramsal Bi̇r Değerlendi̇rme

“…Bu noktadan yola çıkarak, bazı temel sosyal değerlerin kimseyle alış-verişi yapılamaz ve hiç kimse ekonomik ve sosyal kazanımlar için bu temel özgürlüklerinden feragat edemez . Yapılan eşitsizlikçi uygulamalar, en zayıf sosyal sınıfların refahını çoğaltıyor ve fırsat eşitliği yaratıyorsa, sosyal adaleti de sağlıyor demektir (Chan, 2005;Langan, 1977).…”

“…Kişiler kendi özgür seçimleri sonucunda, hangi noktaya varırlarsa varsınlar bundan şikayet etmemelidirler. Ayrıca, ulaşılan noktada eşitsizliklerin bulunması da, eğer temel kişisel özgürlükler korunmaya devam ediyorsa, önemli değildir (Clayton ve Williams, 2004;Langan, 1977). Ancak burada şu soru hemen akla gelmektedir: Kişiler kendi istekleriyle yaptıkları tercihler sonucunda iktisadi açıdan büyük eşitsizlikler yaratıyorlar ve bunu da özgür iradelerinin bir yansıması olduğu için adil olarak kabul ediyorlarsa, sonunda bazı temel bireysel özgürlüklerinin varlığı ne gibi bir anlam ifade edecektir?…”

“…Rawls (1971), sosyal adalet kuramında 'özgürlüğün önceliği' kavramını bir gereklilik koşulu olarak ortaya koymuştur. Çağdaş özgürlükçü kuramların içerisinde özgürlükler, önemli ölçüde bir sınıflandırma içerisinde sunulmaktadır (Langan, 1977;Taylor, 2003). Rawls (1971) ve Nozick'in (2004) çalışmalarında, kişisel hak ve özgürlüklerden, mülk edinme hakkına veya siyasal katılım hakkına kadar birçok özgürlük sınıflandırılmıştır.…”