Social Contract [addendum]
Contemporary social contract theory is practically identified with the work of John Rawls (1921–2002). In his best known book, A Theory of Justice, Rawls attempts to generalize and carry to a higher level of abstraction the social contract theory of Locke, Rousseau, and Kant. In Rawls's version of social contract theory, people are to select the principles of justice they are to live by in imagined ignorance of whether natural or social contingencies have worked in their favor. His theory requires that we should choose as though we were standing behind an imaginary "veil of ignorance" with respect to most particular facts about ourselves, anything that would bias our choice or stand in the way of unanimous agreement. Rawls calls this choice situation "the original position" because it is the position we should start from when determining what principles of justice we should live by. Rawls explicitly argues that the principles of justice that would be selected are significantly different from the classical or average principle of utility.
Almost immediately, there was a utilitarian challenge to Rawls's theory led by R. M. Hare (2003) and Richard Brandt (1972), which maintained that the theory had the same practical consequences as utilitarianism. Soon after, there was a libertarian challenge led by Robert Nozick (1974), which claimed that Rawls's theory conflicted with an ideal of liberty, and later a communitarian challenge led by Michael Sandel (1982) and Michael Walzer (1983) contended that the theory ignored the situatedness of human beings, along with an Aristotelian challenge led by Alistair MacIntyre (1981) which objected to Rawls's theory for denying the priority of the good.
There was also a feminist challenged led by Susan Okin (1989), who, among others, maintained that Rawls's theory was biased against women, and a multicultural challenge led by a diverse array of Western and non-Western philosophers who maintained that the theory was biased against non-Western cultures. Since Rawls was reluctant to respond directly to his critics, these challenges created opportunities for others to step in and respond to them or to suggest ways in which Rawls's work needed to be modified to address these criticisms.
There was also the important question of the practical implications of Rawls's work for how we should live our lives individually and collectively. Rawls had always claimed to be developing primarily an ideal moral theory. A Theory of Justice only touched briefly on nonideal theory to provide an account of civil disobedience. But the farther removed one's society is from ideally just institutions, the greater is the need to spell out the practical requirements of justice for one's time, lest one stand accused of legitimating existing unjust institutions and practices. By deciding to focus his work on ideal moral theory, Rawls created opportunities for others either to work out the practical implications of views developed in opposition or as a corrective to Rawls's view for the nonideal world in which we live.
Rawls's second book, Political Liberalism, was written to correct a fundamental problem that Rawls perceived in A Theory of Justice. Rawls believed that his earlier book assumed a relatively complete Kantian conception of the good. In Political Liberalism, Rawls tries to ground his same theory of justice on a more minimal foundation—an overlapping consensus of reasonable comprehensive conceptions of the good. According to Rawls, citizens are to conduct their fundamental discussions within a framework of a conception of justice that everyone, irrespective of one's particular comprehensive conceptions of the good, could be reasonably expected to endorse. An important implication of Rawls's view is that religious considerations are generally excluded from public debate over fundamental issues in society. This feature of Rawls's view has engendered considerable debate, not only among philosophers, but also among theologians, political scientists, and lawyers, but it has not had any discernible effect on public policy, at least in the United States, where religious considerations continue to have an impact on public policy beyond anything that could be justified by a reasonable overlapping consensus.
Rawls's third major book, The Law of Peoples, attempts to extend his theory of justice to the international realm. Rejecting any straightforward application of his principles of justice to the international realm, Rawls favors more minimal obligations to other peoples. According to Rawls, there is virtually "no society anywhere in the world … with resources so scarce that it could not, were it reasonably organized and governed, become well-ordered." Rawls also allows for exceptions to international principles of justice, specifically a requirement of noncombatant immunity, in order to attain "some substantial good." At the same time he disallows any comparable exceptions to intersocietal principles of justice. Here again, Rawls's views have given rise to a wide-ranging discussion over possible exceptions to principles of justice, which has become even more important given the connection that exists between terrorisim and international justice.
Bibliography
Brandt, Richard. "Utilitarianism and the Rules of War." Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1 (1972) 145–165.
Hare, R. M. "Justice and Equality." In Justice: Alternative Political Perspectives, edited by James P. Sterba. 4th ed. Belmont: Wadsworth, 2003.
MacIntyre, Alasdair. After Virtue. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1981.
Nozick, Robert Anarchy, State and Utopia. New York: Basic Books, 1974.
Okin, Susan Moller. Justice, Gender, and the Family. New York: Basic Books, 1989.
Rawls, John. Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001.
Rawls, John. The Law of Peoples. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press, 1999.
Rawls, John. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press, 1993.
Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971.
Sandel, Michael. Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982.
Sterba, James P. How to Make People Just. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 1988.
Walzer, Michael. Spheres of Justice. New York: Basic Books, 1983.
This is the complete article, containing 944 words
(approx. 3 pages at 300 words per page).
