A CRITICAL EVALUATION ON SOCIAL JUSTICE IN JOHN RAWLS AND THE CONDITION OF THE POOR IN THE CAPITALIST SOCIETY

Abstract:

This thesis is designed to make a critical evaluation of John Rawls’ approach to social justice (distributive Justice), especially as he in his books, A Theory ofJustice, that there is inequality in the society and anything that will worsen the already bad condition of the poor. The pervesion of justice in the society both in political and economic sectors has resulted in existence of a wide gap between the rich and the poor. This he says has in turn contributed in worsening the already deplorable condition of the poor. He therefore holds that the sure way of correcting this social ill is the application of the principles of his ‘ Justice as fairness’ in the society. In evaluating this notion however, we came to the conclusion that even though Rawls’ principles of justice as fairness are idealistic (hence, is Utopic), it is stil useful in practical life; for it among others things, tells us what we should do to correct injustices, deep distrust, and material deprivation.

A CRITICAL EVALUATION ON SOCIAL JUSTICE IN JOHN RAWLS AND THE CONDITION OF THE POOR IN THE CAPITALIST SOCIETY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER ONE 

GENERAL INTRODUCTION 

1.1   Background of the study – – – – – – – – – —  – — —  – – – – – – – – – —  – — 1

1.2   Statement of problem  – – – – – – – – – —  – — —  – – – – – – – – – —  – — –6

1.3   Purpose of the problem  – – – – – – – – – —  – — —  – – – – – – – – – —  – — 7

1.4   The scope of the study  – – – – – – – – – —  – — —  – – – – – – – – – —  – — -8

1.5   The significance of the study  – – – – – – – – – —  – — — – – – – – – – – – —  8

1.6    Methodology  – – – – – – – – – —  – — — – – – – – – – – – —  – — — – – – – – – 9

1.7.0 Definition of Terms  – – – – – – – – – —  – — — – – – – – – – – – —  – — — -10

1.7.1 Justice  – – – – – – – – – —  – — — – – – – – – – – – —  – — — – – – – – – – – – -10

1.7.2 Capitalism  – – – – – – – – – —  – — — – – – – – – – – – —  – — — – – – – – – – 13

1.7.3 The poor  – – – – – – – – – —  – — — – – – – – – – – – —  – — — – – – – – – – – 13

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Literature Review  – – – – – – – – – —  – — — – – – – – – – – – —  – — — – – 16 CHAPTER THREE:

ANALYSIS OF JOHN RAWLS’ THEORY OF JUSTICE

3.1. Brief Biography of John Rawls  – – – – – – – – – —  – — — – – – – – – – – 33

3.2. Justice as fairness  – – – – – – – – – —  – — — – – – – – – – – – —  – — — – – 34

3.2.1. The subject of Justice  – – – – – – – – – —  – — — – – – – – – – – – —  – — –36

3.2.2. The principles of justice  – – – – – – – – – —  – — — – – – – – – – – – —  – –38

3.2.3. Two principle of justice  – – – – – – – – – —  – — — – – – – – – – – – —  – —38

3.2.4.  Interpretation of principles  – – – – – – – – – —  – — — – – – – – – – – – — 40

3.3. The original position and the veil of ignorance  – – – – – – – – – —  – —44

3.4. The Rationality of the parties  – – – – – – – – – —  – — — – – – – – – – – – -46

3.5. The Concept of Justice in the political Economy  – – – – – – – – – —  – -48

CHAPTER FOUR

ANALYSIS OF CAPITALIST SYSTEM

4.1. Adams Smith’s Appraisal of Liberal capitalism  – – – – – – – – – —  – — — – – –57

4.1.1. Merits of Capitalism  – – – – – – – – – —  – — — – – – – – – – – – —  – — — – – – – —61

4.2. Karl Marx’s Critique of capitalism  – – – – – – – – – —  – — — – – – – – – – – – —–63

4.2.1 Demerit of Capitalism  – – – – – – – – – —  – — — – – – – – – – – – —  – — — – –  – -68

CHAPTER FIVE  CRITICAL EVALUATION.

5.1. Evaluation of Rawls’ theory of Justice  – – – – – – – – – —  – — — – – – -77

5.1.1 Merits of Rawls’ Justice as fairness  – – – – – – – – – —  – — — – – – – – -78

5.1.2 Demerits of Rawls’ Justice as fairness  – – – – – – – – – —  – — — – – – – 84

5.2. Ways of alleviating poverty in our society – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – —  90

5.3. Concluding Reflection fairness – – – – – – – – – —  – — — – – – – – – – – – 93

5.4. Bibliography – – – – – – – – – —  – — — – – – – – – – – – —  – —- – – – – – – -97

CHAPTER ONE

GENERAL INTORDUCTION

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Each individual human being says Fagothey is not alone in the world, but lives in company with human beings¹ In other words; each of us is more than an isolated individual. In fact, many living beings thrive better in group, clusters, colonies, or herds in which there may be some degree of cooperation. This therefore, gives us the idea of society. But society in the strict sense can be “formed only by rational and free being since it is union based on agreement about goals”²

However among the basic element for the existence of society are: “cooperation among members, for the achievement of common good; and moral bonds means and end.”³ Based on these elements, society may therefore be defined as “an enduring union of a member of persons morally bound under authority to co-operate for a common good.”⁴ The common good is therefore, the end for which society exists. It is also regarded as “an intermediate end, (in so far as), it is a means toward the ultimate end of each member of the society.”

However, while the collectivists (i.e., the communist and the socialist), stress on making the common good, entity over and above the individual good, the individualists (i.e., the liberal capitalists) emphasize eon making the common good a mere sum of individual goods. But an adequate view of society and the common good must find a place between these two extremes. And that is John Rawls’ theory of (social) justice aims at achieving.”⁵ In other words, in social justice, citizens put in and receive their measure of their social goods from the society in proportional manner. Hence it requires not only a just distribution of the socio- economic out but the possibility of making fresh productivity, so that those who engaged in socioeconomic cooperation may be able to increase their income”⁶

The common good is therefore realized only in the individuals who make up society, but it is good that they achieve only by the cooperative interaction of the many. In other words to have a common good that can be the end of society, it is not enough that it concerns several persons. That might give us two interdependent private goods, such we find in contracts of exchange only in wages from his or her labour, each benefits the other, but they have not a common good in the strict sense. To have a common good as end of their joint effort, the employer must be genuinely interested in the welfare of the employee, the employee must in turn, have at heart the success of business; and these two interest must in turn merged into one common enterprise. They must help each other not only accidentally, because their private goods are entangled but essentially because they share in the one same good. For the lack of this common good, the type of employer- employee relationship normally found today, especially in the capitalist society, said to be wanting.

However, because of the dynamic nature of the common good (especial in its concrete sense), due to the dynamic nature of society, the perfect attainment of the common good is never realizable. Thus, man’s problem appears to be rooted in the general imperfection and contingencies that mark his universe. These include the obvious human scarcity and needs and also glaring inequalities of life. These factors are ethically relevant because they tend to affect the life of man adversely. In other words, when human need combines with scarcity, there emerges what M. Rearden calls the “inescapable pressures”⁷ of human existence, which seem to create the conflict of interest, that make the issue of right and justice necessary. Justice as one of the cardinal virtues has therefore been postulated as one of the ways of living that would ensure that would ensure peaceful and ordered co-existence in human society, and most importantly for the attainment of common good in that society.

From the time of Aristotle, the word justice has been used in general sense and particular sense. In a general sense, justice is broad as to cover all the virtues that have any social significance. But in the particular sense, justice is that moral virtue which regulates our conduct towards other men. Hence it incline s us to give to each person what is due to him or her. Particular justice could be distributive or commutative justice.

Distributive justice, which Aristotle calls general justice and Thomas Aquinas,

“legal justice,” refers to the organization of society in such a way that the which all are expected to contribute in proportion to their ability and opportunity, is available to all the members, for their ready use and enjoyment. It shows itself more in economic, industrial racial and political relations but does not restrict itself to these. It involves everything connected with being good citizens or a good member of society and reaping what ought to be the reward of upright and cooperative social conduct. ‘

However, John Rawls see “justice as fairness”. And in his Theory of Justice, he develops principles of justice to govern a modern social order. Rawls hold that the principles of justice ought to be chosen behind “ a veil of ignorance”¹⁰ In other words, for Rawls, hold that the principles that will eventually emerge as legitimate for guiding the individuals in the society ought to be formulated under a certain condition of fair and impartiality. Rawls’ main aim in saying this is to ensure that common good is not just equally shared but equitably distributed. How this is to be achieved is what Rawls presented in his theory of social Justice. Rawls therefore maintains that any arrangement of society that excludes or hinders certain classes or group within it from their fair share of the common good is a violation of social justice. In capitalist system for instance, insensitivity to the deplorable condition of the poor makes it bad. Rawls” effort in his Theory of Justice is therefore to improve on the capitalist system. It thus tries to remove indifference and insensitivity, to the plight of the poor, out of capitalism and thereby make it more morally acceptable. Its premise is that there is inequality in capitalist society and in this circumstance; the most moral course of action is not to do anything that will worsen the already bad condition of the poor. Rawls therefore opines, “no action, social arrangement or change, should be allowed to take place unless it is going to improve the lot of the poor.”¹¹ This for him should be the standard by which all actions, arrangement or changes, in the society are to be judged. Thus, Rawls’ main preoccupation in his Theory of Justice is how to improve the lot of the poor in the capitalist system.   This thesis sets out to critically evaluate Rawls’ theory of (social) Justice. In doing this ewe shall try to point out some problems with regard to implementing this theory, and suggest some ways through which these problem can be over come.

1.2    STATEMENT OF PROBLEM. 

“There is inequality in every society” say John Rawls. This creates the classes of the rich and the poor in the society. In the capitalist system according to him, this inequality has worsened to the extent that the rich are getting richer, while the poor are getting poorer. And this he says, constitutes a violation of social justice, since there is exploitation of labourers by the owners of business firm. The problem then is how is this ugly situation going to be corrected? This is what Rawls’ theory of

Justice addresses. And so, the problem, which this thesis, whishes to tackle is how, has Rawls’ theory of (social) justice helped in ameliorating the bad condition of less privileged in the capitalist society.

1.3    PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study arose from the pressing need to find some ways of ameliorating the deteriorating condition of the poor in the (capitalist) society. The perversion of justice in the society both in political and economic sectors has resulted in existence of ea wide gap between the rich and the poor in the society. This has in turn contributed in worsening the already deplorable condition of the poor. Thus, this thesis aims at proffering some poor in the capitalist society.

1.4    THE SCOPE OF THE STUDY 

 The study is limited to discussing how social justice should be applied in the capitalist system, so as to reduce the hardship of the poor therein. However 2, for proper justification of our topic, we shall use Nigeria socio-economic system as a case study.

1.5. THE SIGNIFICANCE O THE STUDY. 

It is hoped that this thesis will help to better the condition of the poor in our society by reawakening in the mind of the people, the sense of fairness and equality in dealing with their neighbors.

The study is equally expected to prove that the theory can be converted into practice; by using Rawls’ theory of social justice to proffer solution to problem of exploitation in the capitalist system. When successfully done it would then be ea contribution to the proofs made by many other philosophers of the usefulness of philosophy to practical life.

Also student carrying out further research on this topic, or other related topics, may find this study very helpful, for it will serve as an insight into bad condition of the poor in the capitalist society.

1.6    METHODOLOGY.

The method employed in this thesis is analytical and critical approach. The thesis is therefore presented in two dimensions: one is an analysis of Rawls’ theory of (social) justice and capitalist system. A highlight of the attendant evils of capitalism is also presented here.

Another dimension is critical evaluation of the significance of this theory with particular reference to the condition of the less privileged in the capitalist society.

However, for convenience sake, the thesis is divided into five chapters: Chapter one is a general introduction. Here, the background of the study, purpose the scope and as well as it significance are presented. Also the method of this approach and the definitions of some important terms used in the thesis are presented here.

Chapter two is a review of important related literatures. Here some works that made some vital comment before Rawls’ as well as his contemporaries are critically reviewed. This helps us to appreciate better Rawls’ theory of Justice as it gives us the glimpse of the background under which Rawls wrote his book A Theory ofJustice which serves as our main source in this thesis. The review also helps us to see how some contemporaries o Rawls have reacted to his view in this regard. This will also help us to know the direction we will follow as we try to evaluate Rawls’ theory of justice in this thesis.

Chapter three is an analysis of John Rawls’ theory of justice. While chapter four is an analysis of capitalist system. in doing this some merits and demerits of capitalism are highlighted.

Chapter Five however is a critical evaluation of Rawls theory of justice and its usefulness in ameliorating the bad condition of the poor in the society. Also our own suggestions for reducing the deplorable condition of less privileged in the society are presented here.

1.7    DEFINITION OF TERMS

For a better understanding of this study, we deem it necessary to attempt the definition of some basic terms especially as they are operational in this write-up.

These terms include: “justice”, “capitalism” and “the poor”.

1.7.1 JUSTICE 

 Justice means “giving to each man his own and due right”¹² It is therefore, a form and constant will to render to each person that which belongs to him by right. Justice thus always connotes an equality of some sort. That is, it is based on the understanding that all men are fundamentally equal hence should be treated equally.  Justice is divided broadly into two: general justice and particular justice. In general sense, justice is broad as to cover all virtues that have any social significance. Here it is an equality between one’s action on the one hand and the law and one’s last end on the other. The task of justice here is to “preserve the order in the society or even to produce it when the existing circumstances don not form a true and meaningful social order which promotes the common good”¹⁴ General justice thus involves everything connected with being a good citizen. It requires one for instance to obey the laws of the society and to promote the common good of that society. General justice is called legal justice by Thomas Aquinas while some modern philosopher like John Rawls refers to it together with distributive justice as social justice.

However in the particular sense, justice is moral virtue, which regulates our conduct towards other men. Hence it inclines us to give to each person what is due to him or her. Particular justice could distributive justice or Commutative justice.

Distributive justice is the virtue that inclines a community or organization to promote the good of the individual. It requires a fair and proper distribution of public benefits and burden among the members of the community. The aim of distributive justice is the social good of the individual, his well being as a member of the community. Distributive justice is therefore violated by favoritism and partiality. Commutative Justice on the other hand, involves two equal parties adequately distinct, that is, it is between one man and another, or between groups acting as if they were private person. Commutative justice therefore maintains equality between individuals. This by no means entails equal possession among all individuals but that the possessions of all are invioble. In other words, it demands the exchange of things of equal value and that the right of others should be respected (hence the Latin word, commutatio). The object of this type of justice is not the common good as such but the good of the individual. Hence it stresses that the rights of each person in the community must be adequately respected.

However, since only commutative justice involves distinct parties and since its object actually attaches to one by right, it alone is strictly justice, and the definition of justice given above (i.e., giving each person his due) alone applies fully to it.”¹⁵ Also since the fundamental requisite of justice is that each one should have what is his, restitution is necessary for violations against commutative justice. In other words, when that which belongs to a  man is unlawfully withheld from him,

the equality of justice demands that it be returned to him”.¹⁶ 

1.7.2. CAPITALISM. 

This is defined as an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are for the most part; privately owned and operated for private profit. Its essentials are the private ownership of the means of production, private enterprise and unlimited acquisitiveness life. Capitalism has its merit and demerits, as we shall see in due course.

1.7.4 THE POOR. 

The poor according to Webster’s Dictionary, “are those who have little  money, that is, not having and not able to get the basic necessities of life”.¹⁷END NOTES 

1. M.A. Gonslaves, Fagothey’s Right and Reason,

9^th ed. (Columbus: Merrill Publishing Company, 1989) P. 294.

• . Ibid., P. 297.
• .
• .
• . J. Rawls, A theory of justice, (London: Cambridge, Mass; Belknap press of Harvard University, 1972), p 3.
• . B.O. Eboh, Living Issues in Ethics, (NSUKKA: Affro-Orbis Pubs; Ltd,. 2005) P.

• . M. Reardon, Deed and Truth, (Dublin, Condra, 1976), p.2.
• . Since law directs to the common good, general justice is legal justice. Legal justice directs man to common good immediately, but to the good of the individual immediately. (C.f., M.I. Nwoko, Basic world political theories. (Ancient contemporary). (Claretian Institute of philosophy Maryland Nekede Owerri, 1988), P.53.
• . Rawls, Theory of Justice. cit., P.3.

12. Gonslaves, Fagothey’s Right and Reason….. cit., P.208.
14. Ekei, Justice in Communalism: A Foundation of Ethics in Africa Philosophy,

(surlere-Lagos: Realm communication pub. Ltd; 2001), P.6.

15. Justice in its strict sense, involves two things:

(a) Parties adequately distinct (b) an object with actually belongs to someone by right. Consequently general (legal or social) justice and distributive justice, are not strictly speaking justice. First, as general or social justice is concerned, the individual is not completely distinct from community. Second society demands that something which it does not yet posses becomes its property. The same is true of the individual under distributive justice. (c.f. C.M. Ekwutosi, Virtue, Unpublished, pope John Paul 11 Major Seminary, Awka, 2001, P.10).

16. Also, restitution does not enter into general (legal or social) justice and distributive justice. Thus, is a citizen withholds something due to state through general justice, though he does wrong, it cannot be said that he is keeping public property in private hands. At they bidding of the law he has failed to convert to public use some of his private property. For example, one who fails to pay tax. So too, with distributive justice. The reward and emoluments, which a citizen may have, claim to from the state do not become his until the state gives them to him.

A CRITICAL EVALUATION ON SOCIAL JUSTICE IN JOHN RAWLS AND THE CONDITION OF THE POOR IN THE CAPITALIST SOCIETY