© 2012 Wanda Teays. All rights reserved

Rawls, like Kant, is a Deontological Ethicist. He emphasizes moral duty and obligations, rather than end goals.  He seeks the path to a more just society  with institutions offering equality of opportunity and fairness.

Rawls’ First Principle: The Principle of Equal Liberty Each person should have an equal right to the most extensive system of liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all. This principles attempts to universalize human rights.

Principle of Equality of Fair Opportunity People with similar abilities/skills should have equal access to offices and positions under conditions of equality of fair opportunity. This principle seeks to level the playing field and benefit all in terms of access to positions.

The Difference principle Social and economic institutions are to be arranged to maximally benefit those who are the worst off. This principle aims at structuring institutions to favor those with most needs, limitations, and disadvantages..

Philosopher Jan Edward Garret (2002) points out: The Difference Principle means that society may undertake projects that require  giving some persons more power,  income, and  status, than others.

(1) Distributive justice (2) Retributive justice (3) Compensatory justice. Distributive justice is about allocating rewards and burdens (e.g., Social Security and Medicare). Retributive justice is about punishment for breaking a rule or law (e.g., a speeding ticket). Compensatory justice is about restitution for suffering a harm (e.g., getting food poisoning from tainted eggs)

In his article, “Two Concepts of Rules” (1955) He looks at two justifications of punishment— The Retributive view The Utilitarian view

What we may call the retributive view is that punishment is justified on the grounds that wrongdoing merits punishment. … That a criminal should be punished follows from his guilt, and the severity of the appropriate punishment depends on the depravity of his act (3). (Rawls’ “Two Concepts of Rules” (1955)).

What we may call the utilitarian view holds that Bygones are bygones and that only future consequences are material to present decisions,... Wrongs committed in the past are, as such, not relevant considerations for deciding what to do. If punishment can be shown to promote effectively the interest of society it is justifiable, otherwise it is not (4). (Rawls’ “Two Concepts of Rules” (1955)).

“One can say, then,” says Rawls, “that the judge and the legislator stand in different positions and look in different directions: one to the past, the other to the future” (5). The judge looks at the past and weighs punishment relative to the wrongdoing (= retributive view) The ideal legislator looks to the future and weighs punishment relative to social benefits and maintaining order (= consequentialism).