John Rawls: Lesson 1

The Case for Equality/ John Rawls

Translate this: ”Immanuel Kant appeals to __________ consent. A law is just if it could have been _________ to by the public as a whole” (140).
Your answer:

Translate this:
Your answer:

“In a Theory of Justice (1971), he [John Rawls] argues that the way to think about justice is to ask what principles we would agree to in an initial situation of equality. Rawls reasons as follows: suppose we gathered, just as we are, to choose the principles to govern our collective life – to write a social contract. What principles would we choose”(141)?

Translate this:
Your answer:

Translate this:
Your answer:

Translate this:
Your answer:

Translate this:
Your answer:

Translate this:
Your answer:

Translate this: ”This is Rawls’s idea of the _________________ contract – a __________________ agreement in an original position of equality”(141).
Your answer:

Translate this:
Your answer:

Translate this:
Your answer:

Translate this:
Your answer:

Translate this:
Your answer:

Translate this:
Your answer:

“Rawls believes that two principles of justice would emerge from the hypothetical contract. The first provides equal basic liberties for all citizens, such as freedom of speech and religion. The principle takes priority over considerations of social utility and the general welfare. The second principle concerns social and economic equality. Although it does not require an equal distribution of income and wealth, it permits only those social and economic inequalities that work to the advantage of the least well off members of society” (142).

Translate this:
Your answer:

Translate this:
Your answer:

Translate this:
Your answer:

Translate this:
Your answer:

“How can principles of justice possibly be derived from an agreement that never actually took place” (142)?

The Moral Limits of Contracts

“To appreciate the moral force of Rawls’s hypothetical contract, it helps to notice the moral limits of actual contracts. We sometimes assume that, when two people make a deal, the terms of the their agreement must be fair. We assume, in other words, that contracts justify the terms that they produce. But they don’t – at least not on their own. Actual contracts are not self-sufficient moral instruments. The mere fact that you and I make a deal is not enough to make it fair” (142).

Translate this:
Your answer:

Translate this:
Your answer:

Translate this: ”To answer this question, we can’t simply point to the ____________itself; we need some independent _________________”(143).
Your answer:

Translate this:
Your answer:

Translate this: “No ___________ social contract or constitutional convection, however representative, is ________________ to produce fair terms of social cooperation” (143).
Your answer:

“Can consent create an obligation on its own, or is some element of benefit or reliance also required? This debate tells us something about the morality of contracts that we often overlook: actual contracts carry moral weight insofar as they realize two ideals – autonomy and reciprocity”(144).

Translate this:
Your answer:

Translate this:
Your answer:

Translate this: “As ______________ acts, contracts express our _____________; the obligations they create carry weight because they are self-imposed” (144).
Your answer:

Translate this: ”As instruments of _______________, contracts draw on the ideal of reciprocity; the obligation to fulfill them arises from the obligation to repay others for the benfits they provide us” (145).
Your answer:

Translate this:
Your answer:

Translate this:
Your answer:

Translate this:
Your answer:

Translate this:
Your answer:

Translate this:
Your answer:

Translate this:
Your answer:

Translate this:
Your answer:

“Consent is not a sufficient condition of moral obligation” (146).

Translate this:
Your answer:

Translate this: In Sandel’s broken car, Sam inferred that because there would’ve an obligation of payment if the car had been fixed, there would’ve been an agreement. Is Same wrong?
Your answer:

“It [Sam’s inference] wrongly assumes that wherever there is an obligation, there must have been an agreement – some act of consent “ (149).

Translate this:
Your answer:

Translate this:
Your answer:

Translate this:
Your answer:

Translate this:
Your answer:

Translate this:
Your answer:

“In real life, persons are situated differently. This means that differences in bargaining power and knowledge are always possible. And as long as this is true, the fact of an agreement does not, by itself, guarantee the fairness of an agreement. This is why actual contracts are not self-sufficient moral instruments. It always makes sense to ask, ‘But is it fair, what they have agreed to’” (150)?

In this next lesson, we’ll imagine the perfect contract.

Next lesson >