Rawls considers how one might make rules in a society, such that they were “just”. Basically, he starts with everyone making those rules behind the construct of the “veil of ignorance”, then comes up with two overriding principles.

The first principle is that each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others.

The second principle is sometimes referred to as the “maximin” principle. This principle states that social and economic inequalities are to be arranged such that they are to be of the greatest advantage to the least advantaged members of society, and offices and positions must be open to everyone under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.

Thus, it is recognized that there will be inequalities in any world. And money, power, and prestige are great motivating factors to get people to produce more. But they should only be rewarded more as long as the more they get, the better off are those at the lowest end of the socioeconomic scale.

Also, all public offices are not only to be open to everybody on the basis of merit, but also that everyone should have equal access to the means of developing the skills upon which merit is based.

I am particularly wary of those that are utilitarian based (the greatest good for the greatest number of people), as such systems will leave behind the “outliers” in society every time. One may not be surprised to find out that Peter Singer (who would allow parents to kill unwanted children) is a utilitarian.

One of my favorite ways of approaching justice is by John Rawls, who would have us make policies by imagining ourselves behind a “veil of ignorance”, where we know not what our own position in life is (rich/poor, able bodied/disabled, black/white, etc.). I don’t agree with everything Rawls says, but I think he gets it pretty close.

Joe

There is a lot of really *bad behaviour* going on still out there. I’d like to ask when did it become okay for people to spread libelous rumours on blog comments? It’s a certain indication when others use children, false rumours about families and the like, that they have no argument/leg to stand on.