Ryan V.J.G. Davis Is John Rawls� understanding of �justice as fairness� compatible with Christian ethics? John Rawls� understanding of �justice as fairness� is part of his wider ethical theories. He is a strong believer that all things should be distributed equally for the betterment of all people. The only digression that he makes from this is to say that those who are disadvantaged should be favoured in the distribution of wealth and other such things. This is a noble framework of thought, but it offers little scope for reward for those that some might say have earned it. This is the chief area in which John Rawls� understanding of justice may come into conflict with Christian ethics. He believes very firmly in liberty and that it must be shared so as to benefit everybody, not to be taken advantage of or limited for unfair reasons. This essay shall study different aspects of John Rawls� understanding of �justice as fairness� and relate it to Christian ethics and make an attempt at determining the compatibility or the two different concepts. John Rawls identifies the primary social goods as - liberty and opportunity, income and wealth, and the bases of self-respect. It is important to keep in mind what these are when evaluating Rawls. All of these are elementary to the ideas of justice that we find in Rawls� work. The idea of liberty and opportunity is a central theme in Christian ethics. The concept of free will is one that has entranced many philosophical minds throughout history and continues to do so. It is central to how we live our lives and what we can achieve in our lives. Liberty gives us the freedom to progress and improve the standard of our quality of life. Without liberty we lack the opportunity to improve. Directly linked to this is the concept of income and wealth. This is often a more visible, concrete phenomenon than liberty as it can take the form of tangible objects in the physical universe but is not necessarily the case. Wealth can take the form of knowledge or happiness. It is important to remember this possibility when discussing situations in which wealth and income can be affected. Wealth is related to the bases of self-respect. This is the notion of feeling good about oneself and that you are proud of what you have achieved. An example of how one might recognise self-respect is the amount of wealth one has. To have a physical reward for what one has achieved is of great aid to the feeling of self-respect that you should feel in a just society of liberty where you are rewarded for your actions. These main primary social goods are heavily inter-linked, but the distinction needs to be kept in order to study fully Rawls� notion of �justice as fairness�. A person's good is that which is needed for the successful execution of a rational long-term plan of life given reasonably favorable circumstances. This is how Rawls� idea of good versus evil in his discussion of justice might be summarised. To achieve the good you need, according to Rawls to, have a good chance in the three primary social goods. You must have a favourable chance of gaining wealth, liberty and self-respect. This is interesting in that it views what is needed for a successful life without any reference to any religious need. This is in direct contrast to Christian ethics, which always stresses the need to treat life and the ethics of life in a way conducive to the teachings of Christ. A quote from Rawls himself tells us more: �The good is the satisfaction of rational desire� Rational desire is a concept that implies ethics in its very phraseology. The desire of any human being is not necessarily rational, but in ethics, the desire of anyone that you consider must be assumed to be rational, else you cannot truly evaluate an ethical system where the desires of people are irrational. This makes an ethical framework impossible and, as such irrational desires have to be neglected or explained in some other way. In Section 11. Rawls identifies two main principles of justice. These correlate to a significant degree with the primary social goods that Rawls has already identified. The first of these is liberty. Rawls� outlook on this may be characterised by saying that each person is to have equal rights to the most extensive system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all. This very much an argument meant to imply equality in access and opportunity for all. Christian ethics teachings are similar in meaning to this, but first Christian ethics requires those who wish to achieve equality and liberty to first of all listen to the teachings of Christ. Rawls does not require that. This is an important difference, but not necessarily an incompatible one. Christian ethics merely requires further understanding of an area of teaching, and this is open for all who wish to reach the level of liberty that is offered by Christian ethics. The second major principle of justice that Rawls identifies is that of wealth. He does not necessarily want an equal distribution of wealth. He sees inequality as being beneficial if they are arranged to the greatest benefit of all concerned, both those advantaged and those at an economic disadvantage. He also wants to see wealth being attached to offices and positions that are freely open to all regardless of status and position in society i.e. freedom of opportunity. He sees efficiency as being important but only efficiency where everyone gains. This identification of wealth in terms of justice in this way is not incompatible with Christian ethics. Christian ethics also wishes to see everybody have wealth distributed to the fair benefit of all. There is a stronger emphasis in Christian ethics on helping the poor. This is unequal distribution, which Rawls does not challenge, but he does not stress this as much. This is not an incompatibility, more a difference in stress. In this case Rawls� concept of �justice as fairness� is not incompatible with Christian ethics. Rawls recognises the need to limit liberty in certain circumstances. He sees it is necessary if the effect of it is to strengthen the system of liberty for all. An example of this is to limit the liberty that somebody has to exploit others so as that they have greater liberty to be free from exploitation. It is in this form that Rawls recognises that liberty may be limited. Rawls sees the principle of justice as having priority over the principles of efficiency and welfare. This is important to Rawls and shares much with Christian ethics. He makes the point that an inequality of opportunity must enhance the opportunities of those with lesser opportunities and an excessive rate of saving must mitigate the burden of those suffering from hardship. This is strikingly similar to Christian ethics. Christian ethics also teaches that extra opportunity must be given to those burdened disproportionately. Christianity tends to make special reference to the poor. This is a fundamental element of Christian ethics. The notion of helping the poor has always been central to Christian ethics and the teachings of Christ. There is little difference between Christian ethics and Rawls on this matter other than that Christian ethics specifies the poor and Rawls does not specify them so overtly. Rawls adopts the concept of efficiency normally associated with Pareto in the field of economics. It can be described in this manner: no system can be called efficient if there is an alternative arrangement that improves the situation of some people with no worsening of the situation of the other people. The system must work for the best possible benefit of all people. Efficiency is important in order that all must achieve the best that they can in a system. Efficiency stops the limitations of liberty that might exist otherwise. The most efficient system must be instituted for the good of all. Christian ethics shares this view. It requires that everybody be benefited in the best way possible. It does not explicitly require the most efficient system, but does not challenge this. It is a difference of stress, but a similar view of efficiency. �The difference principle is a strongly egalitarian conception in the sense that unless there is a distribution that makes both persons better off (limiting ourselves to the two-person case for simplicity), an equal distribution is to be preferred.� This difference principle of Rawls is neatly expressed here. He seeks to establish equal distribution as the idea, but accepts that in some cases that unequal distribution may be of better value. Christian ethics does not always want equal distribution, it readily assumes that the best distribution is the one to want, with little regard for equal distribution, unless it is to the most benefit to all. Rawls does not clash with Christian ethics in this, but their views are at a slight tangent to each other. Rawls claims that a (virtual) committee of rational but not envious persons will adopt his principles of justice but view a situation of moderate scarcity with mutual disinterest. They will adopt his principles of justice if they do not have knowledge of their own personal situation. He sees this as important so as they do not alter the principles of justice in order to unfairly benefit their own personal situation. This is very important and conversant with his ideas of equality of liberty and opportunity. This principle of reasoning without personal biases Rawls calls the �Veil of Ignorance�. Christian ethics does not dispute this, but does say that you should take special care to prioritize your personal needs far below the needs of others. It requires you to think of the needs of others and distribute unequally so as that others may benefit at the expense of self. This is a point of difference between Rawls and Christian ethics but not an incompatible one. Rawls also sees their being natural duties and obligations for people. These include the call to support just institutions, mutual respect, mutual aid, do no harm, do your fair share and to be faithful (i.e. keep your promise). A similar theme is represented in Christian ethics when it mentions Christ�s teachings as the duties and obligations of people. The difference between the two lies in where they find the natural duties and obligations for people to perform in order that a just society might exist. They are not incompatible, though Christian ethics does require reference to Christ�s teachings. Rawls judges the success of his teaching on the readers� opinions of his writings. This is a problem for Hare: �Rawls, in short, is here advocating a kind of subjectivism, in the narrowest and most old-fashioned sense.� This is a criticism that is often applied to most writers, and Hare does recognise this. Rawls does not disagree with civil disobedience. He sees it as being the natural reaction to social injustice. It appeals to the public�s conception of justice. Civil obedience can be justified if it fits three criteria identified by Rawls. If the injustice is substantial and clear, especially one that obstructs the path to removing other injustices. If the appropriate call to political government has been done correctly and have failed and then civil obedience is the last resort. If there are other minority groups with similar claims, then work must be done to achieve a workable coalition. Christian ethics has always been uneasy with the idea of civil disobedience. This is the first main point of departure identified here between Rawls and Christian ethics. Christian ethics can envisage some situations where it may be necessary, but it is avoided at almost all costs. In conclusion, Rawls� concept of �justice as fairness� is not incompatible with Christian ethics. There are differences, but they are more as differences of stress rather than as fundamental differences of opinion. It is important to stress that the main difference is in the fact that there is a natural stress in Christian ethics on the teachings of Christ whereas Rawls sees it more from a godless societal view. This is not a problem, but merely a difference as to where to view God.
