A Theory of Justice

In society, there is no greater question or importance than the relationship between the state and that of an individual. John Rawls directly addresses the issue in his famous work “A Theory of Justice”, in which he offers a comprehensive argument for an active welfare state. Rawls offers a framework based in the context of social contract theory that appears both logical and egalitarian; his conclusions appeal to both intuition and reason almost undeniably. This essay will discuss that Rawls principles conflict on the freedom of an individual and will argue that the relationship of individual liberty outweighs the importance of social equality. Rawls begins with a statement that “each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override.” In the beginning, Rawls acknowledges the tension between an individual and society as a whole. The principles of justice, within his theory, are the principles that best resolve the interests of the two parties. Society is described as a “cooperative venture for mutual advantage,” although “it is typically marked by a conflict as well as by an identity of interests.” Conflict occurs because humans are self-interested. “Social cooperation makes possible a better life for all than any would have if each were to live solely by his own efforts,” but “persons are not indifferent as to how the greater benefits produced by their collaboration are distributed.” While society makes each individual member better off, they are constantly competing for the spoils of their cooperative efforts.

Necessarily, “a set of principles is required for choosing among the various social arrangements which determine this division of advantages.” This set of principles, which decides how goods are to be distributed, represents the principles of justice for Rawls. Proper principles must proceed from a position of fairness and equality: “they are the principles that free and rational