Rawls on Justice as Fairness, and Moral Determinism

30-second summary

Part A box (each line 15 words or fewer)

1. The starting point

The opening sentence of Rawls's A Theory of Justice (1971): "Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought." (chapter I, section 1, p. 3: the sentence was found on p. 3 in the text of the revised edition; Wikiquote gives "pp. 3-4", so writing "p. 3" is safe.) Justice is the first test of institutions.

2. The original position and the veil of ignorance

(according to the Stanford Encyclopedia)

Original position: a thought experiment in which representatives of citizens choose principles of justice under fair conditions.

Veil of ignorance: the representatives do not know arbitrary facts such as class, gender or natural abilities, so they choose rules they could accept in any position. This secures impartiality.

Maximin: under uncertainty the representatives pick the arrangement in which even the worst position is as good as possible.

3. The two principles of justice

(text as given in the Stanford Encyclopedia, taken from Rawls's later book Justice as Fairness: A Restatement (2001); the wording in the 1971 A Theory of Justice differs, so name the source with the quotation)

First: "Each person has the same indefeasible claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme of liberties for all."

Second: "Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: (1) They are to be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; (2) They are to be to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society (the difference principle)."

Priority: the first principle comes before the second; within the second, fair equality of opportunity comes before the difference principle.

4. Criticism of utilitarianism

Rawls: "The fault of the utilitarian doctrine is that it mistakes impersonality for impartiality." (chapter III, section 30; Wikiquote gives p. 190, taken to be the 1971 edition's page; confirm the page and wording in the book before using them; in an answer cite only "section 30".) In our words: in raising the total, some persons' losses are allowed; Rawls holds that impartiality means treating each person as a separate claimant (compare page 6.4).

5. Plato's and Rawls's justice

6. Use in administration: the "veil test"

When making a rule, ask: if I did not know whether I would be the beneficiary or the excluded, rural or urban, would I choose this rule? It can be applied to queue systems, allocation, reservation and grievance rules. Also Constitution, Article 38(2): the State shall "strive to minimise the inequalities in income, and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities" (this matches the spirit of Rawls; our reading).

7. Limits (common criticisms)

the original position is an abstract thought experiment, and a single measure of advantage cannot suit everyone because needs differ. One line is enough in an exam.

8. What determinism is

Stanford Encyclopedia (Hoefer): "Determinism is true of the world if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law." So past states and the laws of nature settle the future.

9. Moral determinism

When the same idea is applied to our choices, character and moral conduct, it can be called moral determinism: our decisions are fixed by prior causes such as heredity, upbringing, society and circumstance. The question follows: if our choices are already settled, are we truly free, and can we be blamed or praised?

A caution on the term: RPSC gave no definition, and "moral determinism" is not a single fixed technical term. Its classification is "uncertain": it could be read in the philosophical sense of free will against determinism, or in the context of Indian Karmavada (the cause-and-effect law of action and result). This page takes the general meaning; add a Karma parallel only as our reading. The Stanford Encyclopedia entries on determinism and compatibilism do not define "moral determinism"; Hoefer's definition is of causal determinism, and applying it to moral conduct is our own step.

10. Three views

(the standard classification in the free-will literature; all three are defined in this sense in the IEP's "Free Will" entry)

Compatibilism: free will is compatible with determinism; even if causes fix our acts, responsibility remains when we act from our own reasons and desires, without coercion.

Hard determinism: determinism is true and is incompatible with freedom and moral responsibility.

Libertarianism: freedom needs indeterminism, so determinism is false.

(According to the IEP, hard determinism and libertarianism are both forms of incompatibilism.)

11. What it means for administration

(our reading, in line with a compatibilist stance)

Causes explain, they do not excuse: look for the systemic causes behind an officer's lapse, such as incentives or pressure, so that the system can be repaired; but keep the person answerable too, or responsibility and public trust break down.

The aim of punishment: not only retribution but deterrence and reform.

Looking at the person's circumstances: in Bachan Singh v State of Punjab (9 May 1980, five-judge bench) the Supreme Court held that the death penalty is for the "rarest of rare" cases and that courts must weigh the offender's circumstances along with the crime, such as age, extreme mental or emotional disturbance and the probability of reform and rehabilitation (from a case summary; confirm the exact words in the judgment text before quoting them). This is an example of recognising the influence of circumstances while keeping responsibility (our reading).

Bachan Singh v State of Punjab, 1980.

in Part 2, note 11.

Article 38(2)

constitutional text (note 6 above).

Mini case study

No full case is placed on this page; the "veil test" is in note 6, and full cases are on pages 6.1, 6.3, 6.4 and 6.6.

Thinkers and quotes box

On Rawls: no direct question in 2018, 2021, 2023 or 2024 (based on all 52 Unit I questions).

How the concept was asked before: determinism only in 2024 at 2 marks; Rawls never.

Common mistakes

Self-check (5 questions)

Worked examples (documented, with year)

Practice Questions

Real PYQs

How to Write This Answer

One-page Revision