Justice As Fairness: Political Not Metaphysical Analysis

In a journal article titled “Justice as Fairness: Political not Metaphysical” written by John Rawls, Rawls discusses the concept of “justice as fairness.” Rawls argues that “justice as fairness is intended as a political conception of justice” (Rawls 1985, 224). However, Rawls notes that while justice as fairness is a moral conception, in this context, justice as fairness is framed to apply the “basic structure of modern constitutional democracy” including society’s “main political, social and economic institutions (Rawls 1985, 224). In his own words, Rawls says that the purpose of his article is “to show how a conception of justice with the structure and content of justice as fairness can be understood as political and not metaphysical, and

While Rawls clearly states what the purpose of his journal is, Rawls does not explicitly state what the concept of “justice as fairness is.” Rawls makes it clear that justice as fairness should be understood as political and not metaphysical, however, Rawls doesn’t give any background information on this topic, which can easily lead to confusion. In this context, what is the political? What is the metaphysical? In order to provide readers with a greater understanding of the argument being framed, Rawls should provide context for the terms being used in the thesis statement in order to frame a clearer and more readable argument. When making the argument that justice as fairness is political and not metaphysical, Rawls employs various methods and theories to support his argument. First, Rawls uses the predictive theorizing method when he starts with a set of premises and

In the first subtitle, Rawls discusses why justice as fairness is intended as a political conception, hence supporting the first part of the thesis. Rawls writes that justice as a fairness is a political conception because justice as fairness “… draws solely upon basic intuitive ideas that are embedded in the political institutions of a constitutional democratic regime…” (Rawls 1985, 225). However, Rawls fails to discuss how justice as fairness draws upon the basic intuitive ideas embedded in political institutions. Additionally, Rawls gives no practical examples that shows justice as fairness as a political concept. For this reason, Rawls’ support for this part of his thesis seems abstract and weakly supported. Next, Rawls attempts to prove the benefits that come as a result of recognizing fairness as justice in a democratic society. Rawls writes, “… if we are to succeed in finding a basis of public agreement, we must find a new way of organizing familiar ideas and principles into a conception of political justice…” (Rawls 1985, 229). Here, Rawls implies that a basis of public agreement can be reached only if ideas and principles are organized into a conception of justice. While greater public agreement about familiar ideas and principles may be a benefit of finding a conception of justice in a democratic society,