Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Justice, a cornerstone of political philosophy, has been a subject of debate for millennia. Plato, in his seminal work *The Republic*, envisioned justice as a harmonious ordering of the soul and the state, predicated on a functional division of labor and a hierarchical structure. Centuries later, John Rawls, in *A Theory of Justice* (1971), proposed a modern conception of justice as fairness, rooted in principles chosen behind a ‘veil of ignorance’. This essay will explore the extent to which Rawls’s theory can be seen as a continuation, or a departure from, Plato’s foundational ideas about justice.
Plato’s Concept of Justice
Plato’s concept of justice, as articulated in *The Republic*, isn’t merely about individual rights or fairness. It’s a holistic concept tied to the proper functioning of the state and the individual soul. He argues that justice exists when each part of the soul (reason, spirit, and appetite) and each class in society (philosopher-kings, auxiliaries, and producers) fulfills its designated role without interfering with others. This is a fundamentally hierarchical and organic view of justice, where inequality is not only accepted but considered essential for societal harmony. Justice, for Plato, is achieved through a rigorous education system that identifies and trains individuals for their appropriate roles.
Rawls’s ‘Justice as Fairness’
John Rawls, in contrast, presents a procedural conception of justice. His ‘justice as fairness’ is based on two principles: the equal liberty principle (guaranteeing basic rights and freedoms for all) and the difference principle (allowing inequalities only if they benefit the least advantaged). Crucially, these principles are derived from a hypothetical ‘original position’ behind a ‘veil of ignorance’, where individuals are unaware of their social status, talents, or beliefs. This ensures impartiality in the selection of principles, leading to a more egalitarian outcome. Rawls emphasizes the importance of rational deliberation and the protection of individual autonomy.
Continuities between Plato and Rawls
- Role of Reason: Both Plato and Rawls place a high value on reason. For Plato, reason is the guiding force in both the individual soul and the state, enabling the identification of just order. Similarly, Rawls’s theory relies on rational agents deliberating behind the veil of ignorance to arrive at just principles.
- Focus on Social Harmony: Both philosophers aim to establish a stable and harmonious society. Plato seeks harmony through functional specialization and hierarchical order, while Rawls aims for stability through fairness and mutual respect.
- Ideal State as a Model: Both present an ‘ideal’ state – Plato’s Kallipolis and Rawls’s well-ordered society – as a normative benchmark against which existing societies can be evaluated.
Divergences between Plato and Rawls
Despite these continuities, significant differences exist:
- Equality vs. Hierarchy: Plato explicitly accepts and justifies social hierarchy based on natural abilities, while Rawls champions equality as a fundamental principle, allowing inequalities only under specific conditions (the difference principle).
- Individual vs. Collective: Plato prioritizes the collective good over individual rights, believing that the individual’s happiness is inextricably linked to the well-being of the state. Rawls, conversely, emphasizes individual rights and freedoms as paramount.
- Methodology: Plato relies on philosophical intuition and deductive reasoning, while Rawls employs a thought experiment (the original position) and a more systematic, contractarian approach.
| Feature | Plato | Rawls |
|---|---|---|
| Concept of Equality | Accepts and justifies inequality | Emphasizes equality, allows inequalities only to benefit the least advantaged |
| Focus | Collective good, societal harmony | Individual rights and freedoms |
| Methodology | Deductive reasoning, philosophical intuition | Contractarianism, thought experiment (veil of ignorance) |
Therefore, while Rawls builds upon the philosophical tradition initiated by Plato by acknowledging the importance of reason and social harmony, he fundamentally departs from Plato’s hierarchical and collectivist vision, offering a more egalitarian and individualistic conception of justice.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Rawls’s theory of justice can be seen as both a continuation and a revision of Plato’s ideas. He retains the emphasis on reason and the pursuit of a harmonious society, but rejects Plato’s acceptance of inherent social inequalities and prioritizes individual rights and freedoms. Rawls’s ‘justice as fairness’ represents a significant departure from the ancient Greek conception, reflecting modern liberal values and a commitment to a more just and equitable social order. The enduring relevance of both thinkers lies in their continued ability to provoke critical reflection on the fundamental principles of justice and the ideal organization of society.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.