Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Justice, a cornerstone of political philosophy, has been debated for millennia. The ancient Greeks, particularly Plato and Aristotle, laid the groundwork for Western thought on the subject, emphasizing virtue and the common good. Centuries later, John Rawls, in his seminal work *A Theory of Justice* (1971), offered a modern articulation of justice based on fairness and the principles individuals would rationally choose from behind a ‘veil of ignorance’. This answer will comparatively assess these two influential perspectives, highlighting their similarities and differences in defining a just society and the principles governing it.
The Greek Perspective on Justice
The Greek understanding of justice evolved through different philosophers. For Plato, justice resided in the harmonious functioning of the soul and, by extension, the state. In *The Republic*, he argued that society should be structured according to a hierarchy of reason, spirit, and appetite, with each class fulfilling its designated role. Justice, therefore, wasn’t about equal distribution but about each part performing its function correctly. This is a holistic, organic view of justice, prioritizing societal harmony over individual rights.
Aristotle, Plato’s student, offered a more nuanced perspective. He distinguished between distributive justice (fair allocation of resources) and corrective justice (rectifying imbalances). Aristotle believed that equals should be treated equally, and unequals unequally, proportional to their relevant differences. He emphasized the importance of virtue and the ‘golden mean’ – finding the balance between extremes – in achieving justice. Aristotle’s justice is teleological, meaning it’s oriented towards achieving the good life (eudaimonia) for citizens.
Rawlsian Concept of Justice
John Rawls’ *A Theory of Justice* presents a contractualist approach to justice. He proposes a thought experiment: the ‘original position’ behind a ‘veil of ignorance’. Individuals, unaware of their future social status, talents, or beliefs, would rationally choose principles of justice to govern society. Rawls argues that these individuals would select two principles:
- The Liberty Principle: Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others.
- The Difference Principle: Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.
Rawls’ theory prioritizes individual rights and liberties, particularly for the least advantaged members of society. It’s a procedural approach, focusing on the fairness of the process by which principles are chosen, rather than on a pre-defined notion of the ‘good life’.
Comparative Assessment
| Feature | Greek Perspective (Plato & Aristotle) | Rawlsian Perspective |
|---|---|---|
| Foundation | Virtue, societal harmony, teleology (achieving the good life) | Fairness, individual rights, contractualism |
| Individual vs. Society | Individual is subordinate to the needs of the state; emphasis on collective good | Individual rights are paramount; society exists to protect those rights |
| Equality | Proportional equality (Aristotle); functional specialization (Plato) | Equal basic liberties; inequalities permissible only if they benefit the least advantaged |
| Role of Reason | Reason used to understand the natural order and determine one’s place within it | Reason used to rationally choose principles of justice from behind a veil of ignorance |
| Nature of Justice | Objective and inherent in the natural order | Socially constructed through rational agreement |
While seemingly disparate, some convergences exist. Both frameworks acknowledge the importance of reason in establishing justice. Both also aim to create a stable and well-ordered society, although they differ significantly on how to achieve this. However, the Greek perspective is often criticized for its potential to justify social hierarchies and limit individual freedom, while Rawls’ theory has been challenged for its potential to stifle economic incentives and its abstract nature, making it difficult to apply in real-world scenarios.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Greek and Rawlsian perspectives on justice represent distinct yet influential approaches. The Greeks prioritized societal harmony and virtue, emphasizing the role of reason in understanding a pre-existing natural order. Rawls, conversely, focused on fairness and individual rights, advocating for principles chosen through a rational, impartial process. While the Greek perspective offers a holistic vision of justice, Rawls’ theory provides a more robust defense of individual liberties and social equality. Contemporary debates on justice continue to grapple with the tensions between these two traditions, seeking to balance the needs of the individual with the demands of the collective good.
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.