Author, Simon.
Published, June 18, 2008.

So, we have looked at how we might think about where justice originates; natural law, or social law. The philosophical problems that justice throws up are numerous, though. Conceiving of theories of justice is much more complicated that simply ‘right and wrong’. Allow me to expand on a couple of very influential thinkers in the arena of Justice.

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679): English philosopher. Author of the highly influential book The Leviathan. Hobbes’ theory of justice is attractive in one sense, and awfully stark in another. Hobbes identifies injustice with breaking the law. According to Hobbes, just behaviour is simply conforming to societies laws. He goes on to surmise that law cannot exist without a ’sovereign’. For their to be genuine laws, there needs to be a sufficiently powerful sovereign to punish those who break the laws. So, without a sovereign, there is no law. Without laws, there can be no justice.

On an international, present day scale, it is very hard to conceive how a Hobbesian theory of justice could ever be applied. There is no global sovereign, and it is unlikely that there will be one in the foreseeable future. The United Nations is the closest thing we have to a global sovereign. It is next to impotent when it comes to enforcing laws, though.

John Rawls(1921-2002): American philosopher. Rawls is much less bare in his ideas of justice. Rawls’ theory is based on the idea that humans are reasonable creatures (although thisis obviously not always true) and will, when being reasonable, co-operate with each other when trying to come an agreement about whatever it is they are considering. His theory assumes a number of things, which he summarises as ‘The Original Position’; that participants in the negotiations are free and equal, that participants will be reasonable, that they may accept fair terms, and that they are rationally seeking to better their own position.

Also central to Rawls’ conception is what he has titled the “Veil of Ignorance”. This veil is one which doesn’t allow participants to know anything about any advantages or disadvantages they may have in relation to other participants. For example; I negotiate to play a game of tennis with Anna Kournikova. For it to be a fair agreement between myself and Anna, she has to be unaware that she is a far superior tennis player to me, and that she is also extremely attractive and, due to this, would probably gain much more support from any people watching the match. Her not knowing these things removes any bargaining power she might have when she is negotiating the agreement with me.

In Rawls own words:

“If we are reasonable, it is one our considered convictions that the fact that we occupy a particular social position, say, is not a good reason for us to accept, or to expect others to accept, a conception of justice that favours those in that position.” (Fundamental Ideas)  

Rawls’ model is supposed to be understood as a device for reaching justice; for reaching agreements that will result in just outcomes for all parties concerned.