All Thinkers

John Rawls

John Rawls (1921-2002) was an American political philosopher, widely regarded as the most important political philosopher of the twentieth century. He was born in Baltimore, Maryland, and studied at Princeton University. He served in the Pacific during the Second World War, an experience that shook his earlier religious faith and deepened his concern with questions of justice: he witnessed the bombing of Hiroshima from close range and refused a commission that would have required him to participate in such actions again. He spent most of his academic career at Harvard University, where he taught from 1962 until his retirement. His major work, A Theory of Justice, published in 1971, transformed academic political philosophy and became one of the most discussed books of the century. In it he developed a systematic theory of justice grounded in the idea of a social contract among free and equal citizens choosing principles of justice from behind a veil of ignorance. His later work, Political Liberalism (1993) and The Law of Peoples (1999), developed and revised his ideas in response to criticism. He died in 2002.

Origin
United States
Lifespan
1921-2002
Era
20th century
Subjects
Political Philosophy Justice Liberalism Social Contract Law
Why They Matter

Rawls matters because he revived and transformed political philosophy at a time when it had become relatively marginal in anglophone academic culture, dominated by purely analytical philosophy and economics. His Theory of Justice provided a rigorous philosophical foundation for thinking about what a just society requires that was both intellectually serious and practically relevant. His core arguments — that justice requires fairness, that inequalities are only justified if they benefit the least advantaged, and that basic liberties must be protected for all — gave philosophical grounding to commitments that many people held intuitively but could not fully articulate. He also matters for his method: the veil of ignorance thought experiment is one of the most powerful and accessible tools in political philosophy for thinking about fairness. His work has shaped debates in law, economics, public policy, and political theory across the world, and his framework remains the most influential liberal theory of justice available.

Key Ideas
1
The veil of ignorance: the fairness test
Rawls's most famous thought experiment asks: what principles of justice would you choose if you did not know what position you would occupy in the society those principles would govern? Imagine you are behind a veil of ignorance: you do not know whether you will be rich or poor, healthy or disabled, what race or gender you will be, what talents you will have, or what conception of the good life you will hold. From this position of ignorance, what basic rules would you choose for your society? Rawls argued that rational people in this position would choose fair principles, because they could not gamble on ending up at the top and risking the conditions at the bottom.
2
Justice as fairness
Rawls called his theory of justice as fairness. The core idea is that the principles governing a society's basic structure should be ones that free and equal persons could agree to under fair conditions. The veil of ignorance creates those fair conditions by eliminating the bias that comes from knowing your own position. Justice is not the outcome of any particular person's preferences or power: it is the result of what impartial, rational persons would choose. This framing connects justice to the idea of a social contract: a hypothetical agreement about the fundamental rules of cooperation among free and equal citizens.
3
The difference principle: inequality is only justified if it helps the worst-off
Rawls argued that behind the veil of ignorance, rational people would not choose a society where inequalities existed simply because they benefited the most talented or the most fortunate. They would only accept inequalities if those inequalities worked to the advantage of the least well-off members of society. This is the difference principle: social and economic inequalities are justifiable only if they benefit the worst-off group. If a system of incentives produces greater overall wealth but the worst-off are worse off than they would be in a more equal system, that system is unjust. This principle provides a philosophical foundation for progressive redistribution.
Key Quotations
"Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought."
— A Theory of Justice, 1971
Rawls is making a claim about the fundamental importance of justice that sets the tone for everything that follows. Just as a scientific theory, however elegant or useful, must be rejected if it is false, a social institution, however efficient or traditional, must be reformed or abolished if it is unjust. This places justice above utility, tradition, and efficiency as the primary standard for evaluating social arrangements. No amount of benefit to the majority justifies violating the rights and dignity of individuals.
"Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override."
— A Theory of Justice, 1971
Rawls is stating his anti-utilitarian commitment directly. Utilitarianism, the view that the right action is whatever produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number, can in principle justify sacrificing individuals or minorities for the benefit of the majority. Rawls argued that individuals have rights that cannot be overridden even for the general welfare. This is the foundation of his rights-based approach to justice and explains why his first principle, protecting basic liberties, takes priority over his second principle about economic distribution.
Using This Thinker in the Classroom
Ethical Thinking When introducing the veil of ignorance as a fairness test
How to introduce
Present the veil of ignorance as a classroom activity. Ask students to imagine they must design rules for a game — but they do not know what position they will occupy in the game, whether they will be the strongest or the weakest player, the richest or the poorest, the most talented or the least. Ask: what rules would you choose? After discussion, introduce Rawls: this thought experiment is how he argued we should think about justice. Ask: do the rules chosen from behind the veil of ignorance look different from the rules that get chosen when everyone already knows their position?
Citizenship When discussing what makes a society just
How to introduce
Ask: what would a just society look like? After collecting ideas, introduce Rawls's two principles: first, equal basic liberties for all; second, inequalities only if they benefit the worst-off. Ask: do you think these principles are right? Can you think of inequalities in your society that satisfy the difference principle, and ones that do not? Connect to Sen's capabilities approach: both are asking what justice requires for the people at the bottom of the social hierarchy.
Further Reading

For a short introduction

Samuel Freeman's Rawls (2007, Routledge) is the most accessible scholarly overview.

For the original position thought experiment

The first few chapters of A Theory of Justice are the most accessible and set out the core argument.

For a short critical introduction

Michael Sandel's Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (2009, Farrar Straus and Giroux) examines Rawls alongside other theories of justice in an accessible way.

Key Ideas
1
The two principles of justice
Rawls argued that people behind the veil of ignorance would choose two principles of justice, in strict order of priority. The first principle: each person must have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme for all. Basic liberties — freedom of speech, conscience, assembly, the right to vote and hold office, personal property — cannot be traded off for economic advantages. The second principle, which operates only within the constraints set by the first: social and economic inequalities must be arranged so that they are both to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, and attached to positions open to everyone under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.
2
The original position and rational choice
The original position is Rawls's name for the hypothetical situation in which people choose principles of justice from behind the veil of ignorance. He argued that rational people in this position would reason according to what he called maximin: they would choose the arrangement that maximised the minimum position, because they could not gamble on ending up at the top and might end up at the bottom. This is a risk-averse strategy: since you might be the worst-off person in society, you want to make that position as good as possible. The original position is not a real historical event but a device for testing whether principles of justice are genuinely fair.
3
Primary goods: what everyone has reason to want
Rawls argued that the principles of justice should be evaluated in terms of primary goods: things that rational people want whatever else they want, because they are useful for pursuing virtually any conception of the good life. Primary goods include basic liberties, freedom of movement and choice of occupation, the powers and prerogatives of offices and positions of responsibility, income and wealth, and the social bases of self-respect. A just society ensures that everyone has an adequate share of primary goods. This framework was later criticised by Amartya Sen, who argued that what matters is not primary goods themselves but what people can actually do with them — his capabilities approach.
Key Quotations
"The intuitive idea is to design the social system so that the outcome is just whatever it is, provided those whose situation it has worsened are not made worse off."
— A Theory of Justice, 1971
Rawls is explaining the logic of the difference principle. He is not requiring complete equality of outcomes. He is requiring that inequalities benefit the worst-off: that the system be designed so that even the people at the bottom are as well off as possible given the constraints of the system. A rising tide must lift all boats — including and especially the smallest ones. If the tide only lifts the larger boats, the arrangement is unjust regardless of how much overall wealth it creates.
"No one deserves his greater natural capacity nor merits a more favourable starting place in society."
— A Theory of Justice, 1971
Rawls is making a powerful argument against the idea that natural talents or privileged birth justify keeping all the benefits they produce. You did not choose to be born with particular abilities or into a particular family: these are morally arbitrary from your perspective. A just society does not simply assign all the benefits of natural talent or social position to the individuals who happen to possess them. The difference principle follows from this: the natural distribution of talents should be treated as a common asset, with its benefits shared according to justice rather than hoarded by those lucky enough to possess them.
Using This Thinker in the Classroom
Critical Thinking When examining whether talents justify keeping all the benefits they produce
How to introduce
Introduce Rawls's argument: no one deserves their natural talents or their fortunate birth circumstances. Ask: do you agree? If someone is born with exceptional ability and works hard to develop it, do they deserve all the rewards it generates? Rawls says no — the talent itself was morally arbitrary, a matter of luck rather than choice. Ask: what follows from this? Does it mean talented people should not be rewarded at all, or only that they should not keep all the benefits? Connect to the difference principle: talent can generate incentives and efficiency, but the benefits should be distributed so the worst-off gain too.
Research Skills When examining how political philosophers test their arguments
How to introduce
Introduce Rawls's method: he uses a thought experiment, the original position, to test whether principles of justice are genuinely fair. The test is: would rational people choose these principles if they did not know their position in society? Ask: is this a good test? What are its strengths? What might it miss? Connect to Kuhn's argument about how scientific paradigms are tested and to Ibn Khaldun's critical methodology: all three argue for testing claims against clearly stated standards rather than accepting them because they feel right or are traditional.
Systems Thinking When examining how social systems distribute benefits and burdens
How to introduce
Apply the difference principle to a specific social system: a tax system, an educational system, or a healthcare system. Ask: does this system benefit the worst-off as much as any feasible alternative would? If not, is it just? Ask: what information would you need to answer this question? Connect to Nightingale and Virchow on the social determinants of health, and to Farmer's structural violence: all three argue that social systems produce health outcomes that can and should be evaluated for their justice.
Further Reading

A Theory of Justice (1971, Harvard University Press) is the primary text; the revised edition (1999) incorporates later revisions.

For the debate with Nozick

Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia (1974, Basic Books) is the most important libertarian response.

For the communitarian critique

Michael Sandel's Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (1982, Cambridge University Press) is the most accessible and most important.

Key Ideas
1
Political liberalism: overlapping consensus
In his later work, Rawls revised his theory in response to a fundamental challenge: in a pluralist society, people hold deeply different and incompatible comprehensive doctrines about what makes life good and what is ultimately true. How can a theory of justice claim to be accepted by people with such different worldviews? Rawls argued that justice as fairness should be understood as a political conception, not a comprehensive moral doctrine. It does not require agreement on the deepest questions of religion or philosophy. Different comprehensive doctrines can converge on the same political principles for their own different reasons — this is what Rawls called overlapping consensus.
2
Public reason: the constraints on political argument
Rawls argued that in a liberal democracy, citizens owe each other a particular kind of justification for the laws and policies they support. When fundamental political questions are at stake, citizens should justify their positions in terms of reasons that all citizens, whatever their comprehensive doctrine, can reasonably be expected to accept. This is public reason: the requirement that in the political sphere, you appeal to shared political values rather than to your own religious, philosophical, or comprehensive moral commitments. This was intended to protect pluralism: no one comprehensive worldview should be able to use political power to impose itself on those who do not share it.
3
Critiques: Sen, Nozick, and the communitarians
Rawls's theory generated important critiques from multiple directions. Robert Nozick argued from the libertarian right that Rawls's difference principle violated individual rights by requiring redistribution: people are entitled to whatever they acquire through legitimate transactions, regardless of the effect on the worst-off. Amartya Sen argued that primary goods were the wrong metric: what matters is capabilities, not resources. Communitarian critics including Michael Sandel argued that Rawls's conception of the person behind the veil of ignorance was too thin — stripped of all the social ties, traditions, and community memberships that actually constitute people's identities. Each critique revealed genuine tensions in the theory while also demonstrating its importance.
Key Quotations
"In justice as fairness men agree to share one another's fate."
— A Theory of Justice, 1971
Rawls is describing the social vision underlying his theory. Behind the veil of ignorance, citizens acknowledge that their position in society is partly a matter of luck — of the circumstances they were born into and the natural capacities they happened to receive. Recognising this, they agree to share each other's fate: to design social institutions that would be acceptable to anyone, including those who end up at the bottom. This is a vision of genuine solidarity, grounded not in sentiment but in a rational acknowledgment of common vulnerability.
"The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance. This ensures that no one is advantaged or disadvantaged in the choice of principles by the outcome of natural chance or the contingency of social circumstances."
— A Theory of Justice, 1971
Rawls is explaining the purpose of the veil of ignorance as a device for achieving genuine impartiality. In the real world, people's views about justice are inevitably shaped by their own position: the wealthy tend to favour arrangements that protect wealth, the powerful tend to favour arrangements that protect power. The veil of ignorance removes this bias by removing the knowledge of one's position. The principles chosen under these conditions are genuinely impartial because they cannot be influenced by self-interest in the normal sense.
Using This Thinker in the Classroom
Citizenship When examining the tension between Rawls and libertarianism
How to introduce
Present the Rawls-Nozick debate: Rawls says the difference principle requires redistribution; Nozick says people are entitled to whatever they acquire through legitimate transactions, and redistribution violates their rights. Ask: which position do you find more convincing? What is the strongest argument on each side? Is there a way to reconcile the claims? Connect to the tension between liberty and equality in political philosophy: both Rawls and Nozick take liberty seriously but reach very different conclusions about what it requires.
Global Studies When examining whether Rawls's theory applies globally
How to introduce
Introduce the challenge posed to Rawls by global inequality: if the veil of ignorance requires choosing principles without knowing your position, shouldn't it also require not knowing your nationality? Behind the veil, you might be born into a wealthy country or a very poor one. Rawls's own Law of Peoples limited the global application of his theory, which many critics found inconsistent. Ask: should the difference principle apply globally? If not, why not? Connect to Sen's capabilities approach and to Farmer's structural violence: both apply something like the Rawlsian demand for justice to the global order.
Common Misconceptions
Common misconception

Rawls argued for complete equality of outcomes.

What to teach instead

Rawls explicitly did not argue for complete equality. His difference principle allows for inequalities: it says inequalities are permissible when they benefit the worst-off members of society. A system with incentives that produces greater overall prosperity, including for the worst-off, can be just even though it is unequal. What is not permissible under Rawls is inequality that benefits only the wealthy while leaving the worst-off worse off than they would be in a more equal arrangement.

Common misconception

The veil of ignorance requires us to ignore everything we know about people.

What to teach instead

The veil of ignorance is a thought experiment for choosing principles of justice, not a requirement for actual social policy. Behind the veil, people are not required to ignore all knowledge — they know general facts about economics, psychology, and social organisation. What they do not know is their particular position in the society those principles will govern. The thought experiment is a device for achieving impartiality in the choice of principles, not a model for how to run a society.

Common misconception

Rawls's theory is purely abstract and has no practical implications.

What to teach instead

Rawls's theory has had extensive practical influence on debates about taxation, healthcare, education, welfare policy, and constitutional law. The difference principle provides a principled basis for asking whether any social arrangement benefits the worst-off as much as feasible alternatives. His first principle provides a philosophical foundation for constitutional protections of basic liberties. His concept of public reason has influenced debates about how courts and legislators should justify their decisions in pluralist democracies.

Common misconception

Rawls's theory is a defence of the status quo in Western liberal democracies.

What to teach instead

Rawls's theory is deeply critical of existing arrangements in Western societies. He argued that significant inequalities in wealth and opportunity violated the difference principle because they did not benefit the worst-off as much as feasible alternatives would. He was critical of what he called the system of natural liberty — the view that whatever results from free market transactions is just — precisely because it ignores the role of morally arbitrary natural talents and social circumstances in determining outcomes. His theory provides grounds for demanding much more substantial redistribution and equality of opportunity than most Western societies actually provide.

Intellectual Connections
In Dialogue With
Amartya Sen
Sen was one of Rawls's most important and most sympathetic critics. He accepted the basic Rawlsian framework of justice as fairness but argued that primary goods were the wrong currency for measuring justice: what matters is not what resources people have but what they can actually do and be — their capabilities. A person with a disability may need more resources than a healthy person to achieve the same capabilities. Sen's capabilities approach can be understood as a development of Rawlsian justice that takes seriously the variation in human needs.
In Dialogue With
Thomas Hobbes
Both Rawls and Hobbes work within the social contract tradition: the idea that political authority and principles of justice derive from an agreement among individuals. But their contracts look very different. Hobbes's contract is driven by fear of death and produces an absolute sovereign. Rawls's contract is made by free and equal persons choosing fair principles from behind the veil of ignorance and produces a liberal democratic society committed to basic liberties and the difference principle. Both use the contract device to ask what rational persons would agree to, but with very different assumptions about what rationality and the human condition require.
In Dialogue With
Hannah Arendt
Both Rawls and Arendt are liberal political philosophers who take seriously the claims of plural individuals to participate in political life on equal terms. Arendt's right to have rights and Rawls's first principle of justice both insist that basic political participation is not a privilege but a condition of genuine political community. But they reach this by very different routes: Arendt through the analysis of political action and the public realm, Rawls through the original position and the veil of ignorance.
In Dialogue With
Elinor Ostrom
Both Rawls and Ostrom are concerned with the conditions for fair cooperation among people with different interests and positions. Rawls addresses this at the level of basic social structure through the original position. Ostrom addresses it at the level of specific common pool resource institutions through her design principles. Both argue that fair cooperation is possible and that it requires specific institutional conditions: Rawls's conditions are philosophical, Ostrom's are empirical. Both challenge the assumption that self-interest inevitably produces either domination by the powerful or collective failure.
In Dialogue With
Paul Farmer
Rawls's difference principle — that inequalities are just only if they benefit the worst-off — provides a philosophical foundation for Farmer's practical demand that the global health system serve the poorest people as well as any feasible alternative. Farmer's structural violence framework shows what happens when the difference principle is violated at a global scale: the worst-off bear costs they did not choose for a system from which they receive little benefit. Rawls provides the normative theory; Farmer provides the empirical evidence of what systematic injustice looks like in practice.
In Dialogue With
Mary Wollstonecraft
Wollstonecraft's argument for the equal rationality and equal moral standing of women anticipated Rawls's foundation in the equal basic liberties of all persons. Both argue against social arrangements that deny some people the conditions for full participation in political and social life. Behind Rawls's veil of ignorance, gender is one of the things you do not know: the principles chosen there cannot legitimately exclude anyone on the basis of gender, race, or any other morally arbitrary characteristic.
Further Reading

Political Liberalism (1993, Columbia University Press) develops the later theory of overlapping consensus and public reason.

For comprehensive scholarly treatment

Samuel Freeman's edited Cambridge Companion to Rawls (2003) is the best single scholarly reference.

For the global justice debate

Thomas Pogge's Realizing Rawls (1989, Cornell University Press) and Charles Beitz's Political Theory and International Relations (1979, Princeton University Press) both extend Rawlsian justice to the global level.