Andrew Galloway

Dr. Xinmin Zhu

Philosophy 106

November 13, 2006

Term Paper

Liberty, Equality, and Justice

The conflict between liberty and justice is one that has plagued humans since at

least as early as c. 1792-1750 BCE, when an Akkadian king, Hammurabi, recorded the

now famous Law Code of Hammurabi, which detailed what liberties were to be sacrificed

in order to maintain justice. To this day, the concept of true justice has been a leading

debate in social philosophy.

The implementation of justice as fairness, as I believe justice should be

implemented, has its basis in Harvard philosopher John Rawls’ original position, a

hypothetical state-of-nature much like that first introduced in Thomas Hobbes’

Leviathan. Individuals in the original position do not exist in any sort of society and are

under a “veil of ignorance” that prevents them from knowing of anything other than what

they are currently aware of. This includes anything that could be used to discriminate

between any two individuals, such as sex, race, nationality, or individual tastes. They

would not know whether or not they were smart or dumb, rich or poor, or anything else

regarding their prosperity and abilities.

This is a situation comparable to the fictional tale of Adam and Eve in the Garden

of Eden. Adam and Eve were, in a sense, blind to the truth of things, held under a veil of

Galloway 1

blissful ignorance. Eventually, one of them was lured into “eating from the tree of

knowledge,” thus lifting the “veil” and exposing them to the harsh realities of a state of

nature in which natural law reigns, and a “war of all against all” takes place. In other

words, those individuals in such a state of nature would, in the absence of order, take it

upon themselves to defend themselves against others using whatever means possible, and

would simultaneously mistreat others, being inherently evil-minded.

Sir Isaiah Berlin once said:

If you have maximum liberty, then the strong can destroy the weak, and if

you have absolute equality, you cannot have absolute liberty, because you

have to coerce the powerful… if they are not to devour the poor and

meek… Total liberty can be dreadful, total equality can be equally

frightful. (Zhu)

In order to distinguish an ideal balance of liberty and justice, Rawls suggests a

sort of artificial original position. Behind the veil of ignorance, the rational choice for the

underlying principles of society would only be fair principles, based on the fact that no

one under the “veil” would know whether or not they could or would suffer or benefit

from the implementation of biased social institutions.

From this “veiled” state, society would find itself needing to emerge. Order

eventually would have to be made. In Rawls’ ideal formation of society, progress would

need to adhere to the two Principles of Justice, The Principle of Equal Basic Liberty for

All and The Difference Principle. The former of these two principles establishes equal

liberty. Rawls’ explains that, “Each person has an equal right to a fully adequate scheme

Galloway 2

of equal basic liberties which is compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for all

(Garrett).” Considering “which liberties are essential social conditions for the adequate

development and full exercise of the two powers of moral personality over a complete

life,” it is established by Rawls that the equal basic liberties are: “freedom of thought and

liberty of conscience; the political liberties and freedom of association, as well as the

freedoms specified by the liberty and integrity of the person; and finally, the rights and

liberties covered by the rule of law (Garrett).” The Difference Principle fosters equal

income and status, unless differences in wealth and position contribute to the advantage of

every individual affected.

Rawls’ views on justice severely contrast with those of Robert Nozick, whose theory

of justice is based on entitlement, as opposed to Rawls’ theory of justice as fairness. In all

obviousness, justice as entitlement just wouldn’t be as fair and just as justice as fairness.

Assuming the development of Rawls’ society went unhindered and as he envisioned it, it

would be easy to also satisfy Berlin’s guidelines for an idealistic balance of liberty and

equality.

Galloway 3

Works Cited

Garrett, Dr. Jan. Rawls' Mature Theory of Social Justice: An Introduction for Students. 24 Aug

2005. Western Kentucky University. 20 Nov 2006

<http://www.wku.edu/~jan.garrett/ethics/matrawls.htm>.

Zhu, Dr. Xinmin. Guidelines For Term Paper. Antelope Valley College. 20 Nov 2006.

Galloway 4