A Theory of Justice

1. Introduction

​A Theory of Justice (1971) is John Rawls’s large-scale attempt to articulate a normative standard for assessing the basic structure of society—its major political, legal, and economic institutions. The work proposes a conception he calls justice as fairness, which aims to specify what it would mean for a modern constitutional democracy to treat its citizens as free and equal persons.

Rawls’s central question is how to justify principles of justice in conditions of deep moral and religious pluralism. He approaches this by asking what principles would be chosen in a fair hypothetical agreement. The book argues that principles are just if they would be selected by rational representatives of citizens placed in an original position of equality and ignorance about their own particular circumstances, behind a veil of ignorance. This device, Rawls maintains, models impartiality and the equal moral status of persons.

From this starting point, Rawls develops:

• A pair of lexically ordered principles of justice regulating basic liberties and social and economic inequalities.
• An account of key normative ideas such as primary goods, fair equality of opportunity, the difference principle, and the notion of a well-ordered society.
• A comparison between justice as fairness and prominent alternative views, especially utilitarianism and various forms of intuitionism and perfectionism.
• A set of arguments about the stability of a just society and the moral psychology that might sustain it.

The book is written as a single, tightly connected argument, but it has been interpreted as both a contribution to social contract theory in the tradition of Locke, Rousseau, and Kant, and as a distinctive form of liberal egalitarianism suited to the institutional realities of twentieth‑century democracies. Subsequent sections of this entry examine in detail its central devices, principles, and arguments, as well as the major debates it has generated.

2. Historical and Intellectual Context

Rawls’s project draws on and responds to several overlapping historical and intellectual developments in mid‑twentieth‑century philosophy and politics.

Postwar Analytic Philosophy and the “Return” of Normativity

In Anglophone philosophy from the 1930s to the 1950s, logical positivism and ordinary language philosophy often treated normative political theory with suspicion, as lacking clear empirical or linguistic foundations. By the 1960s, however, this methodological skepticism had begun to weaken. Rawls’s work is often seen as part of a broader revival of substantive moral and political philosophy within the analytic tradition.

Liberalism, Welfare States, and Cold War Politics

​A Theory of Justice appeared at a time when many Western democracies had developed welfare‑state institutions and were grappling with questions about redistribution, social insurance, and civil rights. Rawls situates his view within the tradition of liberal constitutional democracy, but reinterprets it in a more demanding egalitarian direction, engaging debates about social democracy, laissez‑faire capitalism, and the moral basis of the welfare state.

Debates about Utilitarianism and Moral Theory

In moral philosophy, classical utilitarianism dominated much Anglophone discussion, defended by figures such as J. J. C. Smart and R. M. Hare. Rawls’s theory is framed as a systematic alternative contractarian foundation for liberal democracy, designed to capture many of the attractions of utilitarianism (impartiality, concern for overall well‑being) while avoiding what he takes to be its moral costs. Simultaneously, he responds to intuitionist approaches that rely on balancing plural moral principles without an explicit justificatory structure.

Social Contract Tradition and Kantian Ethics

Rawls explicitly invokes the social contract tradition of Locke, Rousseau, and Kant, but adapts it through the formal tools of decision theory, game theory, and analytic philosophy of language. He interprets his own view as a “Kantian constructivism” in moral theory, where citizens, regarded as moral persons, give themselves principles of justice under fair conditions.

Civil Rights, Feminism, and Emerging Social Critiques

The book was written against the background of the U.S. civil rights movement, early second‑wave feminism, and growing criticism of racial and economic inequality. While many later critics argue that Rawls did not fully integrate race, gender, or global injustice into his framework, the immediate political context nonetheless shaped its focus on constitutional essentials, equal citizenship, and distributive justice within nation‑states.

3. Author and Composition

Rawls’s Intellectual Background

John Rawls (1921–2002) was an American political philosopher educated at Princeton, who served in World War II and later taught at Cornell, MIT, and Harvard. His early ethical outlook was shaped by Protestant Christianity, but he gradually moved toward a broadly Kantian secular moral philosophy. Influences typically cited include Kant, Rousseau, and Hobbes on contract theory, as well as Sidgwick and modern utilitarians against whom he argued.

Development of the Project

The ideas in A Theory of Justice emerged gradually from Rawls’s articles and lectures in the late 1950s and 1960s. Key milestones include:

These writings progressively introduced components that would later be integrated into the book: the original position, a critique of utilitarianism, the idea of primary goods, and the concern with distributive justice under democratic institutions.

Composition and Revisions

Rawls worked on the manuscript intensively throughout the 1960s, revising it in light of classroom discussion and critical feedback from colleagues. The first edition appeared in 1971 with Harvard University Press. It was quickly subject to detailed scrutiny, leading Rawls to issue numerous clarifications in subsequent papers and lectures.

In 1999, Rawls published a Revised Edition, making targeted changes to definitions, structure, and arguments, especially concerning:

• The statement and ordering of the two principles of justice
• The description of the original position
• Clarifications on primary goods and the least advantaged

The core architecture remains the same, but the revisions aim to remove ambiguities and anticipate common misunderstandings. An expanded 2005 edition adds earlier essays that illuminate the genesis of the main ideas.

Relation to Later Work

Although this entry focuses on A Theory of Justice, many commentators interpret the book in light of Rawls’s later shift to political liberalism and to questions of international justice. Those later developments are often read as refinements, not repudiations, of the framework first articulated during the book’s lengthy gestation.

4. Structure and Organization of the Work

Rawls divides A Theory of Justice into three main parts—“Theory,” “Institutions,” and “Ends”—each with a distinct task in the overall argument.

Overview of the Three Parts

Part I: “Theory”

Part I develops the framework of justice as fairness. Rawls:

• Introduces the notion of a well‑ordered society and the basic structure as the primary subject of justice.
• Constructs the original position and veil of ignorance as the justificatory device.
• States and defends the two principles of justice and their lexical priority.
• Contrasts his view with classical utilitarianism and intuitionism.

This part sets up the normative standards that later sections apply and tests for coherence.

Part II: “Institutions”

Part II applies the two principles to central institutional domains:

• Basic liberties and the constitutional framework, including political rights and the rule of law.
• Fair equality of opportunity in education and employment.
• Distributive justice and the organization of the economy, including the difference principle.
• The sketch of a property‑owning democracy as a regime type compatible with justice as fairness.

Rawls moves from abstract principles to mid‑level institutional design, while still operating at the level of ideal theory.

Part III: “Ends”

Part III investigates whether a society ordered by the chosen principles could be stable over time:

• It develops an account of moral personality, the sense of justice, and the Aristotelian Principle.
• It analyzes how individuals might come to value just institutions as part of their own good.
• It argues for the possibility of a congruence between justice and citizens’ rational aims, thereby supporting stability.

Each part is cross‑referential: arguments about institutions presuppose the theory developed in Part I, while the stability analysis in Part III presupposes both the principles and their institutional realization. The work is thus organized as a progression from abstract justification, to institutional specification, to psychological and social feasibility.

5. The Original Position and Veil of Ignorance

The Original Position as a Choice Situation

The original position is a hypothetical decision situation in which representatives of citizens choose principles of justice for the basic structure. It is not a historical contract, but a device of representation meant to model fairness. The parties are:

• Rational and mutually disinterested, seeking to advance their constituents’ interests.
• Symmetrically situated, so that no one can exploit informational or bargaining advantages.
• Constrained to choose principles that will apply universally to all citizens in perpetuity.

Rawls specifies the parties’ motivation in terms of citizens’ interests in primary goods and their capacity for a sense of justice.

The Veil of Ignorance

The crucial feature of the original position is the veil of ignorance, an informational constraint that excludes knowledge of:

• One’s social class, race, gender, or ethnicity
• Natural talents and abilities
• Particular conceptions of the good (religious, moral, or philosophical)
• One’s generation, social position, or specific historical contingencies

Parties know general facts about society, economics, psychology, and the circumstances of justice, but they do not know their particular place within society.

Rawls argues that this structure prevents principles from being tailored to favor any particular group or conception of the good, thereby encoding impartiality and the moral equality of persons.

Formal Constraints and Reasoning

Rawls also imposes formal constraints on acceptable principles: they must be general, universal in application, public, and supportive of stability. Within these constraints, parties employ reasoning that incorporates:

• Maximin or related risk‑averse strategies, given the possibility of occupying the least advantaged position
• Consideration of the strains of commitment, ruling out principles that would be unreasonable to comply with if one ended up badly off
• Comparison of alternative conceptions such as utilitarianism, perfectionism, or various egalitarian proposals

Interpretive Debates

Commentators have debated:

• Whether the veil of ignorance models moral impartiality or rational prudence under uncertainty
• How strong the parties’ risk aversion is intended to be
• The extent to which the device is grounded in Kantian ideas of autonomy versus Hobbesian bargaining under constraints

Despite these disputes, the original position and veil of ignorance remain central to how Rawls justifies his principles of justice.

6. The Two Principles of Justice

Formulation and Lexical Priority

Rawls’s theory culminates, in Part I, with the statement of two lexically ordered principles. In the 1999 Revised Edition, they read (in simplified form):

1. First Principle (Equal Basic Liberties)
   Each person has an equal claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme of liberties for all.

2. Second Principle (Social and Economic Inequalities)
   Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions:
   (a) they are to be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; and
   (b) they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society (the difference principle).

These principles are lexically ordered: the first principle has priority over the second, and within the second, fair equality of opportunity has priority over the difference principle.

Content of the First Principle

The first principle concerns basic liberties, including:

• Political liberties (e.g., the right to vote and to hold office)
• Freedom of speech, conscience, and thought
• Freedom of the person and the right to hold personal property
• The rights and liberties covered by the rule of law

Rawls holds that these liberties must be equal and can be limited only to preserve an equal scheme for all, not for reasons of aggregate welfare.

Content of the Second Principle

The second principle regulates social and economic inequalities:

• Fair equality of opportunity requires more than formal non‑discrimination; it demands that citizens with similar talents and willingness to use them have comparable prospects regardless of social background.
• The difference principle permits inequalities in income and wealth only if they improve the situation of the least advantaged compared to alternative arrangements.

Rawls presents this as an alternative both to strict equality and to various forms of welfare maximization.

Rationale in the Original Position

Rawls contends that parties behind the veil of ignorance would choose these principles because they:

• Protect basic liberties as inviolable, avoiding trade‑offs that could sacrifice some individuals’ rights for others’ gains.
• Provide a secure social minimum and prospects for the least advantaged that are superior, under reasonable assumptions, to what would likely result from utilitarian or meritocratic principles.
• Satisfy the strains of commitment, as citizens can endorse them even from disadvantaged positions.

Interpreters differ on how strongly the principles depart from familiar welfare‑state arrangements and how demanding they are in practice, but Rawls presents them as a systematic expression of “justice as fairness” for a liberal democratic society.

7. Key Concepts: Basic Structure, Primary Goods, and Moral Persons

Basic Structure of Society

Rawls’s subject of justice is primarily the basic structure of society: the ensemble of major social institutions that distribute fundamental rights and duties and shape life prospects. These include:

• The political constitution and legal system
• The system of property and the economy
• Family and educational institutions, as they affect opportunities

Rawls argues that focusing on the basic structure is appropriate because:

• It has profound and lasting effects on individuals’ opportunities and expectations.
• It is the main site where coercive power is exercised in a systematic way.
• Regulating it by public principles is crucial for stability and legitimacy in a democratic society.

Primary Goods

Rawls introduces primary goods as “things that every rational man is presumed to want,” whatever else he desires. They provide the metric for comparing citizens’ positions under alternative principles of justice. Primary goods include:

• Rights and liberties (e.g., political and civil freedoms)
• Powers and opportunities (e.g., offices, educational and employment prospects)
• Income and wealth
• The social bases of self‑respect

Rawls uses primary goods to:

• Specify the information available in the original position
• Define the least advantaged relative to the distribution of these goods
• Provide a common measure for institutional evaluations without relying on controversial conceptions of individual welfare

Some commentators have questioned whether primary goods adequately track what individuals actually care about (e.g., capabilities, subjective welfare), while defenders emphasize their role as all‑purpose means in a pluralistic society.

Moral Persons

A central normative assumption is that citizens are moral persons. In Rawls’s sense, moral personhood requires two “moral powers”:

1. A capacity to have a conception of the good—a rational plan of life or set of values.
2. A capacity to develop and act from a sense of justice—an effective desire to abide by fair terms of cooperation.

These capacities, even in partial or developing form, ground citizens’ status as free and equal. The principles of justice must be justifiable to persons who possess them, and institutions must be arranged so that these powers can develop and be exercised.

Rawls’s focus on moral persons shapes:

• The design of the original position (parties represent such persons)
• The priority given to basic liberties, which protect the exercise of these capacities
• The later analysis (in Part III) of moral psychology and stability

Debates arise over who counts as a moral person (e.g., children, individuals with severe disabilities, non‑human animals) and how far Rawls’s framework extends beyond fully cooperating adult citizens.

8. Critique of Utilitarianism and Alternative Theories

Critique of Classical Utilitarianism

A major argumentative thread in A Theory of Justice is Rawls’s sustained comparison of justice as fairness with classical utilitarianism. Rawls characterizes classical utilitarianism as holding that institutions are just if they maximize the sum (or average) of individual utilities.

He levels several central criticisms:

• Separateness of persons: Aggregating utilities allows some individuals’ severe burdens to be justified by greater benefits to others, allegedly failing to treat persons as distinct moral agents with claims that cannot simply be traded off.
• Justification to individuals: Utilitarianism assesses institutions by overall welfare, not by whether each person could reasonably accept the distribution of burdens and benefits.
• Stability concerns: Citizens subject to large sacrifices may lack a sufficient sense of justice to support the arrangement, undermining long‑term stability.

Utilitarian defenders respond that the theory can incorporate constraints and rights as part of what maximizes welfare, or that Rawls misrepresents the flexibility of utilitarian reasoning.

Intuitionism and Balancing Approaches

Rawls also critiques intuitionist moral theories, which posit multiple irreducible principles (such as utility, equality, and liberty) without a clear method of priority or reconciliation. He argues that such approaches:

• Rely on judgment or intuition in hard cases, lacking a systematic public procedure.
• Risk instability, as different citizens may reasonably weight principles differently.

Justice as fairness is presented as an alternative that combines plural values with a structured lexical ordering derived from the original position.

Perfectionism and Aristotelian Views

Rawls distinguishes his view from perfectionist theories that base justice on promoting particular ideals of human excellence or cultural achievement (e.g., some readings of Aristotelian or Hegelian ethics). He contends that:

• In a pluralistic society, state institutions should not endorse a single comprehensive ideal of the good.
• Perfectionism may justify restrictions on liberties or inequalities in pursuit of excellence, conflicting with his priority of the right.

Some commentators argue that Rawls underestimates how perfectionist considerations can be moderated or integrated into a liberal framework, while others emphasize his limited acceptance of perfectionist values in certain domains (e.g., funding the arts) provided basic liberties and fair equality of opportunity are secured.

Alternative Contract and Egalitarian Theories

Within contract theory, Rawls contrasts his approach with Hobbesian or Gauthier‑style theories focused on mutual advantage among self‑interested parties, arguing that justice as fairness is more explicitly rooted in citizens as free and equal moral persons rather than as competitors.

Among egalitarian theories, he distinguishes his use of the difference principle from strict equality and from utilitarian redistribution, presenting it as a middle path. Later egalitarians (e.g., resource egalitarians, capability theorists) have taken Rawls’s framework as a starting point, proposing alternative metrics or principles while often accepting his criticism of classical utilitarianism.

9. Institutions, Distributive Justice, and Property-Owning Democracy

Application to the Basic Structure

Part II of A Theory of Justice applies the two principles to the institutional design of a constitutional democracy. Rawls’s focus is on how the basic structure should be arranged so that:

• Basic liberties are constitutionally guaranteed and effectively realized.
• Fair equality of opportunity is maintained through educational systems, labor markets, and anti‑discrimination measures.
• The difference principle guides the distribution of income, wealth, and the organization of the economy.

Rawls emphasizes that distributive justice is primarily a matter of how major institutions work together over time, rather than of ad hoc interpersonal transfers.

Distributive Justice and Economic Regimes

Rawls considers and evaluates different economic regimes in ideal theory, such as:

He maintains that welfare‑state capitalism typically allows excessive concentration of wealth and political influence, undermining fair equality of opportunity and the fair value of political liberties.

Property-Owning Democracy

Rawls’s notion of a property‑owning democracy is an idealized regime in which:

• Productive assets (capital, land, shares) and human capital (education, skills) are widely distributed across the population.
• Institutions (e.g., taxation, inheritance laws, campaign finance rules, public education) prevent the formation of a small class controlling most wealth.
• The broad dispersal of economic power supports equal political influence and self‑respect among citizens.

He contrasts this with a redistributive welfare state that primarily corrects market outcomes ex post via transfers. A property‑owning democracy instead aims to structure initial holdings and opportunities ex ante so that market outcomes occur within a more egalitarian background framework.

Interpretations differ on how sharply Rawls distinguishes property‑owning democracy from reformed welfare‑state capitalism and whether his criteria might also be met by certain market social democracies.

Institutional Idealization and Scope

Rawls’s institutional analysis is explicitly idealized: it assumes favorable conditions, full compliance with just institutions, and a closed national society. Within that scope, he uses the two principles to assess:

• Constitutional essentials (e.g., judicial independence, bill of rights)
• Taxation and social insurance schemes
• Education policy and labor market regulation

Later discussions have extended or criticized these idealized institutional recommendations in light of non‑ideal conditions, global interdependence, and additional axes of injustice (such as gender and race).

10. Moral Psychology, the Sense of Justice, and the Good

The Sense of Justice

In Part III, Rawls develops a moral psychology intended to show that a society ordered by his principles could be stable. Central to this is the sense of justice, defined as:

• An effective desire to act in accordance with principles of justice.
• A disposition that can develop through normal socialization in just institutions.

Rawls offers a stage‑based account of how this sense of justice might arise, beginning in the family and extending through membership in fair institutions.

The Good and Rational Plans of Life

Rawls distinguishes between the right (principles of justice) and the good (individuals’ conceptions of what makes life go well). He nonetheless provides a thin theory of the good necessary for the construction of the original position. Key elements include:

• The idea of a rational plan of life, chosen under conditions of deliberative rationality.
• The role of primary goods as all‑purpose means to realizing such plans.
• The importance of self‑respect as a primary good, supported by just institutions.

Rawls insists that a political conception of justice should not presuppose a comprehensive doctrine of the good life, but he argues that certain general features of rational agency can be assumed.

The Aristotelian Principle and the Good of Justice

A notable element of Rawls’s moral psychology is the Aristotelian Principle:

"

Other things equal, human beings enjoy the exercise of their realized capacities, especially their more complex ones.

— John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, §65–§66

He uses this to explain why people are generally motivated to develop and exercise their talents in cooperative activities. This supports his claim that participation in just institutions can be part of each person’s good: citizens can find fulfillment in the roles, practices, and shared projects that a just basic structure makes possible.

Congruence of the Right and the Good

Rawls aims to show a congruence between being just and pursuing one’s good. In a well‑ordered society:

• Just institutions tend to foster stable attachments and mutual trust.
• Citizens internalize the sense of justice and come to value being just for its own sake.
• The pursuit of personal projects typically occurs within fair terms of cooperation, making justice not an external constraint but a condition of a worthwhile life.

Commentators dispute how strong this congruence claim is, and whether Rawls’s account of moral motivation is empirically plausible. Some argue that his picture is overly optimistic; others see it as a normative ideal of civic character consistent with his contractarian framework.

11. Stability, Strains of Commitment, and Well-Ordered Society

Well-Ordered Society

Rawls introduces the notion of a well‑ordered society as a regulative ideal. Such a society is characterized by:

• Being effectively regulated by a public conception of justice—here, justice as fairness.
• Public knowledge: citizens accept and know that others accept the same principles.
• Widespread compliance with institutions that generally conform to these principles.

This concept frames questions about whether justice as fairness could function as the basis for a durable social order.

Stability for the Right Reasons

Rawls emphasizes stability for the right reasons: a just society should be stable not merely because of coercion or manipulation, but because citizens affirm its principles from within their own moral outlooks. He distinguishes:

• Stability based on self‑interest, fear, or balance of power.
• Stability based on an internalized sense of justice and congruence between justice and citizens’ good.

His moral psychological account in Part III is meant to support the claim that justice as fairness can achieve the latter type of stability under favorable conditions.

Strains of Commitment

The idea of strains of commitment plays a key role both in the original position and in assessing stability. A principle of justice is acceptable only if:

• Citizens can reasonably be expected to comply with it even when they are among the least advantaged.
• The burdens it imposes do not become so excessive that individuals would be tempted to reject or undermine the system.

In the original position, parties take into account these prospective strains: they avoid principles that would prove too demanding for citizens to honor in adverse circumstances. Rawls argues that the difference principle and the priority of basic liberties better withstand these strains than utilitarian or perfectionist alternatives.

Stability and Pluralism

Although A Theory of Justice addresses stability primarily under a relatively unified “comprehensive” conception of justice, Rawls already acknowledges the challenge posed by reasonable pluralism of moral and religious doctrines. He suggests that:

• A political conception that does not depend on any particular comprehensive doctrine has better prospects for stability.
• Citizens with diverse views can converge on shared principles for the basic structure.

Later, in Political Liberalism, Rawls develops this into the idea of an overlapping consensus, but the seeds of this concern with reasonable pluralism and stability are present in his discussion of well‑ordered society and strains of commitment.

Critics have questioned whether Rawls underestimates conflicts of value and interest that may persist even in relatively just societies, and whether his assumptions about socialization in just institutions are realistic.

12. Philosophical Method and the Kantian Interpretation

Reflective Equilibrium

Rawls famously employs the method of reflective equilibrium. Rather than deriving principles from self‑evident axioms, he proposes an iterative process:

1. Start with considered moral judgments (e.g., about fairness, rights, and injustice).
2. Formulate principles that systematize and explain these judgments.
3. Adjust both principles and judgments to achieve a coherent equilibrium.

This method is both descriptive, capturing our moral intuitions, and constructive, revising them under pressure of coherence and publicity.

Constructivism and the Original Position

Rawls describes his view as a form of Kantian constructivism in moral theory. On this approach:

• Principles of justice are not discovered as independent moral facts, nor derived from a substantive conception of the good.
• Instead, they are constructed as the outcome of a fair procedure—the original position—whose conditions embody normative ideas about persons and society.

This constructivism emphasizes public justification: principles are justified if suitably idealized citizens, modeled as free and equal, would agree to them under fair conditions.

Kantian Interpretation

Rawls devotes a section to a “Kantian interpretation” of justice as fairness. He draws parallels to Kant in several respects:

• Autonomy: Citizens give themselves principles of justice by reasoning in the original position, analogous to Kant’s idea of the will legislating universal law.
• Respect for persons: The priority of basic liberties and rejection of aggregative trade‑offs express the idea of persons as ends in themselves.
• The priority of the right: Principles of justice constrain permissible conceptions of the good, echoing Kant’s distinction between right and virtue.

"

“The original position is the appropriate initial status quo which insures that the fundamental agreements reached in it are fair.”

— John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, §4

Some commentators view Rawls as offering a de‑metaphysicized Kant, replacing transcendental arguments with a political contract device; others regard his theory as more Humean or empiricist in its reliance on social practices and psychological plausibility.

Public Reason and Justification

Although the explicit vocabulary of public reason is more fully developed in Rawls’s later work, the methodological core is present in A Theory of Justice: principles must be justifiable to all citizens considered as free and equal. This requirement shapes:

• The publicity condition on principles (they must be knowable and acceptable).
• The emphasis on general and universal rules.
• The focus on institutional rather than personal morality.

Debates persist about whether reflective equilibrium and constructivism can provide objective justification, or whether they yield only a sophisticated form of conventionalism. Rawls’s method remains a central reference point in contemporary political philosophy.

13. Major Criticisms and Debates

​A Theory of Justice has generated extensive criticism from multiple directions. While this entry cannot survey all responses, several major lines of debate have become canonical.

Libertarian Critiques

Libertarian theorists, most prominently Robert Nozick, argue that:

• The difference principle is incompatible with strong rights of self‑ownership and property.
• Justice should concern historical entitlements and voluntary exchanges, not patterns of distribution.
• State‑enforced redistribution violates individuals’ rights to the fruits of their labor.

Rawlsians reply that the basic structure’s background rules shape what counts as legitimate acquisition and transfer, and that fair terms of cooperation justify taxing and regulating market outcomes.

Communitarian and Perfectionist Critiques

Communitarian writers like Michael Sandel, Alasdair MacIntyre, and Charles Taylor contend that:

• Rawls’s “unencumbered self” abstracts away from social identities and communal attachments.
• The priority of the right over the good neglects the constitutive role of shared traditions and conceptions of the good.
• Moral and political reasoning cannot be adequately captured by a neutral contract device.

Defenders argue that Rawls presupposes socially embedded persons and that justice as fairness sets only a political framework, leaving room for rich communal and ethical lives.

Feminist Critiques

Feminist philosophers, notably Susan Moller Okin and later Iris Marion Young, claim that:

• Rawls initially treats the family as outside or at the margins of the basic structure, overlooking gendered power relations.
• The framework underplays dependency, care work, and interpersonal domination.
• The original position and primary goods may encode gendered assumptions about rational agency and work.

Some revisions within Rawlsian theory seek to integrate the family and caregiving into the basic structure and to expand the understanding of social bases of self‑respect.

Marxian and Radical Egalitarian Critiques

From a Marxian or radical egalitarian standpoint, critics argue that:

• Rawls does not fundamentally challenge capitalist relations of production, wage labor, or structural class domination.
• Focusing on distributions of primary goods obscures exploitation, alienation, and power.
• Even a property‑owning democracy may leave intact deep hierarchies in workplaces and global economic structures.

Proponents of Rawls respond by emphasizing his critique of concentrated wealth and his preference for widely dispersed ownership and participatory institutions, while acknowledging that his framework remains within a broadly capitalist or market‑democratic setting.

Multicultural, Postcolonial, and Global Justice Critiques

Scholars such as Charles Beitz and Thomas Pogge extend or challenge Rawls’s initially state‑centric focus, arguing that:

• Principles of justice should apply globally, not only within nation‑states.
• Historical injustices (colonialism, slavery) and current global economic structures must be incorporated into any adequate theory of justice.

Others critique the relative silence of A Theory of Justice on race, ethnicity, and cultural recognition. Later Rawlsian and post‑Rawlsian work has developed cosmopolitan, multicultural, and relational egalitarian variants in response.

These debates have made Rawls’s book a central reference point: many competing theories define themselves partly by how they position themselves relative to A Theory of Justice’s devices and principles.

14. Legacy and Historical Significance

​A Theory of Justice is widely regarded as one of the most influential works of twentieth‑century political philosophy, reshaping the discipline’s agenda and vocabulary.

Impact on Political Philosophy

The book is often credited with:

• Reviving normative political theory within analytic philosophy after a period dominated by linguistic and meta‑ethical concerns.
• Re‑establishing the social contract tradition as a central framework, influencing both supporters and critics.
• Providing the canonical formulation of liberal egalitarianism, structured around equal basic liberties, fair equality of opportunity, and concern for the least advantaged.

Subsequent major theories—libertarian, communitarian, deliberative democratic, capability‑based, and cosmopolitan—have frequently defined themselves in dialogue with Rawls.

Influence Beyond Philosophy

Rawls’s ideas have also influenced:

• Legal theory, particularly constitutional law, theories of rights, and debates over judicial review.
• Public policy discussions on inequality, welfare, education, and health care, where terms like the difference principle and fair equality of opportunity have become widely referenced.
• Economics and political science, through engagement with social choice theory, welfare economics, and empirical studies of inequality and social justice.

While direct policy implementations are debated, Rawls’s framework has provided a normative benchmark against which institutional proposals are assessed.

Evolution of Rawlsian Thought

The book laid the groundwork for Rawls’s later works, especially Political Liberalism and The Law of Peoples, which reframe and extend aspects of A Theory of Justice to address pluralism and international relations. Many scholars interpret this trajectory as a refinement rather than a rejection of the original project.

Ongoing Research Traditions

Rawls’s work continues to generate:

• Elaborations within Rawlsian liberalism, including discussions of property‑owning democracy, basic income, and institutional design.
• Alternative egalitarian theories (e.g., luck egalitarianism, relational egalitarianism, capability approaches) that adapt or challenge Rawls’s focus on primary goods and the difference principle.
• Critical engagements from feminist, critical race, postcolonial, and Marxian perspectives aiming to broaden or reconceptualize the scope of justice.

As a result, A Theory of Justice occupies a central place in the canon of contemporary political philosophy, both as a source of enduring concepts and as a primary target of ongoing critique and reinterpretation.