John Rawls: A Theory of Justice

I must say, after reading John Rawls’ “A Theory of Justice”, I stand corrected; his rhetoric was far more difficult to understand than that of Henry Thoreau in “Civil Disobedience”. From what I was able to understand, his main premise in “A Theory of Justice” was that justice should be fair, and when it is, society is a much better place. Obviously, I agree with his belief that justice should be fair; but, with that said, who determines what’s fair and what’s not? My definition of fair may be completely different from another person’s, so how would you determine whose definition is right? For example, I’m sure some people believe the justice thus far in the Jena 6 case has been fair. Now, just imagine if those same people sent people to jail everyday, imagine how unfair society’s justice would be.

I also agreed with Rawls in the sense that he believed the disadvantaged people in society should have just as big a voice in government as the well-off. He didn’t agree with laws and policies that were made with only the middle and high-class people in mind. I think if we overlook deprived people as if they aren’t there, then society is only headed for failure. All in all, I think Rawls made some good points on justice as fairness, although I was confused on most of them. I think he was right in his belief that no individual should ever have to sacrifice their rights under any circumstance, regardless of whether or not it’s “supposed” to help society.