I. Introduction

"A Theory of Justice" was published in 1971 and would soon transform the area of political philosophy that was dominated by Utilitarian ideas. John Rawls’s magnum opus focuses on how justice is needed to ensure a just distribution of social goods through the basic institutions of society. In order to regulate the basic structures of society, Rawls presents an argument using two principles of justice as part of his theory known as “Justice as Fairness”. Rawls argues against the notion of life’s chances being determined by qualities such as intelligence that are distributed by an arbitrary process. (Rawls 64). As a response to the concern, Rawls lays out his Second Principle of Justice to alleviate the problem of arbitrariness in society.

II. On Endowments

"A Theory of Justice" distinguishes goods that people desire known as primary goods into two main categories: natural and social. Goods which are non-tangible and are mainly aspects of an individual are natural primary goods. Examples of natural primary goods include intelligence or talents. Goods that are created and distributed constitute social primary goods. Social primary goods can include wealth, liberties, rights, etc. Even though social and natural primary goods are two different groups, social primary goods can affect the development of natural primary goods. For example, an individual with greater wealth can afford a better education which allows for an improved development of intelligence.

Natural endowments, such as intelligence and talent,s are distributed through a morally arbitrary natural lottery (64). Rawls does not contend that the unequal distribution of natural endowments is unjust. Instead, the injustice derives from how “institutions deal with these facts” (87). The determination of who will succeed or fail by the basic institutions of society based on natural endowments is where the injustice is located. There is no method to control the arbitrary distribution of natural endowments. Rather, what society can do is to limit the effects post-distribution in not determining one’s life chances. Rawls proposes that individuals on due reflection would choose his Second Principle of Justice as a method to control for the distribution of natural and social endowments.

III. Interpretations of the Second Principle of Justice

Rawls describes four interpretations (Natural Aristocracy, Natural Liberty, Liberal Equality, and Democratic Equality) to the Second Principle of Justice. Rawls mainly focuses on the merits of Natural Liberty, Liberal Equality, and Democratic Equality. The interpretations are formulated from the principle where “social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all”. The position behind “to everyone’s advantage” is dependent on whether an interpretation follows the principle of efficiency or the difference principle. The position behind “positions and offices open to all” is dependent on whether the interpretations uses career open to talents or fair opportunity.

Under a system of Natural Liberty, “to everyone’s advantage” is defined to require satisfaction of the principle of efficiency, while “positions open to all” is defined to require that careers are open to talents (57). Natural endowments, such as intelligence, are to be distributed in a manner where “a configuration is efficient whenever it is impossible to change it so as to make some persons (at least one) better off without at the same time making other persons (at least one) worse off” (58). The method described fulfills the principle of efficiency in the interpretation by adapting the Pareto principle. As a result, the principle of efficiency takes natural endowments as given. Offices and positions under the interpretation aims to prevent overt discrimination on factors such as race. The standard for offices and positions under Natural Liberty represents careers open to talents.

Rawls discusses several objections to the idea that Natural Liberty could constitute an acceptable interpretation of the Second Principle. The first objection concerns the principle of efficiency. Once the arrangement of rights and duties of the basic structure of society fulfills the Pareto optimality, any changes to the society could not occur as there will be at least one person where his or her expectations would be lowered. An example of the issue can be depicted in a society where slavery exists. If the society were to change the system by abolishing slavery, the action could not be accomplished as it would violate the principle of efficiency. Even though the freed slaves would be better off, the slave owners would fare to be worse off. Society would have to stay constant from the original arrangement unless there is a change that would not make one individual worse off, which can be difficult to construct. Therefore, the Pareto principle does not have any role in reducing the influence of endowments and securing justice.

The second objection concerns with careers open to talents. Under the interpretation, positions and offices are given fair consideration and overt discrimination on the basis of race, gender, etc. is avoided. Career open to talents is problematic because that it doesn’t take into account hereditary privilege and social endowments. One example is seen where two twins are separated by birth and have two different upbringings. One twin grows up in a wealthy family with all of the resources he or she will need. The other twin matures in a poor family with lower quality resources such as education and healthcare. Even though the individuals may have similar talents, the rich twin will have a greater chance at succeeding due to attaining higher quality resources than the poor twin. The example of the two twins with separate upbringings and similar talents highlights the issue of social endowments influencing life’s chances over time through hereditary privilege.

Under a system of Liberal Equality, “to everyone’s advantage” is defined to require satisfaction of the principle of efficiency, while “positions open to all” is defined to require fair equality of opportunity (57). In addition to protecting against overt discrimination, fair equality of opportunity requires that people with similar talents should have similar chances at success in life regardless of the social endowments. Twins, who are brought up radically different, with similar talents would have the same chances at achieving a position or office. Rawls offers objections on why the interpretation is not adequate. Liberal Equality’s usage of the principle of efficiency still doesn’t correct the effects of hereditary privilege.

A society implementing Liberal Equality would essentially be a meritocracy. The implementation of the interpretation would be psychologically unstable because a meritocratic public conception of justice would assign full responsibility to the less fortunate for their disadvantages. An example is written in Michael Young’s 1958 work The Rise of the Meritocracy where individuals garner a higher standing in society based on achievements and intellect. People at the top of the hierarchy view the people at the lower end to fail even though there are major differences in natural endowments that can affect one’s standing. Even with the implementation, the issue of endowments and injustice still exist in the interpretation. Overall, the system of Liberal Equality fails to control for natural endowments and can lead to a meritocracy that is impossible to achieve practically.

Rawls argues that Democratic Equality constitutes the most acceptable interpretation of the Second Principle. Similar to Liberal Equality, Democratic Equality interprets “positions open to all” to require fair equality of opportunity. The standard eliminates overt discrimination and allows for people with similar talents to have the same chance at garnering success rather than through hereditary privilege. A major difference between Democratic Equality and the two other interpretations discussed is the inclusion of the Difference Principle in interpreting “to everyone’s advantage” (57). Under the Difference Principle, “inequalities that favor the better endowed must work as part of a scheme that benefits the least advantaged” (65). The least advantaged, according to Rawls, would consist of individuals who have less than half of median wealth. The purpose of the Difference Principle is to prevent the arbitrary nature of a natural lottery to distribute talents and abilities from affecting life’s chances.

While the imposition of fair and equal opportunity aims to entirely eliminate inequalities due to social endowments, the Difference Principle allows inequalities due to natural endowments and it not as ambitious. There are two main explanations behind allowing inequalities due to natural endowments. The first explanation is centered on that inequalities and incentives allow workers to be more productive. If society were to have unequal salaries, it would encourage people to work and become productive. A stronger argument behind justifying not eliminating natural endowments is from the belief that individuals are entitled to a fair compensation from work. When an individual contributes asymmetrically to society, that individual would need an asymmetric salary or compensation. Not recognizing the differing contributions by individuals in society due to their natural endowments would be unjust. Therefore, the Difference Principle is not as ambitious as fair and equal opportunity is at eliminating social endowments.

IV. Conclusion

Rawls’s Second Principle of Justice intends to eliminate the influence of social endowments in determining one’s life chances. Rawls doesn’t believe that the distribution of natural endowments is unjust. Instead, the injustice occurs only if life’s chances are determined by the natural endowments itself. The significance of Rawls’s work is that it offers a method or procedure to attain a just distribution of goods in society that rivals methods from other major fields such as Utilitarianism. "A Theory of Justice" provides an in-depth account of how two principles of justice, based on the concepts of liberty and equality, can shape the underpinnings of society.