This article was written by Simon Banks, Waltham Forest councillor for 12 years with five as group leader, chair of Lib Dem East of England Region’s Development Committee, and SLF Council Member.

The views laid out in this article are the views of the author and may not reflect the position of the Social Liberal Forum

What Theory of Justice?

In 1971, American academic John Rawls revolutionised political philosophy, at least outside countries where political philosophy was government-provided. In academia, his book “A Theory of Justice” remains hugely influential. But its impact on the politics of decision-making, elections and governments, is minimal. Since 1971, actual politics has gone sharply in the opposite direction. Why?

During Rawls’ service in the Second World War, he lost his Christian faith and went searching for a logical framework for a just society, something that he found painfully absent.

He self-identified as a Liberal - an American Liberal, of course, which sometimes translates here as “Social Democrat”. That might explain why he’s even less known among political activists in the UK than the US. That, the British economist and philosopher Daniel Chandler, in his book “Free and Equal”, sets out to correct, also working Rawls’ generalisations into specific proposals.

Rawls’ theory of justice

Rawls aimed to challenge utilitarianism (whatever makes the most people happiest is good) and intuitionism (we can sense what is right) as well as philosophy’s then preoccupation with linguistic analysis and contempt for thought about action.

He started with the “veil of ignorance”. What if people lose all knowledge of whether they would be rich or poor, highly or little educated, abled or disabled, male or female, even their religion or philosophy, and then must decide if their society should respect basic Liberal liberties, and be as equal as possible - or unequal? He assumes “rational men” (sic) would choose the former both times. So he proposes those basic liberties as bedrock for a fair society. Just removing overt discrimination leaves people with deeply unequal life chances because of family circumstances and so on, so he advocates “fair equality of opportunity” where, as far as possible, people have an equal start in life and equal chance of progressing. But we can’t entirely eliminate differences coming from parenting, let alone differences in ability  from genes or biological chance.

So he proposes “the difference principle”: inequalities are only justified if they benefit the poorest people. Thus, paying surgeons highly may help recruit the ablest people to benefit everyone including the poor. Only a few can receive the training needed to be a brain surgeon, but if everyone received only 10% of that training, people would die. Finally, he proposes the “just savings principle”: every generation has a duty to maintain the resources upon which future generations will depend.

Why Rawls failed to shape real-world politics

Rawls’ principles have resisted attack. So why have they withered outside academia while inequalities of wealth have grown, public services have declined and the left is afraid to mention inequality?

Perhaps any attempt at a common logical framework for politics is doomed. Plenty of people will reject Rawls - the wealthy who want inequality; those who cannot accept basic liberties for all; and those who consider him irrelevant because he works within, not against, a capitalist system. But what about the rest?

For a start, the “thought experiment” of people agreeing to a fair, free society “under the veil of ignorance” seems artificial, Rawls’ version of the myth of the “state of nature” with people under a tree agreeing a form of government. Besides it’s hard even to imagine people robbed of family, culture and beliefs as people. There is also no evidence people would behave as Rawls thinks: they might prefer to gamble. There is a situation in which people do generally behave like this and it’s surprising Rawls, the ex-soldier, doesn’t seem to have quoted it.

A small group of people thrown into a dangerous situation – survivors of a plane crash in a hostile environment; mountaineers seeking safety after a sudden worsening of the weather; or soldiers separated from their unit, officerless and behind enemy lines, do tend to co-operate towards their common goal on the basis of equality, with any inequality justified by its value to all – for example, to take particular care of a medic or the only person familiar with the environment. Something similar was meant by Puritan preacher Winthrop when he exhorted newly-arrived New England settlers to “extraordinary liberality”: co-operate as equals and not just look after number one, or you will all die. But these are exceptional circumstances and small groups.

That American Liberalism has diverged from European (even British) Liberalism is another reason. Then Rawls’ seminal book was long and dense – plus Rawls’ self-discipline in staying out of discussing political measures, judging others to be better-qualified. These difficulties, Daniel Chandler’s recent book aims successfully to overcome.

But there is another reason the current of politics since 1971 has been powerfully towards more inequality, a weaker state and now, more hatred and exclusion, all trends contrary to Rawls. The “progressive” parties, seeing their traditional urban working-class base declining, abandoned it, taking it for granted like Labour, or ceasing to compete for it, like Liberal Democrats after 2010. That handed a huge opportunity to the populist Right and the themes that would help the intolerant Right – immigration, Islam,”wokeness”– were enthusiastically pushed by commercial interests who wanted low tax and unblunted capitalism. Just add a real issue about migration caused by vast disparities between rich and poor regions of the world, by failed states and global warming, and Rawlsian Liberalism was heading rapidly downhill.

The limits of fairness

The migration issue raises a key weakness in Rawlsian ideas - one highlighted by Rawls’ former pupil and collaborator, Amartya Sen, but ignored by Chandler in rebutting his other criticisms. The “society” whose freedom and fairness Rawls seeks seems to be a nation state. Consequently, while we are pushed towards policies to reduce inequality within one state, there is virtually no guidance about international inequality. Rawls’ description of a community as a group of people co-operating does allow for circles of community from the wide and weak to the small and strong, but he does not pursue the thought. There is only the “just savings principle”, under which perpetuating extreme inequalities worldwide arguably stores up future trouble; but the rich have the weapons and the walls.

While Rawls emphasises basic freedoms, his starting point – what is a fair society and how can it be justified – reflects his own instinctive beliefs and can distort. The aim is a fair society rather than a free, creative or empowered society. The difference is small because in a grossly unequal society, such as the U.K., Brazil, India or the USA, inequality brings unfreedom, disempowerment and a loss of creativity. But when Chandler considers inequality from private, fee-paying schools, he advocates not only removal of tax concessions, but all-out abolition. Makes sense for reducing inequality, but apart from arguments about the rich person who spends on their children’s education rather than another yacht or golf course, there is a concern about creativity and diversity. Any state education system is constrained by consensus views and a fear of oddness. Private schools can experiment and do things state schools might fear. Are creativity and diversity not enhanced by the challenge?

While Rawls’ ideal society co-operates, the co-operative citizen ideal is not as central as the idea of fairness. These elements should work together, but Rawls’ approach introduces a subtle bias.

One other weakness, some might consider a strength. Rawls was moved by a deep sense of fairness and unfairness. When he could no longer ground this in Christianity, he sought Philosophy. That brought great faith in rationality. A “rational man” will think like this, do that. A rational man will respect certain basic freedoms; will, under the “veil of ignorance”, desire equality. But will he? Rawls aimed to supersede both the moral emptiness of utilitarianism and the hit-and-miss of intuitionism. But his basic assumptions are intuitions: he’s just managed to cut the number of intuitions required. I can live with that, but the repeated appeal to rationality lacks emotional force. Appealing to the Reasonable and Logical cannot make armies march.

Chandler successfully translates Rawls’ theories into programmes of action, most of them far too leftish to be favoured currently by either Labour or the Lib Dems, but consistent with basic Liberalism of empowering people (especially those most disempowered). But the Hearts need winning.

This is an abbreviated version of an article that first appeared in Liberator magazine.